Sitting of 28 April 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    MIDLAND METRO (No. 3) BILL
    Lords amendments agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Council Tax
    Mr. Boyes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's latest information about the level of average household council tax bills.
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. John Redwood): The average headline council tax per dwelling for the current year is £456–£30 less than the average headline community charge per dwelling for 1992–93.
    Mr. Boyes: Does the Minister recall the Prime Minister boasting that council tax bills in Labour areas would be £100 higher than the bills in Tory areas? Following further work on the figures, it has now been established that the council tax bill for Labour is £14 less than that for the Tories. Consequently, will the Minister congratulate Labour Sunderland on an average tax bill of £376, which is £65 lower than the average bill in the constituency of the Secretary of State in Tory-controlled Kent?
    Mr. Redwood: It is interesting that Front-Bench Members now get others to do their dirty work for them. We all know that, on average, Labour bills are £100 or more higher for bands C and D across the country. [Interruption.] Oh yes, they are. They are £107 more for every band C tax. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to compare individual constituencies and districts, he may like to compare Sunderland with Mole Valley. Sunderland has a band C tax of £534 whereas Mole Valley has a band C tax of £461. Mole Valley, of course, gets a fraction of the revenue support grant per head that Sunderland gets. Labour gets more grant and imposes higher taxes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his help in making that point because, as he well knows, it is £100 more in Labour areas than in Tory areas.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend make a good job even better by encouraging local councils to settle appeals as quickly as possible and settle even more quickly those that fall out in favour of the customer?
    Mr. Redwood: I agree. We want good management of local councils across the board and as management improves, so taxes can come down and services can improve. I am grateful for all good suggestions for improved management of local government. Opposition Members should listen carefully to some of the suggestions made by my hon. Friends. There are many excellent Conservative councils and I am sure that electors will reflect that on 6 May.
    Mr. Straw: Has the Minister seen the excellent report from the Institute of Fiscal Studies which blows apart his use of band C as a comparison between councils? Was not the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy right to endorse our use of average household bills and to say:
    "What will exercise people most is the bill they get through the door"?
    Is it not a fact that, compared with Tory areas, Labour councils provide far better services, in Labour counties the rise in crime and the rise in unemployment have been less, the price of meals on wheels is 50 per cent. less and children have three times the chance of a nursery education and in Labour council areas, average household bills are £14 below the level of those in Tory areas? There are better services and better value from Labour.
    Mr. Redwood: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman seeks to make an additional party political broadcast. We know that those claims are highly misleading. The truth is that Labour councils impose taxes of £100 more in bands C and D than do Conservative councils. The average council tax figure merely reflects the fact that Labour areas have far more low-rated properties than Conservative areas. Even Labour can just about get its band A tax below the average band D tax in Conservative areas. That is the magnitude of the gap between the two parties in office. Labour is charging £107 more for band C and £122 more for band D —the price of inefficiency and poor management.

    County Councils
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average Government grant per head provided to Conservative-controlled county councils.
    Mr. Redwood: The average amount of revenue support grant for Conservative-controlled county councils in 1993–94 is £222 per head. The average for Labour county councils is £274 per head—for around £100 per household more grant. Where, now, are the claims that Labour is disadvantaged and done down by the rate support grant settlement? In addition to Labour county councils charging £100 more in council tax, they receive an extra £100 per household in grant.
    Mr. Ainsworth: In view of that answer, is it not even more remarkable that Conservative councils charge more than £100 less in respect of band C properties than Labour councils? Is it not a tragedy that Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors throughout the country have not yet learnt that what people want from their local council is the right service at the right price?
    Mr. Redwood: That is clearly true, and I am sure that the electors will express their views on it on 6 May.

    943
    Conservative councils deliver better services at a lower price with less grant. That is the treble achievement of which my hon. Friends and I are rightly proud.
    Mr. O'Hara: If Conservative councillors are so content with their standard spending assessments, will the Minister—as an hon. Member representing a Kent constituency—explain to me why that the mayor of Canterbury, Councillor Pat Burke, has wisely decided to apply for the Labour whip on Canterbury council? Does he agree with me that that was indeed a wise decision, and with the judgment of the Canterbury Gazette that, with the Liberal Democrats in disarray and the Tories of Canterbury moribund, he could have made no better decision?
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman shows that the policies of Liberals and Labour on councils where they have some influence are similar. Conservative councillors up and down the country are doing a good job in delivering high-quality services at low cost. As I said, they obtain far less grant. Most of them are happy with the grant that they receive and do a good job within it. Some Conservative councillors would like more grant—that is understandable—and more grant is given to some Conservative councils as well as to Labour councils. As the figures show, however, it is the Labour councils which scoop the pool.
    Mr. Mans: Will my hon. Friend spare a thought for my constituents in Fleetwood and for the constituents of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the Opposition spokesman on the environment, in Labour-controlled Lancashire, whose council tax bills are £160 more on average than in Conservative-controlled Hampshire, even though Lancashire has a larger external grant? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a scandal that, notwithstanding that, the services that Lancashire provides result in primary school children in Fleetwood having to be taught in corridors?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend's excellent example bears out what has been said about the contrast between Conservative and Labour councils. When I went to Lancashire recently, I heard at first hand about the excessive expenditure on banquets and publicity and about the 133 committees that are considered necessary to run the council. I hope that there will soon be a Conservative authority that can cut down on the unnecessary spending and give value for money—just as Hampshire gives value for money under Conservative control.
    Mr. Henderson: The House will understand that the Minister has felt bound today to wind up his arguments about local government now that the Conservative party is receiving its returns from the various counties around the country. However, does he not accept that his answer to Question 2 directly contradicts what he said in respect of Question 1? The reason Labour councils receive higher levels of grant is that generally they represent more deprived areas. Does the hon. Gentleman not also accept that there is great disquiet around the country because people recognise that the current system is completely discredited when Bournemouth is considered to be more deprived than Barnsley, when the mining area of Chester-le-Street is considered to be less deprived than Huntingdon and when Tory-controlled Kent county council receives £268 per head in grant compared with
    944
    £234 in Staffordshire? Will the Minister bring forward the results of the review quickly and stop the slanting in favour of Conservative authorities?
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening to the exchanges so far today. I have made it very clear that Labour authorities are receiving the extra grant and they are imposing the extra taxes. If the hon. Gentleman is so keen to see the standard spending assessments and grants reviewed, will he make available Labour's evidence to our inquiry? I have asked him for that on many occasions, but I am still awaiting his testimony. I can only assume that Labour Members cannot agree among themselves on how they would like the system to be changed and they know full well that most Labour councils are benefiting greatly from it at the moment.

    Sewage Treatment
    Miss Emma Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of sewage treatment works failed their consent standards in 1986; and what is the equivalent figure now.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Howard): Twenty-three per cent, of sewage treatment works failed to comply with their assessed standards in 1986. In 1991, the latest year for which figures are available, that figure had fallen to 6 per cent.
    Miss Nicholson: I am delighted to hear my right hon. and learned Friend's good news of the 17 per cent. rise in compliance with sewage treatment standards. However, he should know that my constituents are concerned about a sewage treatment plant which is not yet in existence. Can he assure me that if South West Water locates a sewage treatment plant at Northam in my constituency, that plant will reach the highest possible standards? My constituents do not believe that it will.
    Mr. Howard: I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend expresses. She has drawn them to the attention of my Department. If the proposal does not meet adequate standards, it will not receive consent. In addition, all the environmental implications of the proposal will be fully taken into account before any decision is made.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the Minister comment on a recent survey by The Sunday Times of convictions for water pollution during 1992 which showed that five of the top 10 offenders were water authorities, with, I regret to say, Welsh Water at the top of that list of offenders? Is it not a sad commentary on the Government's environmental record that in the recent National Rivers Authority survey our rivers were found, for the first time, to be in a worse state in 1990 than in 1980? Would it not be much wiser if the money from our massively increased water bills were used for environmental improvements rather than for buying hotels, increasing chairmen's salaries and providing big dividends for shareholders?
    Mr. Howard: Our water bills finance the investment in improved water quality in which I thought the hon. Gentleman was interested. One cannot, at one and the same time, complain about standards and also complain about the bills that are necessary if standards are to be

    945
    improved. Prosecutions simply demonstrate that the NRA is determined to be even-handed in its approach to securing observance of the law.

    Departmental Buildings
    Sir Roger Moate: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his proposals for the future of the Department of the Environment and Department of Transport buildings in Marsham street; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): No. 2 Marsham street will be demolished—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hurrah".]—as soon as possible when alternative accommodation has been identified and is available.
    Sir Roger Moate: Is my hon. Friend aware that his Department of the Environment building is one of the few buildings that actually looks better when it is covered with scaffolding and dust sheets and that the sooner it comes down, the better the environment will be? However, the important question is whether we will be mean minded or far sighted and imaginative about the use of that six acre site at the heart of the capital. Is my hon. Friend aware of the competition launced by Building Design and the comments of the Royal Fine Art Commission on the use of that site? Will he persuade his right hon. Friends to accept that we do not want more an more offices built on the site and that we want the site to be used imaginatively with the possibility of public open space or other forms of public benefit?
    Mr. Baldry: One of the advantages of being an Environment Minister is that, looking out of the window of the building, one does not have to see the Department of the Environment.
    Clearly, the site is important, and we will give careful consideration to the idea of a design competition. We want to ensure that the building that replaces 2 Marsham street is not merely better than what we have now—that will not be difficult—but a building of which we can be proud, on architectural and aesthetic grounds, for many years to come.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the many people who work at the Departments of the Environment and of Transport be compensated for any move that takes place? Is the Minister aware that the trade unions involved are very anxious to remain on the site? Why should they be kicked out at the whim of the Government, who are almost certainly hellbent on lining some developer's back pocket, while at the same time bailing out the developers at Canary wharf?
    Mr. Baldry: That is a pretty drivelly question, even by the hon. Gentleman's standards. The staff with whom we work at Marsham street are consulted closely and kept in touch with information about where the new building is to be. We are as anxious as they are to move to a decent working environment. A building that is likely to fall down in the next two years is not the best place in which to work.

    East Thames Corridor
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations have been made to him following the recent announcement of his policy towards the east Thames corridor; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Housing, Planning and Construction (Sir George Young): The proposals that my right hon. and learned Friend announced on 24 March have been broadly welcomed as both imaginative and realistic. We continue to receive representations on them from a wide range of bodies.
    Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend will know that, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), I welcome the concept of the east Thames corridor with enthusiasm. It will involve the creation of 128,000 new dwellings and 182,000 new jobs by the year 2015. Will my hon. Friend confirm, however, that he will engage in proper consultation with local authorities at all levels, and with local communities, when the project moves into its development stage?
    Sir George Young: A few days ago, I chaired a meeting of all the 16 local authorities involved in the east Thames corridor project. That meeting was very helpful and productive, and my officials and I now plan to hold further meetings with the local authorities—both elected councillors and officials—that are co-operating with the imaginative proposals for the corridor.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I recognise the great potential of the east Thames corridor for recreation, commerce and residential use. Does the Minister appreciate, however, that the glossy documents that were produced a few weeks ago were considered cosmetic and cynical in my constituency, given the high unemployment in Kent and Essex? What new moneys will be spent to promote jobs and commercial opportunities and how will the homes be built? Does not the Minister realise that acres of planning permissions exist for residential properties? What is lacking is confidence among potential home buyers and opportunites for local authorities to build homes in which they can house families, thus reducing their waiting lists.
    Sir George Young: Confidence is returning by the day. Private developers will be interested in developing the sites in the hon. Gentleman's constituency for both homes and jobs.
    I do not recall the representative from the hon. Gentleman's local authority describing the proposals as cosmetic or cynical at the meeting that I chaired. All the local authorities that attended that meeting wanted to work with the Government in unlocking the potential of the east Thames corridor. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider his approach to the proposals: his constituents can gain real benefit from working with the Government to unlock that potential.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Is my hon. Friend aware that nowhere has the announcement of the east Thames corridor been more strongly welcomed than in the London borough of Havering, represented in Parliament by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and myself? Will he undertake to give every encouragement to the Havering Riverside project launched yesterday, which

    947
    invites private investment in what will be a key site in the Thames corridor? If there is to be an international station at Rainham, bringing Paris and Brussels within two hours' travelling time, it will also be a major gateway to Europe.
    Sir George Young: I am heartened to hear from my hon. Friend about the proposals for further investment in the east Thames corridor. I will indeed take an interest in the scheme that he mentioned. Within the constraints applying to a planning Minister, which I am sure that he understands, I will ensure that my Department gives the planners every assistance in bringing the scheme forward.

    Toxic Waste
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received concerning the importation of toxic waste into the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Howard: I have had representations from hon. Members, the waste industry, environmental and other organisations and members of the public.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that people in south Wales are asking, "Why should we have this toxic waste dumped on our doorstep?"? Surely, a sophisticated country such as Germany should be able to deal with its own waste. The Minister will be aware that south Wales has suffered enough from pollution, with coal tips galore, the horrors of Aberfan and so on. May I make a plea to the Secretary of State? Will he do whatever he can to prevent the insidious American concern Browning Ferris from establishing a waste disposal plant in Newport?
    Mr. Howard: The House will find the hon. Gentleman's comments about coal tips rather odd in the light of the views that have recently been expressed, particularly by Opposition Members. The hon. Gentleman was perhaps referring to a shipment of toxic waste from Germany that was recently the subject of comment in the media. He will know that I have made representations to the German Environment Minister asking him to place a ban on the exportation of that shipment to Britain. The shipment has not left Germany and I hope that my representations will have the desired effect, which I hope will be welcomed by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: I strongly endorse my right hon. and learned Friend's commitment to self-sufficiency for developed countries. Does that not also mean that those developed countries should take a responsible attitude to international trade? For example, how much longer can we tolerate the fact that German legislation is undermining the recycling industry in the United Kingdom by ensuring that dumped material undercuts anything that can be generated in the United Kingdom market?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the consequences of that element of German legislation. I have made representations on that matter as well to the German Environment Minister, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has made representations to the European Commission. The matter needs to be dealt with and my right hon. Friend and I are considering urgently what action we can take.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State come clean about the Government's attitude to the international trade in toxic waste? He has made it clear, and I support him, that he feels it appropriate to make representations on occasions to other Governments to prevent the import of toxic waste into Britain. Is he aware that our reputation is severely harmed when he and the Government take no action to prevent the export of toxic waste, particularly to developing countries such as Mexico? It does Britain no good continually to be seen as the dirty exporter of Europe.
    Mr. Howard: The most significant step forward in the European Community in recent years is the waste shipment regulation, which was agreed under the United Kingdom presidency in the second half of last year. It resulted from a United Kingdom initiative started by my predecessor, now the Governor of Hong Kong. We have consistently taken the lead in encouraging our partners in Europe to pursue effective policies on the export of toxic waste.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. and learned Friend think carefully before rejecting any work that may come to Britain through recycling of toxic waste? Does he agree that there is surely a dichotomy in the Opposition's attitude? We hear lectures all the time from Opposition Members about recycling things. When we perhaps recycle nuclear fuel, the Opposition criticise us for doing so and making billions of pounds and creating hundreds of jobs in the process.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the internal inconsistencies in the attitudes of Labour Members. This is not the only issue on which we see that. My hon. Friend will know that I am awaiting the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in relation to the THORP—the thermal oxide reprocessing plant—application, and therefore I am sure that he would not expect me to say anything about that matter at this stage.
    Mr. Chris Smith: The Secretary of State will be aware that from May of next year it will be possible and legal for the United Kingdom to ban the import of toxic waste from developed countries. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give the House a firm and unequivocal commitment that he will take action to do so? The Minister for the Environment and Countryside has appeared to indicate that he will take such action and, at different times, that he will not, while the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the other place, Lord Strathclyde, has talked simply of reducing toxic waste imports rather than banning them. Will the Secretary of State ban toxic waste imports into this country from developed countries from May of next year?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting the situation. We have every intention of implementing the regulation agreed last year on the due date, May 1994. Indeed, we pressed the Community to fix an earlier date for the implementation of the legislation, but we were unable to persuade our partners in Europe to achieve an earlier date.
    The hon. Gentleman will also know that the regulation does not provide for a complete ban, but provides for those countries that cannot economically make provision for their own recycling to be able to export small quantities

    949
    of waste. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are obliged by that aspect of the legislation as well as by the rest of it.

    House Purchase
    Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses were purchased under the special package announced in the autumn statement.
    Mr. Stephen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses have now been brought into use by the housing package announced in the autumn statement.
    Sir George Young: Housing associations have purchased some 18,000 additional homes in England using the £577 million allocated for this purpose in the autumn statement. This is a very great achievement, exceeding by 2,000 the target of 16,000 homes set in November. I congratulate heartily the Housing Corporation and the 81 associations involved. Purchases have been widely spread across the country, with acquisitions in some 97 per cent. of local authority areas. Grants to local authority and housing association tenants have enabled some 3,300 to become owner-occupiers, freeing their current homes for those in need. So, overall, the package has provided more than 21,000 permanent new homes for families in England.
    Mr. Rowe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Does he agree that a number of other developments have enormously enhanced the value of that package, not least the considerable fall in interest rates?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend rightly points out that there have been significant improvements in the housing market, working with the grain of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's autumn statement. My hon. Friend will know that building societies' net advances were up 40 per cent. in March compared with February and that new lending commitments, at more than £3 billion, were double the January level. So there is every sign that the autumn statement package was effective in restoring confidence in the housing market.
    Mr. Stephen: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are still far more empty houses than there are homeless families? Does he further agree that the way in which to provide housing for those who need it is to bring those empty houses into use and not to cover our green fields and gardens with more buildings?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are some 60,000 families in temporary accommodation and some 600,000 properties empty, so my hon. Friend makes a valid point. This Administration have taken steps to bring into use many of those empty properties. We have introduced a scheme, using housing associations as managing agents, to persuade the owners of those empty properties to bring them back into use and to rent them to those in need. We are also developing proposals to continue the revival of the private rented sector, to which the Government attach particular importance.
    Mr. George Howarth: Has the Minister had the opportunity to study the Rowntree report, which suggests that the estates that are being bought up for this purpose
    950
    are in danger of turning into ghettos of the 1960s and 1970s style? If the Minister has studied the report, does he have any proposals to stop that happening? I hope that he agrees that it would not be in the interests of anybody to re-create that type of problem.
    Sir George Young: I have read the very interesting report published last week by Rowntree. The hon. Member will know that housing associations do not, by and large, develop large estates. The average size of a housing association development is about 20. The report, however, acts as a useful warning to housing associations that may be looking at the larger schemes that there are management problems that could go with them. In practice, most housing association schemes on large sites are already broken down into smaller sites operated by different housing associations, so there is diversity of tenure and of management on the large estates where housing associations are active.
    Mr. Gerrard: While I welcome the fact that money is being spent on housing, does the Minister accept that, in London at least, the impact of this package on both the housing market and family homelessness has been very limited? In the main, the money has gone on buying newly built properties—only 5 per cent. have been repossessions—and mainly one-bedroomed flats rather than family housing. Will the Minister look again at whether more money can be spent by both housing associations and local authorities to buy family housing, so that we can start to do something about the growing number of families in London who are in temporary accommodation?
    Sir George Young: The hon. Member will find that the package was focused on two-bedroomed properties rather than one-bedroomed homes. In my constituency, the London borough of Ealing has been able to end the use of bed and breakfast. Only one person is now left in bed and breakfast, who is there voluntarily. Part of the reason why the council has been able to do that is the use of the autumn statement package to take people out of bed and breakfast and move them into homes acquired under that package. I think that the hon. Member will find that London has benefited from the package. There has been a 38 per cent. fall in bed and breakfast over the past year, and I would expect to find that improvement maintained when we have the next figures in a few weeks' time, which will show the full impact of the package.

    Housing Association Homes
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many housing association homes he expects to be made available in 1992–93.
    Sir George Young: A final figure for completions is not yet available. However, the Housing Corporation estimates that at least 80,000 units, including some 6,000 funded through local authority housing association grant, will have been made available by housing associations in 1992–93. This is not far short of double the corporation's forecast of 43,400 units when the programme for 1992–93 was announced—thanks to the housing market package and to the excellent value for money which has been achieved by housing associations.
    Mr. Spring: Is my hon. Friend aware of the excellent working relationship between the Conservative-controlled

    951
    St. Edmundsbury borough council and the 14 housing associations in my constituency? Will he agree with me that this excellent working and organisational relationship has been of benefit by reducing waiting lists and virtually doing away with difficulties for families needing bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Will he also agree with me that this excellent record contrasts markedly with the appalling housing record of so many Labour local authorities that have blighted the lives of so many thousands of our fellow citizens?
    Sir George Young: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I recently visited his constituency and met the hard-working local councillors in charge of housing policy. I welcome the way in which they have embraced their enabling role and are developing good relationships with housing associations. I also welcome the way in which they are working with my Department on an estate action scheme in Haverhill in the same district. My hon. Friend's local authority is a model of what more local authorities should do to make faster progress in tackling their housing problems.
    Mr. Jamieson: Will the Minister tell the House what representations he has made to his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about the 9,291 empty Ministry of Defence properties throughout the country, 527 of them in my constituency of Plymouth, which is 21 per cent. of the total MOD stock there? Would he care to congratulate Plymouth city council on having less than 0·75 per cent. of its houses void at a time when many people are homeless in the city? What representations has he made about empty MOD properties?
    Sir George Young: The hon. Member will know that after the last election we set up a task force, chaired by John Baker, precisely to deal with the issue that he has raised. He will also know that the Ministry of Defence is bringing back to this country large numbers of service families who will need accommodation when they get here. The MOD is leasing property to housing associations and local authorities. It is disposing of surplus stock and giving cash grants to service men leaving the armed forces; they can use that money to buy some of the surplus stock.
    I assure the hon. Gentleman that the MOD is anxious to reduce the number of surplus properties that it owns.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that the £2·7 billion worth of new lending by building societies in February clearly shows that it is not just Ministers who believe that now is a good time to buy a new home?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The indicators, some of which I mentioned a moment ago, show that that is so. Abbey National reported that its mortgage approvals in the first quarter of the current year were 60 per cent. up on those in the same quarter last year. Many people are taking the view that this is, indeed, a good time to buy a home.
    Mr. Pike: The Minister referred to the number of homes that will become available, but does he recognise that there is a real problem with the rent levels—a problem underlined by the housing associations' campaign on affordability? More than 81 per cent. of housing association tenants now need housing benefits. Are not
    952
    housing association rents far too high, and is it not time the Government did something to get those rents down, so that people can afford to pay them?
    Sir George Young: I cannot agree that average housing association rents are too high. The average rent is about £40 a week. In my view, that is a reasonable figure. I am aware of the sensitivity of the housing associations about this matter. The subject engaged the attention of the Environment Select Committee for some time when I appeared before it last week, and I await its report with interest. But the hon. Gentleman must accept that by reducing the rate of grants from 72 per cent. last year to 67 per cent. this year, we have achieved an extra 3,300 homes for those in need without any increase in the implied rent, because of the fall in interest rates and in land values. One has to strike a balance between rent levels and the output of new homes, and I think that we have got the balance about right.
    Mr. James Hill: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the great efforts that he is making to provide more tenancies. Does he agree that a survey of our cities would show up a flaw, however, in that some of the boarded-up houses that are not owned by anyone in particular are not the sort of houses that housing associations want? Is it not possible to direct the housing associations to go for houses that need maintenance but will then provide housing units, instead of the simple solution of buying new build?
    Sir George Young: I entirely agree. I am anxious to re-focus the energy of the housing association movement on the inner cities, where many of them started. That is why I have told the Housing Corporation that I should like 18 per cent. of this year's budget to go towards rehabilitation and improvement. We are also conducting research to find out what is impeding the housing associations' attempts to do more work.
    There is, of course, an important planning role. The more boarded-up homes that can be brought back into use, the less pressure there will be for development on green-field sites. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious to protect those sites if we can.

    Urban Policies
    Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the effects of his urban policies.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robin Squire): The Government's urban policies are encouraging investment and improving the quality of life in our major cities through partnership and competition. The hon. Member will, I know, welcome the fact that over £400 million in targeted urban resources has gone into Manchester in the period 1990–93 alone.
    Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister aware that phasing out the urban programme will cost us about 3,400 jobs and about 12,000 training places? Is he further aware that the town hall has spent about £100,000 on tendering that has been aborted as a result of Government cancellations? The voluntary organisations are being devastated in the city at the same time—a time when the Prime Minister has visited Manchester to back the Olympic bid, saying that he wants to revitalise the city.
    Mr. Squire: Against the background of the Department of the Environment's urban block programme this year of £1,000 million, it is a little perverse of the hon. Gentleman to concentrate entirely on the urban programme. For the record, this year Manchester will get some £9 million from the urban programme and, of course, the council has the freedom to spend all its capital receipts as it wishes. In addition, Manchester has two development corporations, an excellent city challenge, one task force, substantial housing investment, use of derelict land grant and the prospect of substantial investment from the Olympics in the year 2000. Most hon. Members would be delighted to get such a package.
    Mr. Knapman: In the areas that have large numbers of empty houses, can my hon. Friend discern a pattern between the scale of the problem and the political complexion of the councils in those areas?
    Mr. Squire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. I understand from my housing colleagues in the Department that there is often a sad correlation between the number of housing voids and the fact that a council is under Labour control. I hope that electors in the forthcoming county elections will bear that in mind.
    Mr. Vaz: Does the Minister recall telling local authority leaders in November that he would review the list of urban programme authorities in the new year, using the 1991 census? Will he explain why the consultation paper arrived only in April, four months after it was promised, and why local authorities have been given only weeks to respond to a very important area of policy? Is not it the case that the delay in publishing this document is a result of the Minister's desire to manipulate the criteria for political ends and to provide excuses for his savage cuts in inner-city aid?
    Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman must have misheard my earlier answer. I agree with him only on the importance of this programme. There is no delay. Matters are on target. It takes a little time to incorporate the entire results from the 1991 census, which will rightly guide us in this review. We have consulted local authorities, as I assume the hon. Gentleman wishes us to do, and we shall produce our final proposals later this year. The hon. Gentleman should not worry, because we are on target and our advice will be the best possible and will be triggered by the latest possible information.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that recreation and leisure areas and parkland are vital to urban areas? The question is not just about the urban programme and allied policies but about urban policies in general. The inspectorate of his Department often appears only too ready to grant planning permission to public bodies such as health authorities that are seeking to develop vital and important open areas within centres such as the borough and town of Macclesfield. Such areas are vital for recreation and as parkland, and they enhance the environment of our town centres. Will my hon. Friend seek to prevail upon his inspectorate and direct his attention to these vital policies? We do not want every area of green within cities to be covered by housing.
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Planning and Construction has heard my hon. Friend's question and has confirmed to me that the latest
    954
    document, PPG17, specifically addresses that point. I agree with my hon. Friend on the wider issue of the importance of recreation. Hon. Members from Sheffield or near Sheffield will know about the substantial work by the development corporation there which is transforming old, derelict areas into excellent open spaces for recreation.

    Council Tax
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the average level of the council tax; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Redwood: The average headline council tax for two or more adults in a band C dwelling in England is £506.
    Mr. Salmond: The Minister will be aware of major demonstrations against council tax levels which took place in the Western Isles. Is he aware that even after the cuts in council tax that followed, which will clearly have a significant implication for services in the islands, someone in a £40,000 house in the Western Isles will still pay £110 more than someone in the Prime Minister's constituency of Huntingdon? Does the Minister think that the surcharge that the Western Isles are paying over Huntingdon is reasonable, equitable, just and defensible, or does he think that it means that Huntingdon is getting too much public support and that the Western Isles is getting too little?
    Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is badly misinformed about the relative levels of grant support. Scottish authorities receive £1,013 per head in external support—47 per cent. more than English local authorities, which receive £689 a head. Even allowing for some difference in functions, that is a big increase over the English figure. The hon. Gentleman should take up his argument in Scottish Question Time, and with those who are trying to lead the Western Isles council. The electors in the Western Isles knew where to lay the blame. They knew that it lay with the council, which is beginning to respond.
    Mr. Clappison: Will the Minister confirm that not only is band C council tax £107 more under Labour authorities than it is under Conservative authorities, but that the 10 highest council taxes have all been set by Labour authorities? Does he agree that this is no mere coincidence, but compelling evidence that Labour authorities are profligate spenders and that value for money is an alien concept to them?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. All 10 of the highest English council tax rates have been set by Labour local authorities. Practically every one of those authorities not only gets more grant than the average but, in most cases, gets massively more than the average because the Government recognise some special factors. However, the councillors are not able to use all the extra money to the benefit of their local taxpayers and provide good-quality services.
    Mr. Milburn: Is the Minister aware that of the 1,800 inquiries received by Darlington council about the disabled persons reduction scheme, 1,500 came from people placed in band A? Does he recognise that his refusal to extend the scheme to those living in band A properties short changes those who are in most need of assistance to pay their bills? Will he consider introducing a new council

    955
    tax band of A minus to assist my constituents and those of other hon. Members who, through no fault of their own, are losing out?
    Mr. Redwood: The idea of disablement relief on houses in different council tax banks is that it should come into operation where a disabled person has had to spend extra on improving the house to cope with the disability. For those on low incomes, who are already rated in the lowest band, there are many other ways in which they can get help, such as through disability benefit and council tax benefit. We wish to ensure that people on low incomes are not penalised, and there is a generous scheme to do that. If the issue is whether somebody has been put into a higher band by virtue of the disability, that element in help for disabled people can be given only to those in the higher band. Like Opposition Members, I wish to help the disabled. That is why we have a series of measures to help them, geared to income and house values.

    Bathing Water Quality
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many bathing waters were designated by Her Majesty's Government for the purposes of the 1975 EC bathing waters directive by May 1979.
    Mr. Howard: No bathing waters had been identified by May 1979 as within the scope of the bathing waters directive.
    Mr. Brown: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the position has changed, although Cleethorpes is not yet up to standard? Perhaps he might like to consider taking one of his holidays in Cleethorpes. The Prime Minister has already said, in a reply to me earlier this year, that he hopes to visit Cleethorpes. Can my right hon. and learned Friend, if he comes to Cleethorpes, hold out the prospect that, by 1995, there is every probability that our beaches will be able to hold their own with the rest of the United Kingdom? Can he also confirm that, this year, Cleethorpes expects to receive the greatest number of tourists ever? Clean beaches would put the icing on the cake of that great tourist achievement.
    Mr. Howard: I very much look forward to visiting Cleethorpes, although my hon. Friend has a somewhat exaggerated notion of the number of holidays that I take during the year. I can confirm that we expect the bathing beaches of Cleethorpes fully to meet the standards of the European bathing waters directive by 1995. I am delighted to hear what he has told me about the number of tourists that Cleethorpes intends to entertain over the summer and I am sure that they will benefit from all the facilities that the resort has to offer.
    Mr. Dafis: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is unreasonable for funding for the kind of environmental improvements covered by the directive to be provided in such a way as to have a terrible effect on water bills, with the impact that has on low-income families? Would not it be reasonable for at least some of that funding to come from the public purse? Is such funding already given or would it be possible?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman must accept that the resources for the public purse come from his constituents, just as much as the money for the bills that they have to
    956
    pay for improved water systems. It is no use the hon. Gentleman or other Opposition Members proclaiming the need for higher standards without being prepared to make available the resources necessary if those standards are to be achieved.
    Mr. Allason: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that Torbay enjoys the cleanest beaches and quite the best bathing water in the country. Is he aware also that a large burden is placed on South West Water chargepayers, who are obliged to pay for what is, in effect, a national asset? Will my right hon. and learned Friend kindly visit Torbay this summer, swim in our water, and then examine our water charges?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to all hon. Friends who want me to spend an ever-increasing number of holidays in their constituencies. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's remarks about the excellent quality of Torbay's beaches, and I know of, and have some sympathy with, his concerns about the level of bills in the south-west. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated recently that we are examining those matters.
    Ms Short: Does the Secretary of State agree that of interest is not whether he is willing to visit Cleethorpes but whether he is willing to swim there—and whether he is worried that he might be swimming in sewage? That is the issue of concern to people throughout the country. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have any plans to enforce the directive's guidelines, rather than just its minimum standards? There is evidence that enforcing only the minimum standards still leads to sickness caused by sewage problems. Will the Secretary of State confirm that Britain's 400 designated areas will reach the minimum standard by 1995 or will he renege on that standard? Does he agree with the Marine Conservation Society that it would be reasonable to ask the big 10 privatised water companies to reduce their returns to shareholders, to achieve decent minimum bathing standards?
    Mr. Howard: I am not persuaded that the present mandatory—not minimum—standards are in any way inadequate to provide the quality of bathing beaches that we require. We are making excellent progress. Very few of our bathing beaches no longer reach the standard, and I hope that they will all meet it in 1995. Perhaps the hon. Lady will come with me to Cleethorpes.

    Council Tax
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 10 local authorities with the highest level of council tax.
    Mr. Redwood: The 10 local authorities in England with the highest average headline council taxes are as follows. I give the band C values, but at all levels they are the highest. Harlow—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour"]—£878; Newcastle upon Tyne—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]— £704; Greenwich—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—£696; Manchester—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—£656; Haringey—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—£646; Liverpool —[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—£645; Camden—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—£638; North Tyneside—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—£628; Salford—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—£628; and Derwentside—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—£626.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for that revealing answer. Will he be kind enough to name the 10 local authorities having the lowest levels of council tax?
    Mr. Redwood: Without prior notice, that could be difficult, but I have a list that I prepared earlier for my hon. Friend. There is Wellingborough—[HON. MEMBERS: "Conservative."]—there is.—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am looking at the clock. We must speed up.
    Mr. Redwood: There are also Westminster, Isles of Scilly, City of London. Hambleton, Hinckley and Bosworth, Huntingdon, Basingstoke and Deane, South Cambridgeshire and Fareham.
    Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that according to his own Department's figures for average household bills, there are twice as many Tory councils as Labour councils in the 50 most expensive areas and that among the 50 least
    958
    expensive areas for average bills there are twice as many Labour as Tory councils, including Southampton—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—Lincoln—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—Stoke-on-Trent —[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—Corby—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—Great Yarmouth—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—Bradford—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—Plymouth—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—York—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—Slough—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—and Norwich—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—all with bills way below the average Tory bill of £465. It is Labour which serves us better and costs us less.
    Mr. Redwood: In any band that we care to choose, Labour costs us more and Conservatives cost us less. The hon. Gentleman has not understood that point, after a long session today, but we are going to go on saying it all the way up to 6 May, because it is the truth and the voters will respond.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question has been raised before, in general terms, about the transfer of written questions to individuals, writing on behalf of a particular executive agency.
What concerns me is that I asked a question of the Chairman of the Catering Committee—which, as you will appreciate, is not an executive agency—and it was transferred to the director of catering services. I ask you to discourage that practice, particularly as the question was about what appears to be the theft of a large quantity of cutlery and silverware. It concerns you particularly, Madam Speaker, because it carries the portcullis, the insignia of the House of Commons. That was not removed before this cutlery ended up on sale in the United States, apparently in considerable quantities.
I understand that the Catering Department managed to get the sum of £109 in scrap value from the sale of some of the items. Knives, forks, spoons, milk jugs, cream jugs, teapots and a range of items are on sale from an American firm. For example, a meat dish is on sale at roughly £250.
This is a matter of considerable importance which the Chairman of the Catering Committee—I notified him that I intended to raise this point of order with you—has shuffled off on to the director of catering services. A matter that concerns both you, regarding the control of the Portcullis and the disposal of these items, should, it seems to me, have been dealt with by the Chairman of the appropriate Committee.
Madam Speaker: The House, I am sure, knows that I do not believe everything that I read in the press. However, I did believe one item that I was told about—that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) had tabled a question for answer by the Chairman of the Catering Committee. If the hon. Gentleman will leave the matter with me, I shall certainly raise it with the Chairman of the Committee.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Every morning, Monday to Thursday, as you know, about 2,000 people come through the House of Commons on the Line of Route. This morning, information was passed to me that a considerable number of people who follow the Line of Route would be barred from doing so. I made inquiries and found that one of these Common Market Presidents was due to come here, the one from Portugal.
Frankly, I think that it is totally and utterly wrong that people who, in some cases, have travelled 300 or 400 miles to London to visit the House of Commons should be barred from the Line of Route just to allow the President of Portugal to come into the Chamber on his own, irrespective of who was responsible for the invitation. People talk about the classless society in this place, but today's example shows that it is as far away as ever.
Madam Speaker: I am aware that the President of Portugal visited the House this morning and I am proud that he did so. I understand that he was invited to view the Chamber by an hon. Member. In deference to the visit of a Head of State, and on grounds of security, the admission of visitors to the Chamber was delayed by some five minutes. I am content with the arrangements that were made.

Adoption Leave Arrangements
3.34 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit the Secretary of State by order to confer rights on adoptive mothers in relation to employment similar to those enjoyed by mothers whose children are born to them; to make provision for adoptive mothers to have the right to return to work during the adoption period laid down; and for connected purposes.
I welcome this opportunity to bring the Bill before the House. The Bill would allow the Secretary of State to confer employment rights on adoptive mothers similar to those rights enjoyed by mothers whose children are born to them. It would also provide for adoptive mothers to have the right to return to work during the adoption period laid down.
It seems extraordinary in this day and age, when we have made great progress in recognising the role that women play as mothers, that we should still sustain in our system an inequality against families who provide a home for a child through adoption. At present, adoptive parents do not have the statutory right to return to their jobs after taking a break to care for a new addition to their family. Nor do they receive any statutory payment during any such absence, even though they may well have paid the same national insurance contributions as those who have children born to them, and should thus have access to such entitlements.
I believe that it is the role of Parliament not only to legislate for the majority of its citizens but to revisit legislation and collect those groups of people which it may have missed. In this case, adoptive parents are missed, and are missing out.
In preparing the Bill, I have received tremendous support from Jill White and British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering. I pay tribute to the work they do and the way in which they take up issues on behalf of families seeking to adopt children.
Adopters provide a tremendous service not only to the children they adopt but to the country as a whole. In many instances, the financial burden of raising a child may have fallen on the state. An adoptive parent takes financial responsibility for that child, thus saving the taxpayer money, but, more importantly, no one can disagree that a child raised within a family circle and having the stability of a warm and loving home has a much better start in life than a child who does not have that opportunity. Therefore, an adoptive parent makes an invaluable contribution to the welfare of an individual child and, ultimately, to that child's chances in life—something on which we cannot put a price.
The demands made on a family by the arrival of a new child are similar for birth parents and adoptive parents. In fact, parents who are accepted for adoption may find that their child arrives at very short notice. Like any other child being born into a family, an adopted child needs to spend time with its new parents, especially during the first few weeks when the bonding is established between parents and child. Why should we omit adoptive parents from the protective legislation afforded to birth mothers? There is no good reason for doing so.
I consider this to be not a political issue but one of common sense. That is why, in presenting the Bill to the
962
House, I have been supported not only by members of my own party but by members of the Opposition. I am very grateful to all supporters of the Bill.
The Bill would confer the same entitlements on adoptive mothers as on birth mothers, with the proviso that a prospective adopter must inform her employer in writing, first, of her and her family's approval as prospective adopters, and, secondly, as soon as is practicably possible, of the impending placement for adoption once a child has become available.
The Bill would give an adoptive mother the same right to return to work as a birth mother, and it seeks to extend the rights provided by the Employment Protection (Consolidated) Act 1978 by substituting the words "adoption leave" for the words "maternity leave" and the words "placement for adoption" for "pregnancy and childbirth".
Introducing the same legislation for adopters as for natural mothers would also have benefits for employers, who, unless they have special arrangements, now risk losing valuable trained staff. Individuals who have passed through the necessary screening procedure to be accepted as potential adoptive parents are usually among the most reliable and responsible members of our society, yet we put them in a position in which they may even have to choose between their jobs and adopting a child. I have not sought to restrict the provisions of the Bill with an age limit for the child, because that would be a matter for deliberation in Committee.
I shall give the House an example involving a constituent of mine, a general practitioner, who, together with her husband, has been approved by the local social services department for adopting a baby. She would like to take leave from her partnership when a baby becomes available, and her partners support her. She hoped that she would be eligible for the 13 weeks of locum payments from the family health services authority, in line with its usual practice on maternity leave for birth mothers. But her application was rejected, and she is pursuing the matter with the relevant authorities, now with my help and support. She feels—I agree with her, and I am sure that every Member of the House will also agree—that it is discriminatory to prevent her from experiencing motherhood without having to pay a penalty.
The adoption agency rightly requires that the adoptive mother be absent from work after receiving the adopted child so that she can spend time with that child. Failure to agree to that condition would disqualify her from being an adoptive parent. So if she wishes to continue to be available to adopt, she is faced with some pretty tough decisions about her livelihood.
My Bill seeks to deal with just such cases and to relieve the stress and strain of the uncertainties in that area—uncertainties that arise as a direct result of a lacuna in the legislation. Many letters received by British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering reflect that uncertainty. Some employers seem willing to grant adoption leave; others do not. Potential adoptive parents are unsure about their position in law and often ask for clarification, only to be told that they have no rights.
That area of law is in urgent need of review, so I hope that the Minister will consider my Bill carefully. If we cannot make progress with this ten-minute Bill, I sincerely hope that he will take the earliest opportunity to produce amending legislation to end the additional burden and uncertainty for a group of people who provide a wonderful

963
start for so many of our youngsters, and who surely deserve at least the same protection as that afforded by our laws to a natural parent. Let us really level that playing field for our adopted children and their parents.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Cheryl Gillan, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Harold Elletson, Mr. Nigel Evans, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Ms Liz Lynne, Ms Joyce Quin, Mr. John Sykes and Mr. Richard Spring.

ADOPTION LEAVE ARRANGEMENTS
Ms Cheryl Gillan accordingly presented a Bill to permit the Secretary of State by order to confer rights on adoptive mothers in relation to employment similar to those enjoyed by mothers whose children are born to them; to make provision for adoptive mothers to have the right to return to work during the adoption period laid down; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 May, and to be printed. [Bill 188.]
Orders of the Day

  National Lottery etc. Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  [MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

New clause 7

  ANNUAL REPORTS BY DISTRIBUTING BODIES OTHER THAN MILLENNIUM COMMISSION
  '.—(1) As soon as possible after the end of every financial year, each body that in that year was paid any money under section 22 or distributed or applied any money under section 23 shall make a report to the Secretary of State on the exercise during that year of its functions under this Act.
  (2) The report shall set out any directions given to the body under section 24 that had effect during the financial year to which the report relates.
  (3) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of every report received by him under this section before Parliament.
  (4) This section does not apply to the Millennium Commission.'.—[Mr. Key.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following: Government new clause 8—Accounts of distributing bodies other than Charities Board and Millennium Commission.
  Amendment No. 26: in clause 23, page 10, line 18 at end insert—
  '() A body shall report to the Secretary of State each year on the distribution under subsection (1) which it has made during that year.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 69, 70 and 71.
  Mr. Key: It is a great pleasure to come back to the Floor of the House with the Bill. It is quite rare for a Bill to have been so amended in Committee. It gives me pleasure to say that, because we have been engaged on an important piece of legislation in creating the first national lottery in this country this century, and we have been determined to get it right. We have listened to representations from all parts of the political spectrum and from all interest groups that are involved or that might be affected. I have no doubt that the Bill today is better than the Bill on which we embarked in Committee some weeks ago. I thank all members of the Committee who made that possible. It was a constructive Committee and we had the benefit of a great deal of advice from beyond the Committee.
  In Committee, I undertook to consider ways in which to ensure transparency of accounting for lottery funds. The new clauses would ensure that Parliament would be able to see clearly exactly how all funds from the lottery had been spent. Amendment No. 26 is intended to ensure the same. As our new clauses and amendments meet, I hope, the intention of amendment No. 26, tabled by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), I hope that she will accept new clause 7 and the other amendments and that she will withdraw her own.

  965
  The reason why I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw amendment No. 26 is that the Millennium Commission is likely to have as one of its members the Secretary of State, so it would not be appropriate for the commission's report to he submitted to him before being laid before Parliament. I hope that the hon. Members who tabled amendment No. 26 will accept that our new clauses and amendments would meet their purpose.
  Mr. John Maxton: I know that in legislation the term "Secretary of State" is a generic term to cover all Secretaries of State. Where the new clause uses the words "Secretary of State" in terms of reporting for the Scottish Arts Council and for the Scottish Sports Council, does it mean the Secretary of State for Scotland and not the Secretary of State for National Heritage?
  Mr. Key: It would be the Secretary of State for National Heritage, because it is our lottery.
  Mr. Maxton: I find that a slightly odd reply in relation to Scotland. It is clear that the Scottish Arts Council and the Scottish Sports Council come under the Secretary of State for Scotland. They are his responsibility, he appoints them, and they report on all other matters to him. I do not, therefore, understand why the Minister says that on the issue only of the spending of national lottery money, the report will go to the Secretary of State for National Heritage. That seems a strange decision and I should like a slightly fuller explanation.
  Mr. Key: It is really very straightforward. It is a national lottery and the Secretary of State for National Heritage is responsible to the House for the operation of the lottery. The Arts Council in Scotland is a sub-committee of the Arts Council of Great Britain as presently constituted. Next year, it will become the Scottish Arts Council in its own right and will then be answerable to the Secretary of State for Scotland. But the national lottery will be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, and he will be responsible to Parliament for it.
  Mr. Tom Pendry: This debate is turning into a bit of a lottery already.
  I propose to speak to amendment No. 26, in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and others. I am afraid that I must disappoint the Minister: we shall not readily give in unless we receive a satisfactory reply.
  We consider it important that bodies distributing lottery proceeds should be fully accountable for their decisions. In that context, we believe that they should be required to report each year on the grants that they have made from national lottery proceeds.
  The spirit of the Government's amendments is that bodies distributing lottery proceeds should be required to act in a responsible and transparent manner. That is fair enough and we accept that there has been some movement on that, but we believe that, as part of that commitment to responsible action, distributing bodies should be required to report each year on the grants that they have made. An onus should be placed on them to demonstrate that a proportion of their funds has been spent for the benefit of low-income groups. In our view, that would demonstrate a commitment to responsible action.
  There is much evidence to suggest that low-income groups will contribute disproportionately to the purchase
  966
  of national lottery tickets. The report by DKM Economic Consultants commissioned by the An Post lottery company in 1990—a report of which the Minister knows because it was mentioned in Committee—concluded that participation in the lottery is fairly constant across all classes. That claim has been seriously challenged by Desmond Norton of Dublin university. In his analysis of the report's findings, Norton shows that, on the contrary, education and income are key variables determining spending on the national lottery. The skilled working class and the unemployed spend more on tickets than do the middle classes.
  That finding is confirmed by earlier research conducted in the United States by Clotfelter and Cook. Research recently undertaken by Saatchi and Saatchi on behalf of the Sports Council supports the view that participation in the lottery will be weighted towards those in the lower income groups. That survey, which examined the public's intention as regards the purchase of national lottery tickets, suggested that a larger proportion of those in social classes C1 and C2 than in the AB category would be regular lottery participants. In his report on the national lottery for the Gulbenkian Foundation, Professor John Kay notes that the Saatchi and Saatchi findings
  "are consistent with the results of the surveys in other countries. The general finding is that poorer people spend a larger proportion of their income on lotteries."
  Professor Kay quotes seven different studies that have reached the same conclusion.
  The aim of the lottery is to raise money for the arts, sport, heritage, charities and the millenium fund. Many of us fear that a large proportion of lottery money will be spent on high prestige projects such as opera houses and historic buildings. We have nothing against opera houses and historic buildings, but we want them to be put in context. Research on the current patterns of use of such facilities shows that low-income groups are less likely to benefit from such projects than high earners. We may regret that, but it is none the less the case.
  The evidence suggests, therefore, that the lottery could be a form of regressive taxation, obtaining money from the least well-off to finance services for the better-off to enjoy. Opposition Members believe it essential, therefore, that information should be available about the pattern of participation in lottery play.
  The amendment places on lottery distributors a duty to report annually on the grants that they have made from their allocation. If purchasing patterns for lottery tickets mirror those in other countries, the distributing bodies should be able to show that their allocation is being used in some measure to benefit those on low incomes. That could include providing funding for the development of access programmes in the arts, sport and heritage, as well as ensuring that programmes that are currently of direct benefit to those on low incomes are properly supported.
  The Minister rightly said that the Government had moved a good way to meeting the points made in Committee. I hope that the Minister will go that bit further and accept the spirit of the amendment.
  Mr. Tim Renton: I apologise to hon. Members who were members of the Standing Committee for intervening in the debate on Report, as I was not a member of that Committee. However, as some of my hon. Friends will know, as Arts Minister, I was extremely active for 18 months in support of the cause of the national

  967
  lottery and in persuading my colleagues, including some rather intransigent colleagues at the Treasury, to support the idea.
  The Treasury naturally objected to any idea of hypothecation of revenue and therefore to revenue going to causes outside its control. For 18 months, as the Arts Minister, I had a hard battle to win the Treasury round to my way of thinking. However, perhaps more of that later.
  I listened to the comments of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) about amendment No. 26, and although I fully appreciate the social causes and motives which caused him to table his amendment, the idea that the national lottery should in any way be used to fulfil social objectives—objectives that are in themselves worth while—strikes horror in my heart. That cannot be the purpose of the national lottery.
  If those who are to subscribe—one hopes weekly, for fun, entertainment and in the hope of winning £1 million and in the knowledge that, if they do not win, the money will go to good causes—become aware that there is a weighting in favour of social security objectives, it will destroy the whole purpose for which the national lottery is being created.
  Of course I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde that some people may be more interested in the redevelopment of the Royal Opera house or in building a new museum of modern art for the Tate gallery than others. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for example, on the Millennium Commission or elsewhere, will have to help people to take difficult decisions in due course. However, the aim must be to encourage people to take part in a lottery which is essentially for fun and for good causes as well.
  If an underlying thought develops that there is a social security element and objective involved, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde would find that the take-up of lottery tickets, upon which everything depends, would be very much less than it would otherwise be. As a consequence, the whole purpose of the lottery, to raise substantial extra funds for heritage, sports, the Arts, for smaller charities and for the millennium fund will be lost.
  The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde rather gave himself away when, towards the end of his remarks, he said that the proposal could become a form of regressive taxation. We must avoid precisely the thought that this is taxation. If people come to believe that the lottery is a form of regressive taxation and a supplement to Treasury money, or a way of replacing money which the Treasury would otherwise have to provide to the Department of Health for hospitals or to the Department of Social Security for income support, the lottery is bound to fail.
  Although I know that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde has a long-standing interest in supporting, encouraging and increasing sports facilities in this country, I believe that he should not press his amendment. The thought behind it is contrary to the spirit that is necessary for the national lottery to be the great success that hon. Members on both sides of the House hope it will be.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: The House should be worried by the last line of new clause 7 which states that anyone who is spending money or receiving cash must put a report before the House, but
  968
  "This section does not apply to the Millennium Commission."
  New clause 7, which is slipping through the House unnoticed is a perfect example of pork-barrel politics. Why should details about money given to the Millennium Commission not be reported to the House? The answer is simple. Anything spent in the year 2000 is likely to have a great effect on a general election that might be called in 2001.
  Once the fund is established, anything linked to the year 2000 can be provided from a slush fund to buy votes. If we were at that stage now, the Government would be telling the managers of Newbury race course, "We will give you a new tote and some new tapes. You can run the Grand National here, so that the tapes do not break and everything does not go wrong. It is all to celebrate the year 2000; it has nothing to do with the Newbury by-election next week."
  Already, the Prime Minister has been to Manchester and said, "We will back your bid for the Olympic games." Who will pay for that? Not the taxpayer. The Prime Minister has not obtained a single extra penny from the Treasury. No—he will dip his hand into the national lottery slush fund, and the Millennium Commission will get £60 million every year from now until the year 2000. The Prime Minister can spend all that lovely money, and he can say, "We, the Tory Government, have backed the Olympic games that will take place in the year 2000, and all those in marginal seats in the Manchester area—where we have created the jobs—should be desperately grateful to us."
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Will not the hon. Gentleman concede that the Government have already stated their intention of supporting the Olympic games and contributed £15 million towards the building of a new stadium in Manchester?
  4 pm
  Mr. Ashton: They have not done so yet. They have said that they will back the games, but they have not given a penny, because no money has come in yet.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: The Government cannot commit the money.
  Mr. Ashton: Why not? It is to celebrate the year 2000.
  Mr. Corbett: It is not within the Government's gift to spend a penny of the lottery money on their own say-so.
  Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend has been in the House for a long time, as have I. He must be very naive if he honestly believes that the Government have no method of shifting money from one project to another in order to gain votes and popularity.
  What is to stop the Government from applying new clause 7 to the Millennium Commission? Why should not a report be presented to the House? The new clause states:
  "The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of every report received by him under this section"—
  that is, clause 22, which applies to distribution, and indeed clause 23, which concerns the application of money—
  "before Parliament."
  That, however, does not apply to the Millennium Commission.
  Mr. Key: If the hon. Gentleman allows me to get a word in edgeways, I shall explain to him that the millennium fund is dealt with specifically by clauses 38 and 39.
  Mr. Ashton: If I am wrong, I will withdraw what it have said. However, we shall not know whether I am wrong until about 1998, and by then it will all be lost in the mists of time. The matter will be the third item of the business on the Order Paper, and someone will come along at about 1.30 am and slip in an amendment of which no one else is aware. That is how the House and the Government tend to work.
  A phenomenal, unbelievable amount of cash is involved; yet its control is very vague. It should not be thought that Governments do not give election bribes—especially a Tory Government who sold council houses for about a fifth of their value in order to win the 1983 election. Such bribes have been given many times.
  Will the Minister tell us why, according to subsection (4) of the new clause, it does not apply to the Millennium Commission? Perhaps he will refer later to clauses 37 and 38.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The Millennium Commission is more tightly bound than any of the other bodies. Under clause 38, it must make a specific report. The clause states:
  "the Millenium Commission shall lay before Parliament a report on the exercise of their functions during that year."
  That is a much more specific requirement than those applying to other bodies.
  Mr. Ashton: The Government can do anything they like. The hon. Lady is saying that, once the Bill is passed, it is written on tablets of stone and nothing can be altered for the next six years. She must be very naive if she thinks that.
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: The Under-Secretary of State has mentioned clauses 38 and 39. Clause 39(2) states:
  "The statement shall comply with any directions that may be given by the Secretary of State as to the information to be contained … the manner in which such information is to be presented or the methods and principles according to which such a statement is to be prepared."
  Does that not leave my hon. Friend with some forebodings about the amount of latitude that the Government will have on that statement?
  Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend knows exactly what I am saying. I do not trust any Government—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ashton: Sit down. I shall not give way. I have given way five times in about three minutes.
  The next general elections will probably be in 1996 or early 1997 followed by the year 2000 or 2001. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) is right to say that when a general election is approaching, the temptation to use the money on election bribes for any Government who face a difficult by-election will be irresistible. The Bill has built into it the facility for the Government to do so.
  Mr. Maxton: I shall be brief. I wish to respond to the comments made by the former Minister for the Arts, the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), about
  970
  the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). The right hon. Gentleman kept referring to spending money on social security. Of course that is not what my hon. Friend meant.
  Some Opposition Members are worried that the spending of the money raised by the national lottery will be focused on London and on large, prestige projects. As my hon. Friend said, such projects benefit a few relatively wealthy people. We are worried, first, that the money will not be distributed throughout the country to provide access to the arts and sport to all people, wherever they may live in the United Kingdom; and secondly, that, even where the money is spent outside London, it will be spent on prestige projects which do not necessarily benefit the average person who buys the lottery ticket.
  Mr. Michael Ancram: Is the hon. Gentleman making the case that per capita public spending north and south of the border should be the same? If so, Scots would suffer from his suggestion.
  Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman was at one time a junior Minister at the Scottish Office, but because he was stupid enough to introduce the poll tax, he lost his seat. If he had listened carefully, he would not have heard me mention Scotland or England once. I was not talking about the differences between Scotland and England. I was talking about outside London and inside London. That includes Manchester, Birmingham, Oldham and many places which ought to receive their fair share of the money spent by the ordinary people who buy lottery tickets throughout the United Kingdom. That is the point which I made and which the hon. Gentleman, deliberately or otherwise, misinterpreted.
  I was not a member of the Committee. I will not apologise to the House for taking part in the debate on Report. It may now be the custom that only Committee members take part in debates on Report. The Report stage was originally designed specifically so that Members of Parliament other than those who served on the Committee could take part in the debate.
  Mr. Key: What an interesting debate it has been. I was certainly delighted that several hon. Members from both sides of the House spoke who did not take part in the proceedings in Standing Committee.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) resembled a speech which might have introduced amendment No. 195, which we are not to debate. However, I understand why he felt it necessary to discuss the point and raise the issue of how the money will be distributed.
  It is important to make it clear, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so, that the way in which the mechanism of the national lottery has been constructed will ensure not only geographical distribution across all interests but the distribution of large or small sums of money. The great advantage of our system—which is the envy of most national lotteries around the world—is that there are separate mechanisms for the distribution and collection of the money. Unlike most national lotteries, the money will not go into the coffers of the Treasury but will be distributed by boards and committees consisting of people and organisations who have the confidence of the recipient sectors. Therefore, I reject those arguments.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) is absolutely right to react with horror to the

  971
  amendment and the proposition it contained. It is not intended to substitute national lottery money for main programme spending, whether on social services, the health service, sport or anything else. That has been made absolutely clear.
  The points that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) made were rehearsed at length in Committee, but they are none the worse for that. It is important that people recognise that important projects like the Manchester Olympic bid may well be eligible for applications to the Sports Council lottery committee, but it certainly will not be up to any Minister or the Millenium Commission to decide whether that project be in receipt of those sums.
  The Government new clauses were promised in Committee, and they will ensure that all the distributing bodies will produce accounts and reports on the use of lottery funds separate from their other reports and accounts. The reports dealing with lottery funds will be made available to Parliament. The Government amendments are consequential upon the provisions in new clauses 7 and 8. The Millenium Commission is not covered by those new clauses. Although the Secretary of State will be a member of the Commission—and he may be its chairman—its report and accounts will be submitted directly to Parliament under clauses 38 and 39 and not to the Secretary of State. The report of the Charities Board will be covered by new clause 7, and consequential upon that clause will be the removal of clause 34.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The Opposition Members who referred to the commission should note clause 39(3) states:
  "Copies of the statement shall be sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General".
  A lot of people will keep a beady eye on that fund, so I cannot understand why Opposition Members should be so concerned.
  Mr. Key: Neither can I. My hon. Friend is right to point that out.
  The Charities Board will receive funds from the Secretary of State at first to cover start-up costs. Its accounts should include the use of that money, and for that reason clause 35 remains.
  Government amendments Nos. 70 and 71 ensure that the definition of "financial year" covers anybody named under clause 21, whether now or in the future. Amendment No. 26, tabled by the Opposition, is intended to achieve the same end as the new clauses. I believe—and I hope that I have convinced the House—that that amendment is not therefore necessary.
  Mr. Pendry: May I say to the Minister that I was surprised that he agreed—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman requires the leave of the House to speak again.
  Mr. Pendry: I understand. With the leave of the House I shall reply to the debate.
  I was surprised that the Minister agreed with the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), because his speech reminded me of what my economics tutor used to say to me: "Answer the question I asked, not the one you wish I had asked." I never made the speech to which he has
  972
  referred. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has answered all the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised, so I will not go over them.
  The right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex said that the lottery had nothing to do with taxation, but he should talk to the charities, the Sports Council and the Arts Council about the 12 per cent. tax yield that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has placed upon the lottery. It certainly is about taxation as far as they are concerned.
  I do not want to push our amendment to a Division. I think that the Minister, in a more reflective mood—and certainly those in another place—might pick up the points I have made more intelligently than some Conservatives have today.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 8

  ACCOUNTS OF DISTRIBUTING BODIES OTHER THAN CHARITIES BOARD AND MILLENNIUM COMMISSION
  '.-(1) A body shall keep proper accounts in respect of any money paid to it under section 22 and proper records in relation to the accounts.
  (2) A body shall prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year in which it was paid any money under section 22 or distributed or applied any money under section 23.
  (3) The statement shall comply with any directions that may be given by the Secretary of State as to the information to be contained in such a statement, the manner in which such information is to be presented or the methods and principles according to which such a statement is to be prepared.
  (4) Copies of the statement shall be sent to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General within such period after the end of the financial year to which the statement relates as the Secretary of State may direct.
  (5) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on the statement and shall lay copies of the statement and of his report before Parliament.
  (6) The Secretary of State shall not give a direction under this section without the Treasury's approval.
  (7) This section does not apply to the National Lottery Charities Board or to the Millennium Commission.'.—[Mr. Brooke.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time and added to the Bill.

New clause 11

  PRIVATE LOTTERIES
  '. For section 4(1) of the 1976 Act (private lotteries) there shall be substituted—
  "(1) In this Act "private lottery" means a lottery in Great Britain which is promoted—

  (a) for members of one society established and conducted for purposes not connected with gaming, betting or lotteries;

  (b) for persons all of whom work on the same premises; or

  (c) for persons all of whom reside on the same premises, and which satisfies the conditions in subsections (1A) and (1B) below.

  (1A) The lottery must be promoted by persons each of whom—

  (a) is one of the persons for whom the lottery is promoted; and

  (b) in the case of a lottery promoted for the members of a society, is authorised in writing by the governing body of the society to promote the lottery.

  (1B) The sale of tickets or chances in the lottery must be confined—

  973

  (a) to the persons for whom the lottery is promoted; and

  (b) in the case of a lottery promoted for the members of a society, to any other persons on the society's premises.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 192.
  Mr. Lloyd: In Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) argued persuasively that where a society was holding a private lottery on its own premises any guests present should be allowed to buy tickets in the same way as they can join in a game of bingo or use gaming machines. I agreed to introduce Government amendments to achieve that, and this is what new clause 11 and amendment No. 192 do.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Pendry: I agree with the Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadgreen was very persuasive in Committee. She made sure that we all recognised the nonsense of the law as it stood and that in this particular area many of us flout the law ourselves almost every week of the year in the clubs that we frequent—Labour clubs in our case, of course. So we certainly accept the Minister's response in meeting the particular point that my hon. Friend made.
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy: I thank the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for the courteous way in which they have referred to the contribution that I made on this point. I thank the Minister also for listening to the arguments that were put and for accepting and incorporating them in the Bill. On behalf of the 6 million members of the Club and Institute Union and 10 million members of private clubs, some of whom I see here today, I wish to say thank you.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 12
  FREQUENCY OF LOTTERIES
  '. For section 10 of the 1976 Act there shall be substituted—

  Frequency of lotteries.
  10.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order prescribe—

  (a) the maximum number of lotteries that a society or local authority may promote under section 5 or 6 above in any period of twelve months; and

  (b) the minimum number of days that must elapse between the dates of any two lotteries promoted under section 5 or 6 above on behalf of the same society or by the same local authority.

  (2) An order under subsection (1) above may make different provision for different cases or circumstances.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government amendment No. 166.
  974
  Amendment No. 18, in clause 45, page 17, line 39, at end insert
  '; but nothing in this section shall apply to a registered charity or non-profit making organisation in respect of any lottery or lotteries which have been in operation for more than one year before the passing of this Act.'.
  Government amendment No. 190.
  Mr. Lloyd: This new clause removes existing controls on the number and frequency of society and local authority lotteries. It responds to the many representations that I have received, as have, no doubt, many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, from football clubs and others about the effect of a provision in schedule 7 to the Bill designed to stop the practice of multiple registration. This arises where an organisation creates two or more separate societies, commonly operating from the same premises and with the same personnel, in order to circumvent the monetary limits on turnover or, once the Bill comes into force, to escape from Gaming Board registration.
  I realise that, in order to maximise turnover, many football clubs and other organisations have been running 70 or 80 or more different lotteries a year. As the law stands, a society may only promote 52 lotteries in a 12-month period—that is, one a week. Organisations evade this restriction by registering perhaps three different societies—one to run a weekly draw lottery, another to run a monthly scratch card lottery, and a third, say, to run a large Christmas draw.
  It is our aim, in the interests of fairer and more honest and effective regulation, to ensure that organisations register only the one society, but we do not want them to lose income as a result of limiting them to 52 lotteries a year. So, provided an organisation is operating within the £5 million new annual limit laid down in clause 46 of the Bill, I see no reason why it should be subject to an arbitrary limit on the number of lotteries that it may promote. If a football club decides that promoting 70 lotteries a year will maximise its income from this source, then so be it. That is a decision which ought sensibly to he left to the promoters of society and local authority lotteries. The new clause therefore removes from the face of the 1976 Act the restrictions on both the number and frequency of such lotteries.
  I do not expect that this relaxation in the law will cause any regulatory problems, but the new clause contains an order-making power which will enable the Home Secretary to reimpose limits on either the number or frequency of lotteries, should the need arise. We will want to keep a close watch on the operation of the 1976 Act, as amended by part III of this Bill, but we would hope not to have to reintroduce controls of that kind. Amendments Nos. 166 and 190 are consequential on new clause 12.
  Mr. Renton: Can my hon. Friend tell the House under what circumstances he thinks the need to reintroduce controls might arise?
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not anticipate any problems, but if, say, societies were running lotteries so similar to each other at precisely the same time that it was impossible to distinguish whether the monetary ceilings were being breached, we might consider some further regulation to enable us to distinguish between them—but I see no reason why we should have to do this. Nevertheless, the opportunity exists to do so by regulations brought back to the House.

  975
  I hope that the hon. Members for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) will agree that amendment No. 18 is now unnecessary. Its underlying purpose—to relax restrictions on the number of lotteries that may be promoted by a society in any year—is even more completely achieved by the Government new clause, which I commend to the House.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: I welcome the Government's move on this issue. At stake is the survival of hundreds of small cricket, football, rugby union and rugby league clubs. We welcome the removal of the barrier that would have meant that they could not run more than one lottery or scratch card competition at a time—perhaps at the same time as raffles on the Derby or Grand National.
  I speak as the honorary president of the Lotteries Council, which, like the organisations I have mentioned, has welcomed the Minister's move.
  Mr. David Alton: I, too, welcome what the Minister has said. He has moved a long way since our debates in Committee and has listened to the protestations of the smaller clubs, based everywhere from Rochdale to Tranmere. Members of the Committee received representations from places that they did not even know existed. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) was largely responsible for that. He managed to generate one of the largest write-in campaigns that we have ever experienced—
  Mr. George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman knows all about write-in campaigns. He was responsible for 3,500 representations himself.
  Mr. Alton: I am always happy to oblige. This has been a good example of the Government being responsive to positive and instructive arguments and in that spirit I am happy not to press amendment No. 18.
  Mr. Corbett: The Minister will know of the great concern expressed by the smaller lotteries, not least those run by supporters clubs, when the Standing Committee was considering the Bill. He will forgive me if I slip on a black arm hand when I talk about supporters of Aston Villa, Birmingham City and Warwickshire county cricket club. Their great fear was that the introduction of the national lottery and of the lotteries of which it consists might damage their vital fund-raising activities on behalf of the clubs in which they take an interest. Probably the Premier division clubs are in a stronger position to face up to the competition from the national lottery—only time will tell.
  The supporters clubs of small teams representing all sports were extremely apprehensive. We appreciate the way in which the Minister has responded to arguments in Committee and to the representations organised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). I do not say that through gritted teeth, because it is important in Bills of this kind, dealing with matters that are not party political, to do our best to respond to what people outside with proper concerns say to us.
  The Minister's proposal in the context of the Home Office is positively revolutionary, because it is a long time since the Home Office was prepared to let go of a beloved
  976
  regulation. That applies especially to the grey areas in the Home Office. The Minister reminded the House of the remaining caution, and when his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) asked him about that, the Minister said, "We are not quite sure about whether to do this but in case we do, we want to have a fall back." It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which the proviso may be needed, but on balance the caution is probably sensible. I again thank the Minister. We are delighted to support him.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 2

  REGULATIONS FOR LOTTERIES
  .-(1) Section 12 of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 (regulations) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2), at the beginning there shall be inserted "subject to subsection (3A) below".
  (3) In subsection (3), after "above", there shall be inserted "but subject to subsection (3A) below".
  (4) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted:
  "(3A) Regulations under this section shall not prohibit the sale of a ticket or chance in any bingo club premises, within the meaning of Part II of the Gaming Act 1968."
  (5) In consequence of the preceding provisions of this section, so much of regulation 6 of the Lotteries Regulations 1977 (which prohibits the sale of tickets and chances in certain premises) as prohibits such sales in bingo club premises (within the meaning of the said Part II) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. Fry.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Peter Fry: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  In Committee the Minister gave some guidance about where national lottery tickets would be sold. The new clause seeks to allow the sale of local authority lottery tickets and other lottery tickets in bingo clubs. The Minister outlined the principle that national lottery tickets will not be sold in the traditional markets for charity lotteries, such as public houses, the intention being that there should be no damage to the proceeds of such local lotteries which perform many good works.
  The new clause is intended to explore the issue in relation to bingo clubs which are currently prevented from selling local charity lottery tickets. In that respect I declare my interest because I am the parliamentary consultant to the Bingo Association of Great Britain, which represents about 740 licensed bingo clubs throughout the country. The industry is keen to compete with and where possible participate in the national lottery. However, the White Paper that preceded the Bill said that bingo clubs would not be allowed to sell national lottery tickets, and the Minister confirmed that in the earlier debates on the Bill.
  It seems rather strange that people who have joined a club to have a modest flutter should not be allowed to buy a national lottery ticket there. The Government seem to have moved a little way from the policy of non-stimulation of any form of gaming merely by promoting the Bill. My suggestion will not propel us all towards a hectic Sodom and Gomorrah in which the country gambles all its spare money.
  There has already been much talk about the so-called level playing field for the various forms of gambling. Betting office hours in England and Scotland have been extended because of the damage that might be caused as a result of people gambling on a wider basis. The exact way

  977
  in which the national lottery will affect other forms of gambling is not yet clear, although there is great concern that they will be harmed. It is not necessarily good that other forms of gambling, and especially soft gambling, should be damaged too much.
  Many hon. Members who visit their local bingo clubs know that they provide a valuable social activity as well as the opportunity of a flutter. Many such clubs are communities in themselves because people go there to meet friends as much as to play bingo. I remind the House that bingo is the safest and most acceptable form of commercial evening venue for single ladies who perhaps would not venture into any other sort of gambling establishment.
  The industry has shown considerable community spirit and has a remarkable record of fund raising for charity. For example, over the past five years, the Bingo Association's annual charity week has raised £1·5 million. In 1987, it raised £200,000 for the Women's National Cancer Control Campaign. The following year, it was £220,000 for the British Heart Foundation, which used the money to buy 50 defibrillators to resuscitate heart attack victims on the way to hospital. In 1989, it raised £404,000 for Guide Dogs for the Blind—the largest ever single donation. The Royal National Lifeboat Institute received £245,000 in 1990, which paid for the lifeboat Bingo Lifeline. In 1991, £295,000 was donated to Marie Curie Cancer Care and last year £271,000 was raised for the Spinal Injuries Association.
  4.30 pm
  All that is on top of the money raised locally by individual clubs. This year, the charity work will not be for a national charity but co-ordinated at local level, so that players can choose charities in their area. Raising such large amounts of money requires imagination and hard work. If bingo clubs were allowed to run their own lotteries for charity, in the same way as other organisations do, it would add another feature to the fund-raising efforts.
  I know that gaming premises are not allowed to run lotteries because there is a distinction between commercial and charitable activities. As such lotteries would be for charity—that is the main drift of the new clause—that should not present any problems. If the drafting of my new clause is not acceptable, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be prepared to accept the spirit of the new clause and instil it into a suitable form of words at a later stage, perhaps in the other place.
  Mr. Corbett: I spent a little time last Saturday afternoon in the Cascade bingo club in Barnabas road in Erdington, in my constituency, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) will know. There was a crowd of perhaps 300 people, paying devoted attention to the caller. They were mainly elderly and clearly out to enjoy themselves in groups of friends, to make use of the excellent refreshment and bar facilities at a cost of no more than £3, to spend a pleasant afternoon and perhaps—I think that it comes in this order—to win a few bob on the bingo. The nearest there was to trouble was when, inadvertently, I raised my voice to ask a question of Mr. John Wiley, the Cascade managing director, as the numbers were being called. That provoked a storm of sh's from those listening. The atmosphere, as anyone who has
  978
  visited a bingo club will know, was happy and relaxed. The players were enjoying themselves. Hundreds do that every week in that club and countless thousands in other clubs.
  In essence, if I have understood this right, bingo is little different from the national lottery, in that players have to win by having a ticket, or a chance, which bears a predetermined set of numbers. What is little known is that the club, like many others—the hon. Member for Wellingborough referred to that—gives between £5,000 and £6,000 a year to local charities and joins the other clubs, in the Bingo Association of Great Britain, in raising money for charities on a national basis.
  The new clause would enable club members to buy lottery tickets for charitable causes, including for local charities. By no flight of fantasy could anybody suggest that the buying and selling of such local charity tickets would get in the way of the national lottery. They are very different animals. While the impact of the national lottery on the whole range of charity lotteries is unknown, if the lottery is to succeed it must attract a totally different audience from that which likes supporting local charities because the bulk of the money goes to the charity named on the ticket—bar administrative costs and prize money. It will not be divvied up like the national lottery. Participants will see the name of a local charity of which they approve and want to support and buying a ticket for 20p, 30p or 50p will be a way of donating to that cause—and there is the bonus that one may win whatever prize money is offered.
  I hope that the Minister accepts that that is a very different market from the national lottery. The atmosphere in which bingo is played, which I sought to describe, is peaceful and restful. I asked Mr. Wiley when was the last time that there was any serious trouble. He told me that after running the place for two years after a management buy-out, he could not remember there ever being any trouble. The Cascade is not a converted cinema, but was purpose-built for bingo and its facilities are absolutely first class. There is no menace about the place. If there were, it would not attract the clientele that it does. They are genteel folk having innocent fun which I am sure they would not regard as gambling.
  A neighbour of mine, who is a man of mature years, although he acts 20 years younger, goes to bingo with his relatives and friends— in his case I believe that they are the same—at least twice a week. It is rare for him on at least one of those visits not to come away with a few extra bob in his pocket. He goes there purely for pleasure and for social reasons—not for the money, although he welcomes his winnings.
  I do not believe that anything will be lost by allowing bingo clubs to sell tickets in aid of local charities and, if they want, to run their own lotteries in aid of local charities if others are not doing so. That would in no way detract from the ambitions of the national lottery.
  As the hon. Member for Wellingborough said, the Minister may not be able for whatever reason to accept the amendment's wording, but I hope that he will reconsider between now and the Bill going to another place. There is nothing to lose and no gambling involved in allowing bingo clubs and their members to do as we ask.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) made a fair case for allowing bingo clubs to sell tickets in society or local lotteries. He reminded the House that I intimated in Committee that

  979
  there may be scope for relaxing some restrictions on licensed bingo clubs, and I include the prohibition on the sale of lottery tickets among the controls that might sensibly be re-examined.
  The restriction on the sale of society and local lottery tickets in bingo clubs is contained in regulation 6 of the Lotteries Regulations 1977, which also prohibits the sale of such tickets in other gambling premises—casinos, amusement arcades and betting offices. A number of amendments will already have to be made to the regulations as a consequence of the changes made to the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 by part III of the Bill.
  In the circumstances, it would be sensible to undertake a complete review of the 1977 regulations. I am sympathetic with my hon. Friend's views and, like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), I do not think that a concession in this respect would necessarily lead to the end of civilisation as we know it. I agree with him that most bingo clubs are conducted in exactly the same way as that which he visited.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: When my hon. Friend conducts the complete review of the regulations, will he bear in mind the importance of extending the work of, for example, sub-post offices and their ability to sell lottery tickets? The commission that they could earn would he a valuable new source of income for them.
  Mr. Lloyd: I see no particular reason why they should not sell local lottery tickets, or national lottery tickets, but there may be a Post Office regulation that prevents them from doing so. In that case, I shall reflect upon my hon. Friend's question and will invite my Department of Trade and Industry colleagues also to do so.
  Mr. Orme: I listened carefully to what the Minister said, and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). There is, however, concern that some people cannot really afford to play bingo. To introduce yet another form of gambling will not, I believe, be helpful. I thought that we dealt with the issue, to some extent, in Committee by excluding the sale of lottery tickets in specific areas—in betting shops, and so on. The Minster said, rightly, that he will look into the issue again. I ask him to remember that there is another side to the argument.
  Mr. Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman is right. There is, alas, always at least one other side to an argument. That undoubtedly applies here. I have betrayed my own sentiment—that one side of the argument has perhaps more to be said for it than the other. I also said, though, as I said in Committee, that the Bill is not the place to make these changes. The rules exist in regulations. Similar rules apply to other establishments. We are having to make some changes. It is sensible to look at these matters together instead of having separate Home Office and other Government Department reviews. We shall want to hear from other groups before we reach a decision.
  I ought to stress that the Home Secretary is obliged to consult the Gaming Board and local authority associations before making fresh regulations. He will certainly want to do that in this case. However, we shall not come to a decision, whatever our personal views may be, without
  980
  those who have an interest in the question being able to say what they think of it. We may then come back with proposals to amend the regulations.
  If the regulations are amended, it will be up to the societies running the lotteries to decide whether they wish to sell their tickets in bingo clubs to decide whether they want to take them. On the understanding that the Government will give favourable consideration—although that falls short of saying what the conclusion will be—to my hon. Friend's proposal, I hope that he will withdraw new clause 2.
  Mr. Fry: I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) for his support. I am delighted that he had such a happy visit to his local bingo club. If he went more often, perhaps he, too, would be fortunate.
  May I point out to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) that the purpose of the new clause is to enable a greater number of British people to do what they already do so well, which is voluntarily to support charities. An enormous number of local charities would undoubtedly benefit from this change. No pressure would, I believe, be put upon anybody to spend more than he could possibly afford. It just means that, as part of a pleasant afternoon or evening out, people would have the chance of winning something and doing a bit of good at the same time. I see nothing wrong with that.
  I have, however, listened carefully to the Minister. I understand what he said about reassessment of the regulations. I am delighted to hear that this subject will be part of the reassessment. In view of his help and co-operation on that point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 4

  SITING OF THE NATIONAL LOTTERY HEADQUARTERS
  '.—It shall be a condition of the licence granted to the body corporate to administer the National Lottery that its headquarters shall be established in an area which can demonstrate that it has suffered or will suffer job losses directly attributable to the establishment of the Lottery that it shall remain there for the period of the licence; and that a majority of the full and part-time staff employed shall live within the travel-to-work area in which the office is established.'.—[Mr. Alton.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Alton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Hon. Members will recall that when we debated the private Member's Bill that was introduced by the hon. Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) for a national lottery, the chief concern of many hon. Members with constituencies in Liverpool, Glasgow, Cardiff and London was about the impact that such a measure would have on the existing football pools industry. Given that this issue was debated strongly on Second Reading and that hon. Members with Liverpool constituencies in particular repeatedly voiced their concern about the impact on employees of football pool companies, especially Littlewoods and Vernons on Merseyside, but also Zetters in London, the House will not be surprised that we are returning once more to this issue.

  981
  4.45 pm
  It would be wrong for the House not to understand the depth of feeling of those who represent areas in which there is already high unemployment. Instead of people saying, "You're simply crying wolf," they should at least listen to what the football pools companies have said. I shall not again burden the House for long with the arguments, but I remind hon. Members of what each of the companies has said. In a letter to The Times, Mr. Paul Zetter said:
  "the choice is stark: football pools or a national lottery. You will readily understand why I oppose a national lottery."
  Malcolm Hughes, the managing director of Vernons, said:
  "It is not possible to find an example anywhere in the world of a National Lottery and a Pools industry thriving side by side."
  Malcolm Davidson, the managing director of Littlewoods, quoted from a letter to Littlewoods from Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte which said:
  "A UK national lottery would effectively kill off the football pools within a period of weeks … A successful national lottery would act as a substitute for the football pools … as a result of this the level of employment within the industry will be dramatically reduced."
  The House will not be surprised to hear that hon. Members who represent people employed in the football pools industry are pressing the case that, should it be proved that there has been a loss of jobs in areas where people are employed in the football pools industry, one of those areas should be chosen as the place where the headquarters of the new national lottery is set up.
  The football pool companies believe that 6,000 jobs could ultimately be at stake as a direct result of the establishment of the national lottery. At a time of high unemployment in the country generally, most of us would be cautious about doing anything that might endanger existing jobs. We should not gamble with people's livelihoods.
  In addition to the 6,000 people whose jobs may be at stake, there are some 70,000 football pools collectors who rely on the small amounts of money that they make to supplement their income—or their benefits, if they are unemployed. A very small number of jobs will be created by the national lottery. In Germany, 180 people run the whole of the national lottery scheme. We are not, therefore, talking about substitute jobs that would make up for all the jobs that may be lost as a result of introducing the national lottery.
  The Minister will say that new jobs may be created in a number of other industries, but those industries may not be in areas where jobs have been lost as a direct consequence of the establishment of the national lottery. I draw the attention of the House to the letter which Mr. John Griffith, the editor of the Liverpool Echo, sent to the Prime Minister. He wrote:
  "I am writing to you on behalf of almost one million readers of the Liverpool Echo to seek a pledge that Liverpool can be the first winner of the proposed National Lottery.
  I believe Liverpool is the right place to base this exciting new venture, and that an early decision to choose Liverpool would prove a great boost to the image and morale of the city.
  As you will know, the National Lottery plan has prompted real fears about its impact on the thousands of pools jobs on Merseyside.
  But the region is often encouraged to be positive, and I am convinced that we would prove the perfect base for a project that would clearly command national attention.
  We have a proven track record as the football pools capital of the country. We have demonstrated that such competitions
  982
  can be run from Liverpool efficiently and successfully. We have all the infrastructure to make a Liverpool-based National Lottery a great success."
  That is right. The expertise that Vernons and Littlewoods have developed over the years shows that the city has precisely the experience required to administer a national lottery. What better location could there be than Liverpool, which has earned so much respect for having administered the football pools so well and efficiently for many years?
  The Government would be well advised to recognise the fears of communities such as mine. They should understand the worry that it is a matter not merely of pin money but of livelihoods. Very often, it is women who are employed in these jobs. More than 70,000 people are unemployed in the Liverpool area, so hon. Members representing Merseyside are not raising a trivial issue. If we are proved wrong, no one will be happier than those hon. Members.
  I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will be able to tell the House a year from now that no jobs were lost in the football pools and that the two schemes were able to co-exist. No one would be happier than I if that should prove to be the case but, if it is not, the Secretary of State and the Minister should at least consider ways in which the communities that suffer as a direct result of the introduction of a national lottery might be helped. Surely that is elementary justice.
  Expertise and experience in running such projects should be rewarded. Baroness Thatcher—dare one mention her name to Conservative Members these days?—opened Vernons' offices in Liverpool two or three years ago. I vividly remember her paying tribute to the efficiency and determination of that company. It must be recognised that our community has a special expertise, which is why we have tabled new clause 4.
  I hope that the new clause will commend itself to the Minister, if only as a marker. If he cannot accept it, perhaps he will accept that the lottery should be established, not in an area with relatively low unemployment, but somewhere which has a reputation for running football pools, which has the necessary expertise and experience and which could prove that it has suffered as a direct consequence of the establishment of a national lottery.
  Mr. Richard Tracey: I am sure that you will recollect, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the pools companies' worry about a national lottery was a thread which ran through our Second Reading debate and our early deliberations in Committee and recurred later when we discussed the exact topic.
  It is right and proper that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) should express the worries of his constituents and others on Merseyside, but I cannot accept the principle of including in the Bill such a specific tying of hands of the promoter by saying that the whole lottery should be run from Liverpool or, indeed, Scotland or south Wales where the pools companies also have bases.
  We could all outline worries in our constituencies about jobs that have been lost. Indeed, in Kingston upon Thames in my area a large British aerospace factory has closed with the loss of several thousand jobs. The hon. Gentleman's Liberal colleagues on Kingston upon Thames council would be proud of me if I said that I should like the national lottery headquarters to be established in

  983
  Kingston upon Thames, as would my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in whose constituency that factory was located. However, I am not saying that, because the promoters of the lottery should be able to site their headquarters where they think fit and where they think it will be run most efficiently. Of course, at this stage, we do not know who the promoters will be.
  In early correspondence, the Pools Promoters Association said that it did not like the idea of a lottery but that, if the Government and the House in due course accepted the idea, it might be interested in promoting it. Perhaps the pools companies will very soon have the chance to make their case, and that would be one way to bring the whole operation to Merseyside. If the pools companies are not successful, the eventual lottery promoters must have the freedom to site their operation where they wish.
  I repeat what I said on Second Reading and probably also in Committee: I do not believe that the pools companies will suffer from the introduction of a national lottery. I have known for a long time that the pools companies are highly innovative and efficient and dedicated to their enterprise. They will do what is necessary to keep the pools running. Italy has a similar ethos of football fanaticism and the pools and a lottery run happily alongside each other there. I do not accept that the pools companies will suffer as the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and others have suggested, so I cannot support the new clause.
  Mr. George Howarth: I must take issue with the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey). Without giving one shred of empirical evidence to support his case, he asserted that the pools companies and, by implication, jobs, will not suffer as a result of the introduction of the national lottery. All of the empirical evidence from various studies carried out by reputable academic bodies and others suggests that jobs will be lost if a lottery is introduced. The number of jobs lost depends on how the lottery scheme will work but estimates for Merseyside alone range from 3,500, 4,000, 5,000 and up to 6,000. That evidence is available to hon. Members if only they cared to read it.
  Against that background, hon. Members representing Liverpool constituencies and constituencies across Merseyside—people sometimes cross local government boundaries to find work—believe that we have a very strong case. In Committee, those of us worried about jobs in the pools industry believe that improvements were made to the Bill which will probably reduce the job losses contingent on the introduction of a national lottery.
  I made a quick calculation this afternoon and I suspect that the number of jobs lost is likely to be between 1,000 and 1,500 rather than the 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000 mentioned earlier. However, we are still talking about a considerable number. There is no logical reason why, if Merseyside is to suffer job losses, we cannot ask the House to specify in the Bill that the lottery headquarters should be sited in Liverpool.
  I support the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) in one further contention. Many right hon. and hon. Members feel that the job is the sort of job that anybody anywhere in the country could do without too much difficulty. However, quite complex technology is
  984
  involved in the pools industry; for example, familiarity is required with working with different types of papers. It is quite a skilful sphere of work. From that point of view, Merseyside is suitable, in that many—although I hope not too many—people who have lost their jobs as a result of the national lottery may be available. That makes it an attractive site. If I may put in a particular plea, I can tell the House that if Knowsley were considered as a possible site, we could find suitable premises at a reasonable rent, or even for purchase.
  5 pm
  To return to our more serious argument, I agree that if gambling in this country were conducted in an entirely free market, it would be unfair to make a specification such as that in the new clause, which my Merseyside colleagues and I support. It would be unfair to say that the national lottery should be located on Merseyside or in another area that may suffer. However, the market is not totally free. Legislation has had to be introduced to enable the national lottery to be established. Rightly, gambling is a controlled activity. The market is not free, so if it is not unreasonable to specify limitations on gambling I do not see why it should be considered unreasonable to say which area should gain in terms of jobs and of the economic activity that will be generated.
  For those reasons, I hope that the Government and other hon. Members will accept that we are not whingeing or moaning and that we feel that there is a genuine case to be made. I hope that if the measure is defective in some way, at least the spirit of our argument will be accepted and taken up, because we feel that we have a powerful case.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: I give my qualified support to new clause 4. It is entirely acceptable that the headquarters of the national lottery should be in an area of high unemployment; that is a laudable objective. My concern, and the reason why I said that my support was qualified, centres on the hypothesis on which the new clause is based—that job losses will be suffered as a result of the introduction of the national lottery.
  Certainly the headquarters of the national lottery should be in an area of high unemployment but, rather accepting the hypothesis on which the new clause is based, may I suggest Torbay as a suitable site? As the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) rightly pointed out, complex technology will be involved and a high degree of sophistication will be needed in the personnel who will operate the equipment. However, a minor flaw in the hon. Gentleman's argument is that it is based on the hypothesis that there will be job losses in the pools industry. It would be unreasonable for the Government to move the headquarters of the national lottery to somewhere where the job losses have not yet taken place.
  In Torbay we can offer immediate office accommodation and highly qualified personnel. Of course, Torbay also enjoys beaches, an advantage which Knowsley does not enjoy, although it has many other advantages. Torbay would certainly be an ideal location.
  Mr. George Howarth rose—
  Mr. Allason: I am making a serious point, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way to me and for the courtesy with which he has introduced his partisan argument about his constituency. Like the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), he rejects what he calls the hypothesis that there will be job losses, but he has yet to produce a shred of empirical evidence to counter our argument.
  Mr. Allason: That is not how the Government can proceed. The Government cannot move the national lottery headquarters in anticipation of job losses. Let us suppose that, in the best of all worlds, there were no job losses and that people were attracted to the pools instead, so that more personnel had to be taken on by the establishments in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The hon. Gentleman would then be at something of a disadvantage, having tempted the national lottery headquarters to move to his constituency, because there might not be enough qualified people there to fill the job vacancies created. I am trying to free the Government from such a dilemma. In Torbay, the accommodation is immediately available.
  The hon. Member for Knowsley, North made an important point when he said that the national lottery headquarters could be based anywhere. In connection with the next steps agencies initiative taken by the Government, I had hoped that the chief executives of the new agencies intended to move their expensive headquarters buildings from the centre of London and the west end out into the provinces where there is a real need for jobs and where qualified personnel and office space are available. Furthermore, there is a better way of life in the provinces than in central London.
  Alas, a rather worrying example has already been set by some of the next steps agencies. For example, instead of moving from near Heathrow to a site further afield and taking up existing accommodation, air traffic control has moved to what is arguably the most expensive green field site in leafy Hampshire. That seems to undermine the object of the next steps initiative.
  I urge the new administration of the national lottery seriously to consider placing the new headquarters establishment somewhere in the provinces that can demonstrate high unemployment. After all, as the hon. Member for Knowsley, North said, modern technology makes it irrelevant where the headquarters is sited. With fibre-optic cables and so on, the organisation does not have to be in the centre of London.
  I regret that my previous plea for resiting major national establishments—to relocate MI5 from the west end to Torquay—was overlooked. I do not know why my idea was overlooked; it seems a crying shame that MI5 is to be relocated instead in Thames house, just down the road from the House. That is an extremely expensive location—although I discover that the enterprise is only 70 per cent. over budget.
  I could give pretty firm undertakings about the kind of accommodation and the low costs that we could offer the staff of the national lottery if they were to consider moving to Torbay. Bearing in mind some of the replies to Environment questions this afternoon, I can give several other guarantees, including clean beaches and clean bathing waters.
  Mr. Ashton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr.
  986
  Davies) and I went to the headquarters of the national lotteries in New York and in Washington and found that they are about as big as the Tea Room? They employ about 50 people. If the hon. Gentleman is looking for people to go to Torquay there are thousands of gipsies in the north of England and gipsy sites are badly needed. I am sure that the gipsies would be glad to go to Torquay and enjoy all the benefits of the beaches. Would the hon. Gentleman like to offer them a chance of accommodation?
  Mr. Allason: We are prepared to accommodate almost everybody, but the trouble with Torquay is that it does not have an awful lot of green spaces for gipsies to park their caravans on. We should be perfectly willing to consider any other suggestion, and we should certainly like to point out that we have a great deal of empty office accommodation in Torquay, and that we are open to offers. I offer here and now to any of the next steps agencies' chief executives who may be in the Strangers Gallery that they will have a warm welcome in Torquay; indeed, we have better weather than almost anywhere else in the country.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not continue with this advertisement because it seems to be going very wide of the new clause.
  Mr. Allason: I am grateful for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker. I assure you that you will receive a very warm welcome in Torbay if you visit us.
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy: The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) is absolutely right. The headquarters of the national lottery can be sited anywhere in the country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or the world."]—or indeed, anywhere in the world. Opposition Members are pleading with the Government to take on board the case made in Committee and again today: that, whatever they think should happen in an ideal world, we have to live in the real world. Those of us who represent seats in Liverpool, Cardiff and Glasgow know without any shadow of a doubt that although we do not know how many jobs will go, there will be job losses.
  The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) said that he was sure that the pools companies were innovative enough to develop ways in which they would be able to compete with the national lottery and survive. That may or may not be the case. On behalf of the workers of those companies—I know that different interests are involved in the matter—I make the point that the number of workers in the pools industry will be reduced as a result of that competition. Anyone who studies the case carefully will conclude that that is bound to happen.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: We are talking about a small number of jobs. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is far better for every assistance to be given to the promoter to ensure that the national lottery is a success and that as much money as possible is raised to go into the good causes? Does she agree that the extra jobs created, many of which will come into the north-west in any event, will be far better than just dictating that the national lottery headquarters should go to the north-west? It may not be as successful as it would otherwise have been.
  Mrs. Kennedy: The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) advanced a useful and interesting argument

  987
  about competition in Committee. He said that a healthy and competitive pools industry would be good for the national lottery, as would the small lottery and the other lotteries that we talked about today. However, there is no doubt that we are speculating about how successful the national lottery will be. We argue that the new clause represents one way in which the Government can guarantee a return to the areas that we know will lose out. People in Liverpool, Glasgow and Cardiff will lose their jobs.
  If you will permit, Madam Deputy Speaker, the best way in which I can illustrate my point is to read to the House a poem that I received today from a pools worker. It is a cry from the heart and a plea to the House to reject the Bill entirely. It is very relevant to our debate because it illustrates better than I can the feelings of pools workers. The lady has entitled her poem, "My job! My job! My Kingdom for my Job." She says:
  "Lottery technology, my job is insecure,
  Those above won't listen as my job goes out the door. For eighteen years I've given it, the best that I can give.
  Without my job and wages, however will I live?
  So, the lottery will create jobs, well, bravo! That's just fine.
  But what about the redundant souls?
  Remember one of them is mine!
  It will take a fraction of the work force to run the lottery And a fraction of the work force too, with today's technology.
  So what happens to the excess? They're not needed any more,
  They end up just statistics and become a newstime bore.
  Its time for us to stand and fight, if fighting is what it takes.
  So please, come on, get off your butts
  And squash it for our sakes."
  I trust, Madam Deputy Speaker, that "butts" is parliamentary language. It fitted in with the rhyme.
  I urge the Minister when he considers the arguments put today to take seriously the spirit in which they are made. I believe that the Government have accepted in part the case made to allow to a certain extent for unfair competition between the lottery and the pools. In doing so, they have recognised that there will he an impact on employment in the industry. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when he replies.
  Mr. David Amess: I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on moving new clause 4 and on giving us the opportunity to debate the siting of the headquarters for the national lottery. I apologise for missing his opening remarks. Proceedings moved on somewhat more quickly than I had expected.
  I understand entirely why Liverpool Members have made a plea for the siting of the headquarters there. For me, the obvious siting for the national headquarters in Basildon. I say that because my constituency is of national and international note. Over the past two or three years, Opposition Members have rightly worried themselves about the level of unemployment in my constituency.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us the name of his constituency again?
  Mr. Amess: In case the hon. Gentleman did not hear, it is the constituency of Basildon.
  Opposition Members have worried about the level of unemployment in my constituency. There is no doubt that the impact of the economic slump which we have suffered over the past three years has been especially severe in the south-east.
  Mr. Allason: And in the south-west.
  Mr. Amess: And in the south-west, as my hon. Friend reminds me. We have lost many jobs in the construction sector and in service industries. People have been made redundant on a Friday and they have received no redundancy payments. In my constituency of Basildon, unemployment is roughly at the level it was when I won the seat 10 years ago and it is of great concern locally.
  We want the national lottery to be the best lottery in the world. One way in which to ensure that is to make certain that it is placed in the town that is the most famous in the country. That town is Basildon. We have excellent communications along the A127 and A13. We are very near the channel tunnel. We enjoy excellent communications to Heathrow airport and to Stansted airport. Not only that, but the weather is quite clement.
  We have the enthusiastic support of Essex county council. I believe that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill originated in Brentwood in Essex. Essex county council supports the bid to have the headquarters in Basildon, as does Basildon district council. It is important that where the headquarters is sited, the local population is enthusiastic about the whole concept of the national lottery. Of that there is no doubt. Basildon is totally committed to the national lottery. We enjoy a gamble. We believe that no job losses will be suffered in Liverpool because in Basildon we shall still fill in the football pools. We also very much want to participate in the national lottery.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take on board the fact that Basildon wants to continue to lead the country to the economic recovery, which has clearly started. One way to ensure that is for people who are bidding for the headquarters to talk to me, to the county council and to the district council. We can offer a very good deal if they wish to site the headquarters in my constituency of Basildon.
  Mr. Maxton: The frivolous way in which the last two Conservative Members who have spoken treated this very serious subject is outrageous. I am not necessarily 100 per cent. convinced by the arguments of those who say that there will be job losses in the pools industry, but they have a case. No Conservative Member who has spoken has made any attempt to answer the case that has been made by the pools industry and by those of my hon. Friends representing Liverpool constituencies. That is regrettable. I agree with the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on one thing only. He obviously believes that all his constituents are born gamblers. He is absolutely right: they would have to be, to elect him.
  Having said all that, I must say that I have reservations about the new clause—first, because I do not think that it makes sense and, secondly, because I do not like the fact that it refers only to the headquarters of the national lottery and I feel that other offices related to the national lottery should also go to areas where employment may be affected by its establishment.

  989
  Moreover, I am not sure whether the new clause requires the headquarters to go to the area that suffers most as a result of the establishment of the national lottery. Liverpool Members might make the case that more employees are employed in the pools industry in Liverpool than anywhere else, but that does not mean that Liverpool will be the only area affected. If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is suggesting that this should be the first criterion, I have some sympathy with his argument—
  Mr. Alton: The new clause specifically refers to an area that can demonstrate its case. Zetters may well go completely out of business—as everyone knows, it is probably the most vulnerable of the companies. North Merseyside and, in particular, Knowsley, North will be affected if Vernons suffers most, whereas if Littlewoods suffers most, the effects could be felt in Glasgow, Cardiff or Liverpool. That is why the matter should be left open.
  Mr. Maxton: That is exactly my point. The new clause hints that the area that is worst affected should get the headquarters. My view is that, if we are to take these matters into account at all, employment effects should be the first criterion or one of the criteria on the basis of which the Government consider where the headquarters and other offices of the national lottery should go.
  I had originally thought that I would resist the temptation to follow the example of other hon. Members by making a special plea for my area. As Oscar Wilde might have said, "There is only one way to defeat temptation and that is to give in to it." I will therefore make a plea on behalf of Glasgow. Glasgow may well be one of the areas that will suffer, so it would be covered by the criteria suggested in the new clause. The excellent, imaginative and innovative Labour-controlled local authorities—Glasgow district council and Strathclyde regional council—have a track record.
  Mr. Graham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in this context, it is a bit of a misnomer to call the area Glasgow? Littlewoods is based in Renfrew, and Renfrew district council has been more than helpful to Littlewoods.
  Mr. Maxton: Perhaps I should have said that all the excellent innovative Labour-controlled local authorities in Strathclyde have an excellent track record—despite the enormous problems put in their path by the Government—of attracting inward investment and putting together packages that allow office development, as has been shown recently with the Ministry of Defence, which we still hope will come to Glasgow. I hope that that track record will be borne in mind in siting the lottery headquarters.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: I support the new clause because it is important that we make it clear that we are interested in ensuring that jobs go to the areas that may suffer as a result of the national lottery. I understand why some Conservative Members find it impossible at this stage to accept that there will be any job losses at all, but many of us are not convinced by the argument that the lottery will result in a net increase in the number of jobs and in the amount of money spent on gambling.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), I deprecate the tone that has so far been adopted in the debate. Conservative Members
  990
  have understandably made pleas for their own areas but, in doing so, they have failed to pay sufficient regard to the very real anxiety felt by those in the pools industry.
  In my area, there is substantial female unemployment, and female employment is provided by the pools industry in Hillington. Many of the ladies working in the industry have said to me that, if they lose their job, they will have little opportunity—at their age and with their skills—to find alternative employment in the surrounding area. Many of those women require their income because their husband is unemployed. In my view, it is not seemly for Conservative Members to mock the genuine anxieties that those people feel.
  Notwithstanding the technical problems with the new clause, which I understand, the Government should make a commitment here and now that they will do what they can to ensure that any jobs that are generated—few though they may be—go to areas that will suffer as a result of the setting up of the national lottery. Such a statement will go a considerable way towards overcoming people's anxieties.
  Mr. Bryan Davies: I do not think that Conservative Members have been frivolous. They have merely revealed the nature of the modern Conservative party. They have substituted for the principle underlying the new clause—which seeks to bring employment to areas that are likely to suffer increased unemployment as a result of the introduction of the national lottery—the argument that the jobs should go to any area where unemployment has increased as a direct result of Government policy. We heard that argument from three Conservative Members today and from two in Committee. We have even heard how the Chancellor's constituency is suffering.
  I have news for Conservative Members: there are 651 of us in the queue, and all of us have a good claim for saying that the unemployment problems in our areas—caused by the depredations of a decade or more under a Conservative Government who have pursued higher unemployment as a part of their economic strategy—should be tackled. It simply will not do for Conservative Members to suggest on the basis of special pleading that their constituencies have the right to be exempt from the consequences of Government policy. The Opposition are pointing to a specific area of Government policy—the introduction of the national lottery, which will have consequences for those employed in the pools industry. We are concerned about those communities and this is an exceedingly serious matter.
  Let us not have a national lottery headquarters on the Conservative model—bright and brash and marble-tiled, like the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which will be supremely attractive to visitors from overseas, who will nevertheless bring precious little money to it. Let us instead have a lottery office like those in the United States. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) mentioned the visit that he and I made to the headquarters of the lottery in Washington. Like so many cities in the United States, the capital has rich and poor living close together. The rich parts of the city—including Capitol hill—are fringed by the poorest parts of the city because there is little town planning and because little effort has been made to save the city centre.

  991
  The lottery headquarters is located in the poorer quarters of the city for two reasons: first, the lottery provides jobs for the local community; and, secondly, it is the people's lottery. It is all very well the hon. Members for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and for Basildon (Mr. Amess) to suggest that the lottery will be patronised by their constituents—as it will be. The fact is that the vast majority of people purchasing lottery tickets will be people on lower incomes.
  The lottery is a form of regressive taxation because its greatest appeal will be to those who have the least. Therefore, the lottery headquarters should be located in an area where it can serve the people best. If the lottery is to be a success, it must appeal across the board. The vast majority of people who will participate in the lottery will have fairly limited resources. As a small gesture towards employment policy, we should consider the regions that deserve the few jobs that the lottery will provide.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Kilfoyle: I do not have a great deal to add to what has been said today and what was said in Standing Committee where, as members of the Committee will be aware, we explored the issue fully.
  The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) made an aside from a sedentary position earlier to which I should like the Minister to reply. The hon. Member for South Hams said that the lottery headquarters could be located anywhere in the world. That is an interesting hypothetical proposition. Tattersalls is a very good lottery operator in Australia. If it is technically posible with electronic mail and similar technology for Tattersalls, with all its expertise, to bid to operate a lottery here, could our lottery be run from overseas—for example, from Europe or elsewhere? I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
  Mr. Graham: All hon. Members are aware of my feelings about the national lottery. I would much have preferred to be here today arguing that the pools should continue as they are. However, I have received hundreds of letters from people who work in the pools industry. They believe that they are now facing the dole. I can understand that belief when we consider how pools companies in other countries have gone to the wall when lotteries were introduced in those countries.
  It is unbelievable that Conservative Members are joining in the worst kind of lottery imaginable—the lottery for jobs. The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) is very fortunate that his constituency does not suffer the kind of unemployment that is raging throughout the country. Areas like Strathclyde and Merseyside are experiencing unbelievable and horrific levels of unemployment. The hon. Member for Basildon should come with me and speak to people who are on the dole in my area who have been working their butts off trying to get a job. Some of them have been unemployed for years. They look for work every day of every week.
  The pools industry faces a catastrophe. Thousands of members of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers have already lost their jobs as a result of the recession and the economic situation created by the Government. If the Bill is passed, thousands more members of the USDAW will be on the dole.
  992
  In all fairness, I recognise the thinking behind the new clause. If there is to be a headquarters for the national lottery, we must bear in mind the thousands of people who face the dole. I understand that we are talking about the creation of about 100 jobs. I believe that one extra job in my constituency is worth fighting for. I am sure that my colleagues will accept that any jobs are welcome so long as we are increasing the number of jobs and not taking them away.
  I saw Conservative Members smiling earlier. They will never see me smiling when folk face the dole. I was on the dole and I know what it is like. I know how important it is to work and to get a wage at the end of the week to pay the rent, mortgage and electricity bills. I have worked hard during my life and I have been on the dole. I have faced it and felt it.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Would the hon. Gentleman support the social chapter which would cost thousands of jobs in this country?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not relevant to this particular debate.
  Mr. Graham: I am delighted to have your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I do not wish to join in the obscene bidding for Strathclyde, Merseyside or anywhere else. I hope that wisdom will prevail. I hope that the site of the headquarters will be determined after we have considered the areas in this country that face unemployment. Indeed, unemployment is still increasing in many areas.
  I have examined the new clause. It may be important for us to be seen to argue for the headquarters to be located in an area that is suffering deprivation and unemployment. However, if the Bill had not been introduced, thousands of workers would be working away merrily and happily. They would still be picking up a wage at the end of the week. They would still be able to take the jobs that they need. They would still be sharing their wealth with the nation by paying their contributions to the tax system.
  I agree reluctantly with the new clause. I plead with Conservative Members to consider the fact that the situation is of their making. Will the Minister please give us an assurance? Not long ago, it was said on the Floor of the House that thousands of jobs would not be lost as a result of the Bill. If hundreds of jobs are lost, will the Minister review the situation? Would he then come back to the House and tell us what he intends to do about it?
  I sincerely hope that the Minister will genuinely consider the workers who possibly face the dole. When Ministers come to take the decision, I hope that they will consider the people on Merseyside. I believe fundamentally that the folk on Merseyside probably have a larger and more justified claim to have the headquarters located in their area than people anywhere else in the country. I am sure that none of my colleagues from Glasgow or Renfrew district would argue against the folk on Merseyside.
  The hon. Member for Basildon is jocular. I may be entering into a similar spirit, but I do not know where Basildon is. However, I certainly know where the dole queues are and I know where they lead. They lead to a dismal life for millions of our people. I hope that the people of Basildon, like the people in my constituency, feel

  993
  that at the end of the day, the headquarters of the national lottery might provide a future and perhaps a new career for unemployed people.
  As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been rather caught up today. I lost my hearing aid tonight and I cannot find it. However, some people will lose their jobs because of this Government and they will not be able to find new jobs.
  Mr. Pendry: I, too, support the thrust of the new clause. Any objective person listening to the debate will have observed the contrast between some hon. Members' rather frivolous approach to the problem of unemployment and the attitude voiced by, for instance, my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson), for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) and for Knowsley.
  Mr. George Howarth: Knowsley, North.
  Mr. Pendry: I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth). I accept that an important distinction is involved.
  The able way in which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) spoke to the new clause shows how deeply Opposition Members feel about the problem. Since the introduction of the Bill, they—along with some Conservative Members—have expressed great concern about the lottery's effect on employment levels in the pools industry.
  As has already been pointed out, Liverpool, Cardiff, Glasgow and indeed London are the most vulnerable areas. Liverpool has a male unemployment rate of 20·8 per cent. and an overall unemployment rate of 15 per cent.; Cardiff has a male unemployment rate of 14·1 per cent. and an overall unemployment rate of 9·9 per cent.; Glasgow has a male unemployment rate of 15·5 per cent. and an overall unemployment rate of 11·2 per cent Of course, those figures cannot in themselves convey the lack of personal esteem and social cohesion that was so graphically described by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde.
  During the past few days, Conservative Members have claimed that the recession is now over; but it still seems very real for the 3 million people who are out of work, with no real chance of finding a job. All the three known reports that have investigated the effects of a national lottery on the pools industry have predicted a severe impact on employment. In many ways, the findings of the report by the GAH group seem the least pessimistic: according to The Guardian, it suggests that 1,100 pools jobs will be lost in Liverpool, Glasgow, Cardiff and London. The Coopers and Lybrand report—commissioned by the pools promoters in response to the Government's White Paper last year—predicted the closure of Vernons and Zetters, and a 40 per cent reduction in Littlewoods' turnover.
  Like other hon. Members, I accept that concessions made in Committee have gone some way towards establishing a more level playing field between the lottery and the pools industry. It remains the case, however, that the establishment of a lottery is likely to reduce employment—both those employed directly by the pools industry, who were cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and of part-time coupon collectors—in the absence of counterveiling employment creation measures. Surely it is fair to propose to give the areas that
  994
  will be most adversely affected by the lottery's introduction a better-than-average chance of housing its headquarters.
  For those reasons, Labour Members accept the spirit of the new clause. I hope that the Minister will follow suit.
  Mr. Key: I recognise the depth of feeling about this issue. One of the joys of the English language is that it allows people to express deep feelings, sometimes through anger and passion and sometimes through humour; on occasion, the dividing line is narrow. Although some of my hon. Friends—and, indeed, some Opposition Members—may have spoken with levity, no one should doubt that the current feelings about unemployment on Merseyside are registered and understood. Such feelings run deep in the House, as, of course, they do among all who face unemployment. As we are discussing the pools industry, should cite Strathclyde as well as Cardiff and London: all have sizeable populations involved in, or reliant on, the pools industry.
  It is true that the new clause is very tightly drawn. I am sure that that was intended. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that it is difficult to see how so narrow and prescriptive a measure could fit comfortably in the Bill: I recognise the sincerity with which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) drew our attention to the problems.
  The fact is that we do not know what will happen to jobs in the pools industry; what we do know is that the lottery will create a number of jobs. Although only a modest number will be created in the headquarters, expect thousands to be generated nationwide in the operation of the lottery and in the supporting industries—computing, marketing, printing and the retail sector which will sell the tickets.
  That, however, is not the burden of the argument, which is concerned with jobs on Merseyside. As I said in Committee, I understand the position very well: I would scarcely have spent my time in north America trying to persuade the Americans to invest in Liverpool if I did not consider Merseyside worthy of investment. As has been said, it has a good track record.
  5.45 pm
  The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) made a strong speech, which was not devalued a jot by his constituency interest. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson)—who spoke eloquently in Committee—reminded us that we should look north of the border as well. That view was echoed by the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), who, over the years, has established a reputation for sincerity in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) made a sensible speech on behalf of his constituents. It would be wrong for any hon. Member representing the north of England to assume that the position in the south and west is not serious, as I discovered a couple of weeks ago during a tour of Devon and Cornwall.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is right: we need to talk about a successful lottery that will generate more jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) pointed out that, if the headquarters were located in that town, we could be

  995
  certain of securing one of my ambitions—a very British lottery. As my hon. Friend said, Basildon is at the heart of Britain.
  Mr. Maxton: With all due respect, I must defend my fellow Scots. I think that the Minister should have said "at the heart of England".
  Mr. Key: Let us say "at the heart of the United Kingdom".
  The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) made a passionate speech. I am grateful to him for setting the debate in a wider context.
  Technology being what it is, the lottery's headquarters could, of course, be located almost anywhere in the world, but I can reassure the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) that they will be located in the United Kingdom; otherwise, it would be extremely difficult to enforce licence conditions. It is normal throughout the world for lottery operators to be located in the country concerned.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) provided the touchstone of the debate. I congratulate her: I know that for many months she has worked tirelessly on this difficult issue on behalf of her constituents. She has always brought originality as well as fervour to our debates, and she did not let us down on this occasion, even including a touch of poetry. That is another joy of the English language, and I commend her constituent who composed the poem.
  I appreciate the spirit behind the new clause, although I cannot back its premise that the national lottery will have a significant effect on unemployment in specific areas. I have said on many occasions that the effect of the national lottery on employment in the pools industry will depend on how the pools promoters choose to conduct their operations.
  As the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde remarked, we moved a long way in Committee on the problems confronting the pools industry. However, employment levels in the pools industry are steadily declining and I have not heard any guarantee that employment levels would be maintained if we did not introduce a national lottery. There is a problem of technology as well as the problem of the national lottery. Of course markets are not set in concrete. Pools operators throughout the world are restructuring to make their games more attractive. Now the pools industry in Britain has an opportunity to do a great deal more in modernising its regime as a result of the changes which we introduced in Committee.
  I accept one aspect of the serious intent behind new clause 4. I accept that the siting of the headquarters and associated service components of the new national lottery represents a tremendous opportunity for jobs which many areas are keen to attract. Wherever the operator sets up —much of Oflot's operation would be likely to follow—the area chosen would benefit enormously from direct employment and the secondary benefits which that produces.
  However, I cannot accept the new clause because it contains the wrong emphasis. We should also avoid inserting such a restrictive clause into the Bill and into modern legislation. I repeat the point that I made in Committee, that if I were a potential clause 5 operator, I would contact areas designated assisted areas and the
  996
  Department of Trade and Industry to learn about the many advantages intrinsic to those assisted areas and the many Government benefits available to companies which establish themselves there.
  Many of the organisations which are interested in putting in a bid are looking at assisted areas with a view to setting up the headquarters and manufacturing the hardware for the lottery in those areas. That is most welcome. Merseyside development corporation, to name one excellent assisted area, has drawn up plans to offer potential operators every possible advantage and facility in setting up in Merseyside. Liverpool city council has also worked on the project. That is particularly welcome.
  Many more areas have made such plans. It is not a matter for frivolity. Genuine bids have been made for the work from as far afield as Glasgow and Tayside, Cornwall, Dorset, and, as we have heard today, Basildon and Torbay. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is naturally keen that we should guarantee that the lottery operation will go to Liverpool. That would be unfair to the other areas which have already expressed interest in welcoming the lottery.
  The new clause is tightly drawn. I personally think that it is rather impractical. I do not take much pleasure from imagining areas vying with one another to show that they stand to suffer more than other areas from the advent of the lottery. That is rather macabre.
  Mr. Graham: Does not the Minister accept the point made by Opposition Members that Merseyside, Strathclyde and other areas will probably suffer loss of employment in the pools industry as a result of the introduction of the lottery? We therefore make a special plea for the headquarters to be set up in one of those areas.
  Mr. Key: Yes. Of course I accept that Merseyside is more likely to be affected than any other area. What I have to say about that is straightforward. Under clause 11, the Secretary of State will ensure that location is one of the many matters which are taken into account in deciding whether to grant a licence. That could not be an overriding consideration if it conflicted with the director general's overriding duties in clause 4 to create a lottery run with propriety in the interests of participants generating maximum net proceeds. However, I am clear that it should be one of the matters which are taken into account. That puts an onus on the interested areas to make their best case to potential operators.
  Today's debate has ensured that any potential operator who takes seriously the proceedings on the Bill in the House will, on reading the report of the debate, be under no misapprehension about the seriousness with which we have treated the subject. They will therefore bear in mind carefully what I have said about granting a licence.
  Mr. Alton: With the leave of the House, I should like to make a few remarks in response to the debate. I recognise that we have had a good debate in which many hon. Members have participated. Obviously, I was disappointed by the Minister's reply. I am also sorry that he misrepresented the new clause. I did not intend to seek a Division, but after hearing his reply I feel more determined to press the matter, if it is the will of Opposition Members that we should test the issue.
  It worried me that the Minister suggested that the amendment contained an attempt to bring the headquarters of the national lottery specifically to the city of

  997
  Liverpool. The new clause does not mention Liverpool once. It seeks to set out a clear principle that, if a part of the country can demonstrate that it has lost jobs as a direct consequence of the introduction of the national lottery, the headquarters should be situated in that area. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition.
  If the Minister had said that, although he was not happy to include the new clause in the Bill, he accepted the principle and would reflect before the Bill went to another place on whether he could go some way to meeting hon. Members' points, I would have been happy to act reasonably and would not have pressed the new clause to a Division. But, in the light of what has been said, I believe that the issue is so important that the House ought to divide on it.
  Every Member of Parliament could have set out a case for his constituency. The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) is an indomitable and well-known spirited fighter for his constituency, but the fact remains that his constituency will not directly lose a single job as a result of the introduction of the national lottery. That also applies to the hon. Members for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey). The hon. Member for Surbiton referred to job losses at British Aerospace. They have nothing whatever to do with the introduction of the national lottery, as he would be the first to concede.
  But jobs will be lost at Zetters, Vernons and Littlewoods in the view of many Opposition Members who have spoken, including the hon. Members for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies), for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) and for other constituencies.
  It is the clear view of many people that jobs will be lost. It is the view of the industry itself. I am the first to accept that that may not happen. If it does not, the new clause makes the way clear to site the headquarters in any part of the country that can demonstrate that it would be the right place, be it Basildon, Torbay or Surbiton. However, if areas can demonstrate—I believe that they will be able to do so—that they have suffered a significant loss of jobs directly attributable to the introduction of the national lottery, it is surely not unreasonable for Members of Parliament from those communities to ask that the new jobs should be placed in those areas.
  Hon. Members have made the point—it hardly needs reiterating—that unemployment is deeply corrosive of family and community life. It deeply affects those who become unemployed. People who are currently employed in industries such as the pools industry in Merseyside, Glasgow or London and are likely to lose their jobs will note the debate today with great care. As the hon. Member for Broadgreen said, many of them have written to Members of Parliament saying that they fear for their job. Surely it is not unreasonable to say to them that if, a year from now, they can demonstrate that, as a result of the introduction of the national lottery jobs have been lost from their community, we will ask that the new jobs created by the national lottery should go to that district.
  Hon. Members from across the political divide are making a strong and united plea. The House will be aware that I disagree on many political issues with many of my hon. colleagues from Merseyside. But on this issue we are united in our plea. It is not good enough for hon. Members to accuse hon. Members from one area of militancy and extremism when they hear a united plea and a sustained
  998
  argument which is perfectly reasonable. The Government should listen to that carefully. Instead of accusing hon. Members, as they did on Second Reading, of fighting the wrong battle at the last ditch, the Government should recognise that here is an example of hon. Members making a perfectly sensible proposal. I hope that hon. Members will feel able to support the new clause in the Division.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 259.

  Division No. 251]

  [6 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Gunnell, John

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Hall, Mike

  Ainger, Nick

  Hanson, David

  Allen, Graham

  Hardy, Peter

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Harvey, Nick

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Heppell, John

  Ashton, Joe

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Barnes, Harry

  Hinchliffe, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Home Robertson, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hoyle, Doug

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Betts, Clive

  Hutton, John

  Blunkett, David

  Ingram, Adam

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Burden, Richard

  Jowell, Tessa

  Caborn, Richard

  Keen, Alan

  Callaghan, Jim

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Canavan, Dennis

  Leighton, Ron

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Lewis, Terry

  Clapham, Michael

  Livingstone, Ken

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Loyden, Eddie

  Coffey, Ann

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Connarty, Michael

  McAllion, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  McCartney, Ian

  Corbett, Robin

  McKelvey, William

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Maclennan, Robert

  Cryer, Bob

  McMaster, Gordon

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McWilliam, John

  Dafis, Cynog

  Madden, Max

  Dalyell, Tam

  Mahon, Alice

  Darling, Alistair

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Davidson, Ian

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Martlew, Eric

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Maxton, John

  Dixon, Don

  Meacher, Michael

  Dowd, Jim

  Meale, Alan

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Eastham, Ken

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Enright, Derek

  Miller, Andrew

  Etherington, Bill

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Fisher, Mark

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Flynn, Paul

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mudie, George

  Foulkes, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Fraser, John

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Fyfe, Maria

  O'Hara, Edward

  Gapes, Mike

  Olner, William

  Garrett, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  George, Bruce

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Gerrard, Neil

  Parry, Robert

  Godsiff, Roger

  Pendry, Tom

  Graham, Thomas

  Pickthall, Colin

  999

  Pike, Peter L.

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Prescott, John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Trimble, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Tyler, Paul

  Raynsford, Nick

  Vaz, Keith

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wallace, James

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rooker, Jeff

  Watson, Mike

  Rooney, Terry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Winnick, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Simpson, Alan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Mr. David Alton and Mrs. Jane Kennedy.

  Spellar, John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Alexander, Richard

  Day, Stephen

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Devlin, Tim

  Amess, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Ancram, Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Arbuthnot, James

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Ashby, David

  Elletson, Harold

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Evennett, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Faber, David

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bates, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bendall, Vivian

  Forman, Nigel

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Forth, Eric

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Booth, Hartley

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Boswell, Tim

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Freeman, Roger

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  French, Douglas

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fry, Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Gale, Roger

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gallie, Phil

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Gill, Christopher

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Butler, Peter

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Butterfill, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gorst, John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Cash, William

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Churchill, Mr

  Hague, William

  Clappison, James

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Colvin, Michael

  Harris, David

  Congdon, David

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Conway, Derek

  Hawksley, Warren

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Heald, Oliver

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Couchman, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Cran, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  1000

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Horam, John

  Richards, Rod

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Riddick, Graham

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

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Sackville, Tom

  Jessel, Toby

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shersby, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knapman, Roger

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Knox, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Spring, Richard

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sproat, Iain

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Legg, Barry

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Leigh, Edward

  Steen, Anthony

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Stephen, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Stern, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Stewart, Allan

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Streeter, Gary

  Lord, Michael

  Sweeney, Walter

  Luff, Peter

  Sykes, John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mac Kay, Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Thomason, Roy

  Madel, David

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Malone, Gerald

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mans, Keith

  Thurnham, Peter

  Marlow, Tony

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Tracey, Richard

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Trend, Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Trotter, Neville

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Viggers, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Milligan, Stephen

  Walden, George

  Mills, Iain

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Waller, Gary

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Waterson, Nigel

  Moss, Malcolm

  Watts, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wells, Bowen

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Whitney, Ray

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Whittingdale. John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Norris, Steve

  Wilkinson, John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Willetts, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Wilshire, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Paice, James

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wolfson, Mark

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Wood, Timothy

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Yeo, Tim

  Pawsey, James

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Pickles, Eric

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 5

  MINIMUM AGE FOR PURCHASE OF LOTTERY TICKETS
  '. —(1) Any person who sells a ticket for the National Lottery to a young person shall be guilty of an offence.
  (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level five on the standard scale.
  (3) In this section, the expression "young person" means a person—

  (a) who is under the age of eighteen years and whom the person committing an offence in relation to him under this section knows, or ought to know, to be under that age; or

  (b) who is apparently under the said age:

  provided that in the case of any proceedings under this section for an offence in respect of a person apparently under the said age, it shall be a defence to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he had in fact attained that age.'.—[Mr. Alton.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Alton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in clause 51, page 20, leave out from line 37 to end of line 15 on page 21.
  Mr. Alton: New clause 5, which is linked to amendment No. 5, deals with the minimum age for the purchase of lottery tickets. We explored this issue in Committee and those who have read the extract of the proceedings in Committee will know that I advanced the case that we should not do anything deliberate to stimulate gambling among younger people. I hope that the House will have chance to reflect on what I trust will be a fairly brief debate on this new clause and amendment and that the Minister, if he is unable to accept the amendment, will at least give some consideration to the principles underlying it so that it can be given further thought between now and debate in another place.
  The chairman of the National Council on Gambling has described as "naive" the Government's view that, as lotteries are the softest form of gambling, a fairly relaxed regime of control is consistent with policy. Any restrictions are undesirable, the Government's argument goes, because they want to stimulate the maximum amount of revenue. But surely there must be exceptions to that rule. I argue that young people are one of them. The same argument can, for that matter, be extended to the poor and, interestingly, to women—a group that the Minister said in Committee he particularly wanted to target as people likely to purchase tickets for the national lottery.
  The Government, therefore, will widely promote the lottery in an indiscriminate manner to achieve the objective of raising the maximum amount of revenue, and one of the groups that they will quite unashamedly target will be young people. Such an approach is best summed up by the belief that if one is to have a lottery it might as well be one that makes as much money as possible, regardless of who or where the money comes from. Inevitably, as the lottery matures, they will seek to maintain growth in revenue and profits and will either seek to attract new participants or encourage existing participants to bet more.
  Lotteries inevitably generate strong commercial pressures which take little account of social considerations, and this lottery will be no different unless we build
  1002
  in safeguards. That is why my new clause and the amendment set out to protect those who are under 18 years of age. Unless we build safeguards into our legislation, as has been the experience in the United States, we will see pernicious and misleading advertisements and promotion on television, in our newspapers and on hoardings in our deprived areas, and many of them will be targeted at young people.
  6.15 pm
  I would like to draw the attention of the House to one such advertisement that appeared on Connecticut television, entitled "Misspent Youth". It opens with an older man sitting in a boat, afloat on a calm mountain lake. He says reflectively:
  "When I was younger, I suppose I could have done more to plan my future. But I didn't. I guess I could have put some money aside. But I didn't. Or I could have made some smart investments. But I didn't … Heck, I could have bought a one-dollar Connecticut Lotto ticket, won a jackpot worth millions, and gotten a nice big check every year for twenty years. (Smiling broadly) And I did! I won! … I won millions —me!"
  A voice-over then spells this out. It says:
  "Play LOTTO. You only have to win once. Jackpot prize paid out in twenty instalments. Overall chance of winning is 1 in 30."
  In fact, although the odds of winning something are 1 in 30, the odds of winning the million-dollar jackpot are 1 in 13 million.
  There are other examples but I quoted that particular one in Committee as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) has said, and I want to add to it because it builds up the case that, where there are lotteries already in operation in the United States, many have targeted the young in the way that I have described, or at the poor. For instance, in Illinois an advertisement depicts a man scorning people who invest in savings bonds: investing in the lottery, he says, is the only way to become a millionaire. A ghetto billboard offered Chicago's West Side residents this advice:
  "How to go from Washington Boulevard to Easy Street —play the Illinois State Lottery."
  The recession has prompted another pitch in Washington. Lottery billboards round the city describe the lottery there as "the ultimate shock absorber".
  New York once ran a commercial showing a mother telling her daughter that she need not strive for a scholarship because her mother was playing the numbers. A billboard placed in Boston College's football stadium last year offered this inducement to diligent study:
  "Be a millionaire before you graduate—play the Massachusetts lottery."
  So the experience from the United States is not good.
  There is evidence from this country too of the existing problem of young people who are gambling. I draw the attention of the House to the work undertaken by Dr. Sue Fisher of Plymouth university. She points out that a survey of United Kingdom secondary school children, aged 11 to 16, inquired into the prevalence of adolescent gambling and pathological gambling on fruit machines, and related behaviour. Sixty-two per cent. of the children in the survey gambled on fruit machines, 17·3 per cent. at least weekly and 5·7 per cent. pathologically. Some began gambling as young as eight years old.
  Sue Fisher did a study located in a seaside town in the south-west with a population of 6,000. The commercial leisure facilities are dominated by three arcades, purpose-built for the playing of fruit and video machines.

  1003
  One arcade prevents local children from entering in school hours; the others impose no age restrictions. The arcades remain open throughout the winter months as well as in the holiday season so that local children have virtually unrestricted access to fruit machine gambling in arcades throughout the year. In addition, fruit machines are sited in cafes, fish and chip shops and holiday camps and are also played by the children surveyed.
  The survey was carried out during the autumn of 1990 in a school which is the sole provider of state secondary education for that seaside town and its hinterland. The questionnaire included a frequent question on a variety of gambling forms to establish the prevalence of fruit machine playing and its relevance to other games. Ninety-nine per cent. of children had gambled in the year preceding the survey. As expected, fruit machines were the most popular form of gambling and 62 per cent. of children had played them in the preceding year. Next in popularity were card games, 30 per cent. of the children having played them, and games of skill, especially pool —27 per cent. had played that. Nine per cent. of the children had bet on playground games such as "coins up the wall", and a further 8 per cent. had bet on football pools. Eight per cent. of the children had bet on horses and dogs; 20 per cent. of them gambled weekly, and 9 per cent. gambled three or more times a week.
  Predictably, fruit machines were played more frequently than any other form of gambling: 17·3 per cent. played at least once a week. Next in popularity were games of skill, with 7·5 per cent.; followed by cards, at 3·9 per cent., playground games, at 2·4 per cent., football pools at 2 per cent. and horse and dog betting at 0·4 per cent.
  The implications of all this for the scratch cards that are likely to be sold as part of the national lottery should be more than evident to all hon. Members. While most children spend small amounts on fruit machines, 25 per cent. had spent more than £5 in one day, and 4·6 per cent. of them spent more than £10 every single week. Seven per cent. gambled at least three times a week—and there were no significant gender differences in the study that Sue Fisher carried out.
  The problems that this generates are worth considering for a moment as we decide whether to allow young people to purchase lottery tickets. Fruit machine playing, according to the survey carried out in this west country town, created problems for some of the children that impinged on their schooling and their relationships with family and friends. Some of the problems involved illegal acts. Eight and a half per cent. of the children played fruit machines even though they knew that their parents had forbidden it; 10 per cent. of parents had fallen out with their children or close family because of fruit machine playing; and 15 per cent. of the children admitted that they had lied to hide the extent of their involvement.
  Thirty-seven per cent. of the children had borrowed; 21 per cent. had spent their school fare or dinner money; 11 per cent. had stolen from their families; 2 per cent. had stolen from outside the home to play the fruit machines. Four per cent. had sought help with a serious money problem attributable to fruit machine playing.
  It is obvious to anyone who thinks about these things or who has any familiarity with urban life that adolescents are particularly susceptible to pathological gambling. As with substance abuse, so the gambling problems among young people are undoubtedly part of the reason for crime levels among them.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about fruit machines—the Yorkshire Post has run a good campaign against them, and something should certainly be done about them. I wonder, however, whether the hon. Gentleman is right to pursue the analogy with the national lottery, because there is a difference: fruit machines are almost a way of life. They are put in places that are designed to be exciting and open all the time. Spending fairly small sums of money on them can become an addiction, but surely the national lottery represents a different dimension?
  Mr. Alton: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, the study that I have been citing goes on to show that the compulsive gambler frequently starts with what appears to be an innocuous form of gambling, such as a lottery, and ends up on the harder forms, such as slot machines. Ours is the only country in the world that allows children to gamble on slot or fruit machines. We should be ashamed of that. Children who are already addicted to slot machines are far more likely to indulge in other forms of gambling—all the more reason why we should protect them. That is why the principle enunciated in Committee found some support on both sides of that Committee. This is not a partisan issue; we should all be worried about this country's young people.
  Young people are picked up and used by pimps and by others who exploit them or sell drugs to them or lure them into a world of criminality. We should therefore not add to the pressures on them, since they are already excessively exploited. The United States experience clearly shows that young people are one of the target groups for lotteries, and I fear that we may set out to lure them into purchasing tickets here in the same way—advertisements even in colleges encouraging young people to spend some of their money on lottery tickets. Do we really want to encourage people to use their money to try to succeed by gambling on a national lottery—what I would term the chance mentality? Surely we should build in safeguards for young people.
  Before hon. Members point out that young people are allowed to do many other things at the relevant age, I should add that that does not invalidate the new clause or the amendment. It does not mean, for instance, that we should provide young people with drugs or encourage them into vice. There is no reason why we should deliberately set out further to encourage gambling by young people in the national lottery, or why we should allow the deliberate targeting of young people by failing to build in safeguards to prevent that from happening.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: I declare an interest as parliamentary adviser to the Brewers Society. I support the Government on the Bill. There is no need to increase the age limit from 16 to 18, and I do not believe that the lotteries will take the form of hard gambling. This is, after all, a question of judgment, and the Government have probably reached the right decision—that 16 is the right age.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) was clearly concerned about misleading advertising, but clause 12 provides safeguards against that sort of misinformation, as does other legislation on accuracy in advertisements, allowing the Advertising Standards Authority to enforce the same.

  1005
  An anomaly might arise, because at an early stage of the Bill's progress the Government suggested that public houses would not be allowed to sell lottery tickets. Sixteen-year-olds might therefore be able to buy tickets, but those aged 18 or over, if drinking in a pub, would not be able to buy them. I see no reason for such a prohibition. Perhaps the Government feared that the lottery would be associated with gambling and that pubs, by extension, might be too.
  Pubs are increasingly seen as leisure outlets and community centres, however. That is particularly true of rural areas, where they are often the only places where residents can meet each other. Following the Government's decision to relax the licensing laws, more people below the age of 18 will visit pubs with their parents. The Government's decision acknowledges pubs' increasing role as places where families can spend time together. With 65,000 pubs in this country, we have an excellent opportunity to increase the success of the lottery system. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this subject.
  Mr. Pendry: Supporting new clauses moved by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is becoming a bit of a habit. He has already touched on most of the points that I wanted to make.
  Members of the Committee will recall that I argued that it was nonsense that bingo and the pools should be required to observe a lower age limit of 18 but that the Government should allow the sale of lottery tickets to 16-year-olds. The case for equalisation was overwhelming then and it is overwhelming still.
  There are of course two ways of bringing about parity. The Government have chosen the wrong way, and I hope that they have realised their mistake in lowering the age to 16 instead of levelling it up to 18. If consistency and fair competition were truly the Government's objectives, it would be better to confine the sale of lottery tickets to those aged 18 and above, the age observed in almost all other forms of gambling. There is a legitimate anxiety that, if the age limit is lowered to 16, some young people may become susceptible to harder forms of gambling because of their involvement with the national lottery.
  The attraction of a national lottery is not only that by buying a ticket one helps a good cause but that, if one is lucky, one could win a prize, which could be very huge if the national lottery is the success that the Government hope. I do not need to tell hon. Members that the teenage years, especially the years between 16 and 18, are extremely formative and impressionable. Although the national lottery is hardly an addictive form of gambling, it may tempt young people to experiment with other forms. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill mentioned that.
  Those of us who represent areas of great social deprivation are aware of the susceptibility of some young people, especially those who are out of work and who may see gambling as an easy way out of current difficulties and social boredom. The temptation to relieve despair through gambling, like the temptation to ease hopelessness through drinking, should not be taken lightly.
  Reducing the age at which one can be allowed to gamble to 16, although not a momentous change, will make it much easier to encourage young people to take up gambling as a recreational pursuit. The Opposition believe that such additional encouragement is undesirable. The national lottery ought to be a means of raising new money
  1006
  for good causes, and exploiting the vulnerability of young people is quite contrary to the ethos that it is supposed to represent.
  Opposition Members have always maintained that the limit should be set at 18—we argued that in Committee —in line with other forms of gambling. I hope that the Government realise that it was foolish to reduce the age to 16 instead of keeping it at 18. I hope that the Minister will not reply from a civil service brief and that he has reflected on the rather silly approach taken by the Government so far. If we seek uniformity and age parity, we should accept the new clause so ably moved by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Maxton: I am always reluctant to disagree with my Front-Bench spokesmen, but on this occasion I am afraid that I must do so, because I do not think that we should support the new clause. I shall approach the matter from a slightly different viewpoint from that taken by some hon. Members. The new clause would place an undesirable burden on those who will sell national lottery tickets. I have teenage children and I do not know how anyone is expected to be sure by appearance that a person who enters an establishment that sells lottery tickets is 16, 17 or 18.
  Mr. Corbett: What about pubs?
  Mr. Maxton: That is exactly the problem faced by many publicans. I am a rather old-fashioned believer in civil liberties, and that is why I have reservations about the fact that many pubs are insisting that young people produce some sort of identification to prove that they are 18. That is a dangerous road for those who believe in civil liberties because, increasingly, people who go to a newsagents to buy a lottery ticket will be asked to produce some sort of identification. I have a son who will soon be 19.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend looks so young.
  Mr. Maxton: I know. My son finds that not even a driving licence is now accepted in a pub as proof that he is over 18 because he could have obtained it at the age of 17. That creates pressure for some form of identity card; some of us believe that that is a dangerous route and we will resist any attempt to go down it. Even at 16 there will be some difficulties, but it is easier to determine that a person is younger than 16 than to distinguish between a 16 and an 18-year-old. I hope that the new clause will not be pushed to a vote.
  Mr. Davidson: It is with some trepidation that I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who supported me earlier. There will be some difficulty about defining age whether the limit is 16 or 18. However, in the search for profit, some people will sell outside the limit. Hon. Members have mentioned shopkeepers who distribute pools coupons to make money. Youngsters who are about two years below the statutory age will be sold tickets. If we accept a lower age limit of 16, lottery tickets will frequently be sold to 14-year-olds and youngsters of about that age.
  There are already difficulties in my area because under-age youngsters are able to buy cigarettes. The law is clear, but shopkeepers will do that irrespective of the age limit. It is inappropriate to set the limit at 16 because that

  1007
  will lead to sales to those who are 14 years of age or younger. To them, buying a lottery ticket would be a sign of maturity.
  Mr. Maxton: People of 16 can engage in what may be the biggest lottery in life by getting married. Why on earth should they not be allowed to buy lottery tickets?
  Mr. Davidson: We have never opposed the idea of people having to produce identification before they get married. Of course, people are not required to produce identification before producing children, although the Government are tackling that in another way.
  We should support the amendment because there is a real danger that financial pressures on the Director General of the National Lottery will lead to a search to expand the market for lottery tickets. That will include targeting ever younger children.
  Mr. Key: I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends know who will look silly if the amendment is pressed to a Division. This is a matter of judgment and I respect the fact that people will reach different judgments on the degree of supervision to be imposed on people of 18 or 16. It is hard to understand why the Opposition are so keen to support the pools industry but wish to restrict the sale of tickets, and therefore of pools coupons, to 18-year-olds; that is the logic of what they are saying.
  My judgment is clear. I am proud to say that I have come to the debate with a civil service brief because my civil servants have worked extremely hard for a year to get the Bill right, and it is right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have decided that 16 is the sensible age.
  The House has heard thoughtful, sensible, down-to-earth and common-sense contributions by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on this topic. When faced with the difficult problem of the sale of goods to young people, do we make it easier or more difficult? My judgment is that, if the amendment is accepted, it will increase the problem, and that would be silly.
  We heard a great deal about advertisements in the United States. But this is not the United States and such advertisements could not appear here. Our proposals are sufficient to control misleading or scurrilous advertising of the type that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) took great relish in describing to us. The Advertising Standards Authority ensures truthfulness, and clause 12 gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations about information that must be given. The powers of the director general to license operators under clause 5 and games under clause 6 also provide protection.
  Some pools companies have had occasional lapses of discretion in advertising. A few years ago, Littlewoods had to withdraw a poster campaign, based on a poster that said, "You'll never work again", because it was thought distasteful. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) is happy to support an industry that made an error of judgment like that.
  The new clause shows a patronising attitude. It is suggested that although at 16 one can get married, leave school and get a job and at 17 one can fight for one's country, one should not be able to buy a national lottery ticket before one is 18. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill
  1008
  said that the question of age limits was discussed extensively in Committee. He said that we had argued that we should logically take the age limit for small lotteries, 16, to be the age limit for buying national lottery tickets, but that he disagreed with that.
  Under clause 12, the Secretary of State can regulate for the age limit on buying national lottery tickets. I told the Committee that I was minded to set the age at 16. If the limit were set differently from that for other lotteries, retailers who might be selling both national lottery and other lottery tickets would have a hopeless task in trying to apply two different age limits. They might be put off dealing in different types of lottery and that would lead to the kind of exclusive deals about which hon. Members are concerned.
  Is the hon. Member for Mossley Hill minded to increase the limit for charity lotteries, thereby preventing 16 and 17-year-olds from buying raffle tickets, the mainstay of many church functions, let alone ward political functions and football and other sports clubs everywhere? All those small lottery operators would be done a grave disservice.
  It is logical to set the age limit for the pools at the same level, not least from a practical point of view, because often retailers will be selling both lottery tickets and pools coupons side by side. The Secretary of State would be able to change the age limit that he sets for the national lottery in the light of experience, should there be proven to be any of the dire consequences that the hon. Gentleman cranked out so predictably. The new clause is unnecessary, patronising and impractical, and should be rejected.
  In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) drew my attention to the problem about which my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) has spoken forcefully this evening and about which my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) has also spoken to me—the anomaly with pubs. I am glad that the matter has been raised. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that we were minded to regulate under clause 12 to ban the sales of tickets in pubs and licensed premises. In Committee, I was subject to representations on that point, and I have received further representations.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has recently announced potential changes in the regulation of pubs which might fundamentally change the character of the public house. I know that people were jesting when they talked about the local community centre, but they have a good point in respect of rural areas. The pub is often the focus of community life. After due consideration, we have concluded that it would not be right to regulate the sale of tickets in pubs, but that we should leave it up to the operator. A potential operator might consider that using the pub was one way to reach remote areas where the Pope is the focus—[Laughter.] Well, the hon. Member for Mossley Hill will no doubt be delighted to hear that the Pope is the focus of rural life, as indeed he probably is in some areas, but I meant to say pub.
  The pub might not be an appropriate point of sale, as the Pope might not be, if, for example, there were a preponderance of gambling and amusement machines on the premises. However, it is right that such decisions should be for the operators, in the light of the changing nature of public houses, and I hope that the way in which we have responded to the representations that have

  1009
  sensibly been made will ensure that that goes smoothly. Therefore, I hope that the House will join me in rejecting the new clause.
  Mr. Alton: I am surprised that the son of a former Bishop of Truro should confuse the 'Pope with a pub, but I suppose that the Minister can be forgiven that lapse. I am also surprised that he was so trenchant in his opposition to the new clause and so strident in his language. He waxed lyrical in his enthusiasm to promote the sale of tickets to those aged between 16 and 18. It is nonsense to reduce to absurdity the argument that, because someone buys a raffle ticket, it is all right for him to go out and do all those other things as well.
  The hon. Member for Cathcart said that, because people could get married at 16, it was all right to encourage them to gamble at 16. Many people think that 16 is rather a young age at which to make such a major decision about the rest of one's life. People who get married at such a young age, more often than people who come to such a decision later in their lives, would be wiser to wait longer. Perhaps it would be better if they did not decide so early.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Maxton: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It may be better if people wait before they get married, but is he seriously saying that we should pass a law insisting that 18 is the age at which people may get married? That is what he seems to suggest.
  Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman will be relieved to know that that is not part of the new clause. In answer to his point about when people get married, I am merely saying that that is a young age at which to take such decisions. However, that does not negative the new clause, which deals specifically with the encouragement of gambling among young people. That is a different argument about a different proposition.
  I am surprised that the Government should show such enthusiasm for doing this. The Minister said that it would be impossible to enforce the new clause, but the same argument can be applied to the sale of alcohol and to bookmakers in betting shops. They already have to distinguish between customers on the basis of age. There is also the nonsense that it is not possible to decide when somebody is aged 18, but it is possible to decide when a person is aged 16. Those are silly arguments, put forward in an attempt to discredit the new clause, which is not just about the technical question but about the principle of whether we should be encouraging gambling among young people.
  I am grateful that the House has given the matter some consideration. I hope that the Government will reflect, even if not in the context of the Bill, on the general problem of young people, many of whom gamble far too easily and readily and often steal to raise the money to feed their gambling addiction. If the national lottery does anything to stimulate that problem even further, its promoters will have a great deal to answer for. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 9

  LIMITED CARRY-FORWARD OF DIVIDENDS IN POOL COMPETITIONS
  '.—(1) Schedule 2 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (registered pool promoters) shall have effect with the following amendments.
  (2) In paragraph 14 (which enables the rules applicable to competitions promoted by registered pool promoters to contain certain provisions as to prizes)—

  (a) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—

  "(bb) that, where no competitor makes the most successful forecasts possible (taking into account the rules of the competition and the outcome of the events on which it depends), the highest prize, or shares in that prize, shall not be paid or be paid in full, and that the amount which would have been payable in the case of winning bets qualifying for, or for shares in, that prize shall be applied in increasing the amount payable in the case of winning bets qualifying for, or for shares in, the highest prize in any of the following three competitions promoted by the promoter;"; and

  (b) for "sub-paragraph (c)" there shall be substituted "sub-paragraph (bb) or (c)".

  (3) In paragraph 20 (statement to be sent by pool promoter to accountant after competition) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—

  "(bb) the total amount of prizes or shares in prizes not payable or payable in full and applicable as mentioned in paragraph 14(bb) of this Schedule;".

  (4) In paragraph 21(1) (statement to be sent by pool promoter competitors after competition), in paragraph (a) for "the aggregate prizes in" there shall be substituted "the aggregate prizes in all those competitions (whether or not payable or payable in full)".
  (5) In paragraph 23 (annual statement to be sent by pool promoter to accountant and registering authority)—

  (a) in sub-paragraph (1) for "the aggregate prizes in" there shall be substituted "the aggregate prizes in those competitions (whether or not payable or payable in full)";

  (b) in sub-paragraph (2)(a) after "competitions" there shall be inserted "(whether or not payable or payable in full)";

  (6) In section 7 of the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981 (pool betting duty) after subsection (4) (which provides that the expenses and profits taxable under subsection (1)(b) of that section are to exclude expenses provided out of stake money) there shall be inserted—
  "(4A) Where any amount applied in accordance with paragraph 14(bb) of Schedule 2 to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 in increasing the amount payable in the case of winning bets qualifying for, or for shares in, prizes would not (apart from this subsection) be treated for the purposes of subsection (4) as provided for out of the stake money, it shall be so treated.".'.—[Sir Malcolm Thornton.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Sir Malcolm Thornton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  There are some good reasons why I and other hon. Members from both sides of the House have tabled the new clause, which is supported by scores of hon. Members from all parties. It would allow the limited carrying forward of dividend, otherwise known as roll-up, in pools competitions. The Government have some way to go before we can believe, with confidence, that the pools industry will be able to compete effectively and fairly with the national lottery. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary announced in Committee the Government's decision to

  1011
  legalise the sale of pools coupons in shops and that is a welcome development and certainly a move in the right direction.
  However, the change in the law on the sale of pools coupons in shops and the right to sponsor television and radio programmes that are unrelated to football results are simply not enough in themselves to put the industry on an equal and competitive footing with the national lottery. On the basis of what my hon. Friend told the Committee, the lottery is to be allowed to roll up its prize three times, whereas the pools are prohibited from doing so at all.
  The new clause provides that in a week in which no one claims the maximum number of points on a treble chance coupon, the promoters may be permitted to carry forward a proportion of the first dividend prize to the subsequent competition. The number of occasions on which the roll-up may be permitted will be limited to three—the same number as my hon. Friend the Minister said would apply to the lottery.
  This is an important issue to the pools industry because rolling up the prize over a number of weeks is an extremely effective means of increasing the game's attractiveness to potential customers. A game that is allowed to roll up its prizes will naturally become more successful and popular than competitive games that are not allowed to do so. It is the classical means by which state lotteries abroad have the market rigged in their favour at the expense of other soft, long-odds gambling.
  No one doubts that the pools and the national lottery are equivalent forms of gambling. That point was made by the Select Committee and by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in Committee:
  "They are a form of low-stake, long-odds gambling from which the threat of social harm is small."
  That is why the Government tabled an amendment to reduce the age of pools entrants to 16, to match that for the national lottery. The two forms are so similar that they must, by the rules of the marketplace, compete for similar markets. There is nothing wrong with that. The Government have always stood for free and open competition and I hope that they always will.
  I tabled new clause 9 because I feel strongly about that issue. It seeks to allow the pools to compete freely and effectively with their closest competitor, which is something that my hon. Friend the Minister must welcome.
  In Committe, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) made similar points on a roll-up amendment. His words echoed many of my own sentiments:
  "I tabled the amendment in the spirit of fair play. I seek no advantage to the pools companies but parity on roll-up. Similar to national lottery prizes, pools prize money could be rolled up for three weeks."
  I hope that my hon. Friend feels able to support new clause 9.
  I have read reports that a number of Cabinet colleagues of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have lent their support to allowing the pools a limited roll-up. In an article in The Guardian on 21 April, my right hon and learned Friend the Home Secretary viewed the existing restrictions on pools operations as "unnecessary and bureaucratic". My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland are also reportedly
  1012
  concerned about likely job losses if the pools are not allowed to maintain their markets through fair and free competition. Allowing the industry a limited roll-up would be a big step towards ensuring that.
  I am also concerned about the job losses that would be generated by a pools industry that was robbed unfairly of its customers by having the market rigged against it. As the constituency Member of Parliament for Vernons on Merseyside and for many of the city's thousands of Littlewoods employees, I would regard it as unforgivable if my constituents lost their jobs after their companies' products were put out of business solely because of Government legislation. I am concerned not just about Liverpool; the pools industry is a healthy and competitive industry that employs thousands of people in areas of significant unemployment throughout the United Kingdom, in particular, in Glasgow and Cardiff.
  Doing the pools is a great British institution. In his excellent speech on Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke of the pools as one of the enduring characteristics of British life that must continue regardless of how far we progress towards the European single market. He said:
  "Fifty years from now, Britain will still be the country of long shadows on county grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers and pools fillers."
  I am sure that we all agree with those sentiments.
  If the lottery is to be allowed a limited roll-up, so should the pools. The reasons are that they would both be competing for similar markets; are both long-odds, low-stake competitions; they pose a low risk of social harm; and they generate sizeable sums of money for good causes—the pools more so than the national lottery, as a result of the Government's decision to set the lottery prize fund at 50 per cent.
  No sensible person can seriously accept that there is a distinction between the pools and the lottery on the basis that one is run for good causes and the other for commercial gain. That cannot be so when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes 37·5 per cent. of pools turnover in tax and the pools donate a further 10 per cent. to good causes in sport and arts and take less than 3 per cent. profit.
  I urge the House to accept new clause 9. The pools companies and the national lottery can and should be allowed to co-exist on fair and level terms. As the Bill stands, they will not.
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: We recognise and welcome the progress that was made in Committee. On Second Reading, we argued that there should broadly be a level playing field between the national lottery and the pools industry. In that regard, the Bill certainly left the Committee in a more acceptable state than it arrived. I congratulate all those responsible.
  It is good news that pools coupons will be legally available in retail outlets, including licensed premises and betting shops. That move sensibly brings the letter of the law into practice and forms an essential element of measures necessary to ensure that the pools are given a reasonable opportunity to compete with the national lottery. That is not to say that we have been completely reassured that the pools will be able to compete on fair and level terms. The change in respect of shops takes them some way towards that, but, as the Government know, there remain a number of other important changes to be made to allow the pools to compete fairly.

  1013
  Allowing the pools a limited roll-up is one. If the national lottery is to be allowed to roll up a prize three times, as it will be, so should the pools companies. We welcome new clause 9 for its attempt to redress the balance. The fact that hon. Members of all three main parties have put their names to it signals the strength of feeling on the issue.
  The words of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) have been quoted on many occasions, and they were particularly important in respect of establishing a level playing field. The Government claim to believe in fair competition. If that is the case, I hope that they will demonstrate their belief this evening by supporting the amendment.
  We are well aware of the dangers with roll-up, and in other circumstances we would like to have seen that practice denied to both the national lottery and the pools. We heard much in Committee about the detrimental social effects of the rolling up of large prizes and the frenzied ticket buying that that generates. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) outlined the dangers. He warned that lotto mania can lead to huge surges in lottery ticket buying in the days leading up to a draw. We are also aware of the syndicates of professional gamblers who exploit a rollover system through bulk ticket buying. If the national lottery is allowed a limited rollover, so should the pools. As my hon. Friends have forcefully argued today, there are too many pools employees' jobs at risk in Liverpool, Cardiff, Glasgow and London for us to accept such unequal and unfair treatment.
  As we all know, there is no intrinsic difference between the pools and the national lottery. For that reason, there can be no sound economic rationale for discriminating between the way that each is allowed to operate in the marketplace. To do so would be contrary to the principles of free and fair competition. The pools are for a long-odds chance of winning a large prize for a small, usually consistent, stake, on the basis of a modest, once a week bet. That can in no way be regarded as a harder form of gambling than the national lottery.
  If contributions to good causes are a determining factor in deciding whether one gambling activity is softer than another, the pools also make a substantial contribution. If, of course, there were any future circumstances in which roll-up could be restricted further, we should wholeheartedly support it and would seek similar restrictions for pools roll-up also. Until we obtain that guarantee, we shall support new clause 9. That will ensure that the pools companies and their employees can compete effectively alongside the national lottery.
  Anything less than a clear commitment from the Minister today that he accepts the underlying principle in new clause 9 will be unacceptable to this side of the House. If the Minister finds that the principle is one that the Government can accept but that he wants to bring it back to another place, we shall accept that. However, we will not—nor will many hon. Members on both sides of the House—accept anything less. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will respond positively and accept new clause 9.
  7 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to support new clause 9. I am also grateful for the kind words of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd).
  The Bill has come a long way since it was considered in Committee. Hon. Members have commented on the fact that people aged 16 will now be able to participate in either the pools or the national lottery and that pools coupons will be made available through retail outlets. I, more than many hon. Members who are in the Chamber, am grateful for that announcement. As you may know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my retail outlet was one of the 20,000 that distributes pools coupons until I sat on the Standing Committee, when it was pointed out to me that it was illegal.
  Immediately I started to look for the grey areas. I found only black and white, however, and therefore had to cease distribution of pools coupons in my retail outlet in Swansea. I cannot wait for the day when the Bill becomes an Act so that once again we can distribute pools coupons. The Government have gone a long way towards altering the Bill in such a way as to enable the distribution of pools coupons by retail outlets once again to become a reality.
  As for roll-up, I, too, was not convinced that a £2 million prize, rolled up three times to £6 million, would be any more attractive than the £2 million prize. When I put a £1 stake on Virginia Wade winning Wimbledon and won £16, I was absolutely delighted. I had to sit down for about three hours to get my senses back. If I won £2 million, I should probably have to be put on a life support machine.
  We must be mindful of the fact that many small pools companies exist alongside Littlewoods. They would be grateful for the opportunity to roll up their prizes so that their top prizes were more attractive in the weeks when no one won the top prize outright.
  The pools industry is extremely important to this country. It has a turnover of just under £1 billion. The Exchequer benefits to the tune of a third of a billion pounds in pools betting duty. The Sports Council and the Arts Council receive £65 million. Many rural constituencies, such as mine, benefit from having this sum of money to distribute. Moreover, the Football Trust receives £36·5 million.
  The creation of the national lottery will have a significant impact on jobs, certainly in the north-west. I know that many of the hon. Members who are in the Chamber are equally concerned about its impact on jobs. We are talking about 6,500 full-time jobs and 80,000 part-time jobs. The 80,000 part-time pools collectors do not receive massive sums of money for the coupons that they distribute, but what they do receive—£30 or £40, or even less—is an important part of their total income. We should ensure, therefore, that that part of their income is preserved.
  I support new clause 9 not only because it would help to preserve jobs, but because I believe that there should be competition. All of us want the national lottery to be a great success, with tickets sold and the profits invested in good causes. To enable the national lottery to be enthusiastic about selling as many tickets as it possibly can, we must ensure that, for it to remain enthusiastic about selling tickets, there is competition.

  1015
  The Conservative party is the party of free enterprise and competition. We want to ensure that the national lottery does not have a monopoly and does not rest on its laurels. I have sufficient faith in the pools companies to believe that they will try to ensure that they do not disappear. Both they and the national lottery will benefit from fair competition. Then the good causes to which I have referred will also benefit.
  The point was made in Committee that we did not want a level playing field to be created for the pools companies and the national lottery. It is not so much a question of a level playing field as of adjacent playing fields. We want to ensure that one of the players is not kicked off the pitch and that both playing fields can exist side by side, with healthy competition between them. By giving life to one form of gambling, the national lottery, we should not kill off another form of gambling, the pools. Both are useful as a means of raising funds and creating jobs. I hope that the principle of new clause 9 will be accepted.
  Mr. Alton: On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:
  "I am also minded to outlaw the discounting of tickets and limiting rollover, which will help to avoid abuse."—[Official Report, 25 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 722.]
  It would have been better if no allowance for rollover had been made in the Bill, for the reasons which the Secretary of State advanced on Second Reading—that rollover allows syndicates to develop and leads to abuse. We should be concerned about the fact that rolling up prizes could lead to the discrediting of the national lottery and possibly, in due course, to the discrediting of the football pools.
  I shall support the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) because I believe that, if the provision is being made available for the lottery. It should also be made available for the football pools. However, it would have been better if the principle of equality were applied by allowing neither to roll over their prizes. Of course, it is still not too late for the Government to consider that idea.
  The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) rightly said that there should be fair and free competition but not a monopolistic practice. The lottery should certainly not be allowed to set out like a whale to swallow the minnows in the sea around it. It would be highly undesirable if the Bill were to complete its Report stage with provisions allowing only the national lottery but not the pools to roll over.
  The hon. Member for Ribble Valley also mentioned the size of prizes. I am very apprehensive about such large prizes being offered. The devastating effect on the life of an average family of winning such large prizes has not been properly considered. I would prefer more modest prizes to be awarded, perhaps on a wider basis with smaller amounts of money being given to a larger number of winners. I am worried that we are feeding the idea that people should always want bigger, faster, better and more, which seems to be a feature of our society. It may be rather old-fashioned to say so, but we should not deliberately stimulate such an idea. I hope that the Government will consider that issue before the Bill reaches another place.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I am glad to have caught your eye at this stage in the proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I may be able to help the House to reach a conclusion a little more speedily.
  Choosing my words carefully when speaking to amendments ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who has made a similar case today, I said that the Government remained to be persuaded that the rollover facility for the pools was necessary or desirable. In particular, I said that the circumstances in which the pools companies proposed to roll over prize money did not seem to be altogether fair and were certainly quite different from those in which the rollover would operate for the national lottery.
  My hon. Friend's amendments would also have given the pools companies a free hand to roll over prize money in any circumstances they cared to invent, the only restriction being a limit of three in the number of successive rollovers. Had we accepted the amendments, the result would have been not fair competition between the pools and the national lottery but a clear competitive edge for the pools.
  New clause 9, ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), responds helpfully to some of the criticisms that I made in Committee. By providing for more limited rollover facilities, the new clause is a move in the right direction, but I regret that it does not go far enough. Let me take a few minutes to explain my continuing reservations.
  We have been told by the big three pools companies that, under their present rules, the rollover arrangements set out in the new clause would produce six rollovers a year for Littlewoods, about a dozen for Vernons and perhaps 26 for Zetters. Of course, those figures are estimates; the actual number of rollovers could turn out to be higher. In any event, it would be open to the pools companies to change their rules of competition to produce more frequent rollovers. Let us compare that with what is likely to happen to the national lottery.
  The experience of most other European state lotteries suggests that rollovers are used sparingly. Single rollovers might happen perhaps once or twice a year whereas successive rollovers would be extremely rare. We expect the operator of the national lottery to set the odds so as to produce a similar pattern in this country. The operator will, regardless, need to obtain prior clearance for the rules for any particular lottery from the Director General Office of the National Lottery.
  Mr. Ashton: The Minister cites only the European experience. When I, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) and other members of the Select Committee went to America, we found that rollover occurred every week. People were convinced that that whipped up the frenzy about the big prize on Saturday night and that that was what brought in the money.
  Mr. Lloyd: I accept that there are other ways of running national lotteries. Most lotteries abroad have rollovers only twice or three times a year, which is what we expect in this country, but I accept that other countries do things differently.
  As I was saying, the pools companies would be free to set their own rules. However, the director general will want to ensure—I direct my remarks especially to the hon.

  1017
  Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)—that the rules are fair to the participants, and he will also be aware of public feeling against excessive first prizes. That point was made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton).
  New clause 9 would not, therefore, produce the level playing field sought by so many hon. Members. The national lottery, operating under the close supervision of Oflot, would roll over prize money perhaps once or twice a year. In contrast, the football pools would have rollovers six or more times a year and would have a free hand to change their rules to engineer more frequent rollovers. In such circumstances, the national lottery would—to repeat a phrase that has already been used—have the market rigged against it.
  7.15 pm
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy: This is the first time that I have heard that argument. I understood that rollover occurred when a prize was not won in the draw, whether on the pools or in the lottery. How can one predict with such apparent accuracy how many rollovers there will be on the pools or in the lottery?
  Mr. Lloyd: By chance. There are odds which can be predicted to a certain extent in the way that the rules are drawn up. The rules which the pools company suggested to us initially, and which I said in Committee I did not find very convincing or fair, meant that if there were one winner, he would receive the whole prize. However, if there were two winners, instead of them halving the prize between them, half would be rolled over for the following week and the two winners would each get a quarter of the prize. That was one suggestion.
  The hon. Member for Mossley Hill mentioned spiralling jackpots. The fear was expressed in Committee that we could be turning the United Kingdom into a Las Vegas island. The new clause would allow that to happen but only with the pools, not with the national lottery. It would stoke up jackpots without let or hindrance. There would be pressure for the national lottery to compete and to ensure that it too had rollovers at least six times a year, perhaps more. The Bill could come to be seen as a Trojan horse that unleashed an explosion of jackpots—if jackpots can explode—for which I do not think the public would thank us in the long run.
  For those reasons, I cannot accept new clause 9 in its present form. However, the passion and eloquence behind and in front of me, some of which I feel is still pent up and not yet unleashed—perhaps it will be unleashed after I have sat down—is very compelling. I am glad to be able to say that I am convinced that there is a good case for allowing the football pools to operate limited rollovers similar to the national lottery.
  I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, those who have spoken in favour of the new clause and those who would have liked to have done so that we intend to introduce our own proposals in another place to ensure that where rollover is involved the pools will enjoy similar freedom and opportunity to those enjoyed by the national lottery. I think that that was what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) wanted.
  In view of my assurance, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that he has achieved his primary purpose in
  1018
  tabling the new clause and will be willing to withdrawn it so that the Government can introduce one in another place in due course.
  Sir Malcolm Thornton: Perhaps I can assist the House and avoid the unseemly spectacle of so much pent-up emotion being unleashed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister, who is correct. I seek parity between the pools and the lottery, and nothing more. In view of his assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 10

  POWERS AND DUTIES OF DIRECTOR GENERAL
  '(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe the powers and duties of the Director General under this Part; and such regulations shall be subject to an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament.
  (2) The Director General shall exercise his functions under this Part in the manner he considers the most likely to secure—

  (a) that the National Lottery is run, and every lottery that forms part of it is promoted, with all due propriety, and

  (b) that the interests of every participant in a lottery that forms part of the National Lottery are protected.

  (3) Subject to subsection (2), the Director General shall in exercising those functions do his best to secure that the net proceeds of the National Lottery are as great as possible.
  (4) In subsection (3) "the net proceeds of the National Lottery" means the sums that are paid to the Secretary of State by virtue of section 5(6).'.—[Sir Ivan Lawrence.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following amendments: No. 123, in clause 4, page 2, leave out lines 6 to 18.
  No. 125, in clause 5, page 2, line 20, leave out 'body corporate', and insert 'charitable foundation.'.
  No. 124, in page 2, line 39, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director-General.'.
  No. 126, in clause 6, page 3, line 7, leave out 'body corporate' and insert 'charitable foundation.'.
  No. 127, in clause 11, page 5, leave out lines 23 to 29.
  No. 128, in clause 19, page 9, line 9, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director-General.'.
  No. 129, in page 9, line 11, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'The Director-General.'.
  No. 130, in clause 20, page 9, line 15, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director-General.'.
  No. 131, in clause 22, in page 10, line 8, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director-General.'.
  No. 132, in clause 24, in page 10, line 28, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director-General.'.
  No. 133, in page 10, line 33, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director-General.'.
  No. 134, in page 10, line 33, leave out 'by order'.
  No. 135, in page 10, line 37, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director-General.'.
  No. 136, in page 10, line 41, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director-General.'.
  No. 137, in page 10, line 44, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director General.'.
  No. 138, in page 11, line 1, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director General'.
  No. 139, in clause 25, page 11, line 6, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director General'.
  No. 140, in page 11, line 6, leave out
  'by order amend section 20(3) so as to'.
  No. 141, in page 11, line 8, leave out 'there' and insert in section 20(3)'.
  No. 142, in page 11, line 19, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director General'.
  No. 143, in page 11, line 19, leave out
  'by order amend subsection (1), (2), (3) or (4) of section 21 so as'.
  No. 144, in clause 26, page 11, line 21, leave out 'to'.
  No. 145, in page 11, line 23, leave out first 'to'.
  No. 146, in page 11, line 25, leave out 'to'.
  No. 147, in page 11, line 26, leave out 'to'.
  No. 148, in page 11, line 28, leave out 'amendment' and insert 'change'.
  No. 149, in page 11, line 28, leave out 'the amended subsection' and insert 'it'.
  No. 150, in page 11, leave out lines 37 to 42.
  No. 151, in page 11, line 44, leave out 'an order', and insert 'decisions'.
  No. 152, in page 11, line 45, leave out 'order' and insert 'decisions'.
  No. 153, in page 12, leave out lines 1 to 5.
  No. 154, in clause 27, page 12, line 18, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Director General'.
  No. 155, in page 12, line 18, leave out 'by order'.
  No. 156, in clause 29, page 13, line 9, leave out 'Secretary of State', and insert 'Director General.'.
  No. 157, in page 13, leave out 'the order under section 26(1) mentioned in that paragraph has been made' and insert
  'action has been taken in accordance with section 26(1).'.
  No. 158, in page 13, line 12, leave out 'order' and insert 'action.'.
  No. 159, in clause 58, page 22, line 20, leave out
  'on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint; and different dates may be so appointed for different provisions or for different purposes',
  and insert
  'six months after receiving Royal Assent.'.
  No. 197, in schedule 2, page 24, line 30, after 'staff, insert 'and advisers'.
  No. 160, in page 24, line 30, leave out from 'determine' to end of line 32.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I can without immodesty claim some part in the conception of the thoroughly desirable institution of a national lottery that will benefit such good causes as the arts, sport, heritage and charities. Therefore, I have a kind of parental interest in the Bill. However, I am alarmed at the direction in which it looks as though the legislation is moving.
  Before I explain my reasons, may I say how immensely grateful I am to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) who, when he was Home Secretary, took up the idea of a national lottery for good causes, and to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the imagination that he showed in making the national lottery an election commitment. I am also grateful to those of my right hon. Friends who have changed their minds on
  1020
  the matter and now support the idea, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage and his Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, and to the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), for turning the idea into a reality and for dealing with everyone's concerns so sensitively as the Bill has passed through its Committee stage and is now passing through its remaining stages. I hope that my right hon. Friends will treat what I am about to say with their customary consideration and seriousness, and that nothing that I say will be taken as diminishing their achievement.
  In a nutshell, I am unhappy to see the national lottery developing alarming features which are not at all what I had in mind. First, there is far too much involvement by the Secretary of State and the Government, and too little independent arm's-length control without Government interference. Secondly, big business will be involved. What I had in mind was a lottery sponsored and supervised by the Government but run in all its essential elements not by big business but by a charitable foundation.
  I was not permitted to serve on the Standing Committee, doubtless on the usual ground that the fewer people serving on a Standing Committee who have any knowledge of the subject the better, because such people would delay the proceedings with questions and suggestions for improvement. Even after the closer consideration that the Bill has been given in Committee, it is still beginning to look very different from what I had in mind.
  I am encouraged to know that I am not alone in believing that the Government should keep the lottery at arm's length, and keep it as charitable as they can. Paragraph 13.62 of the report of the Royal Commission that considered a lottery from 1976 to 1978 said:
  "One of the most appealing features of an independently administered but state sponsored national lottery for good causes is that it escapes or by-passes the normal Government decision making procedures for resource allocation. In practice, a Government of any party, subject to day to day public and political pressures, finds it impossible to devote more than meagre resources to good causes of the kind that are desirable rather than essential. But the paradox is that while each individual cause may not be essential, it is essential for the health of our community that some resources are devoted to such purposes. There is a crucial need in our society for a source of substantial funds to provide support of a kind with which any Government experiences great difficulty. The objective should not be to replace the function of central Government but rather to fill the gap created by the inevitable disappearance, in a society where the accumulation of private wealth has become much more difficult, of private support of worthy causes on a large scale. (There will be no new Nuffield Foundations.) The proceeds of a national lottery should not only be allocated outside the normal Government machinery: they should be immune, subject to annual scrutiny by Parliament, from Government influence."
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley said, when he made his contribution to the matter, that he—I cannot for the moment find the quotation—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. May I assist the hon. and learned Gentleman? He is presumably looking up his quotation about the powers and duties of the director general. That would help us forward.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Oh yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of course I am addressing the matter of the director general and the charitable foundation, which are the subject

  1021
  matter of the amendments selected by Madam Speaker. I am not wandering one inch away from that, but I must—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. For a few seconds the hon. and learned Gentleman did not appear to be wandering anywhere. I was just trying to help him.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: That was very kind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that a little good humour will leaven what might otherwise might be the tedium of my argument. I was saying that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, the former Home Secretary, also supported in his speeches the idea that the national lottery should be kept at arm's length from Government.
  On the second limb of my amendments, the Royal Commission said:
  "In this way a public body which we suggest should be called the National Lottery Board, analogous to the charitable foundations established in former yews by individuals, would help many good causes across a wide spectrum of different activities. A national lottery for good causes is, therefore, a rare opportunity to improve, indirectly if not directly, the quality of British life."
  The Royal Commission had in mind a charitable foundation, not a lottery run by big business.
  Sadly, although those two matters are fundamental to the direction that the national lottery will take, I believe that no amendment along the lines that I have suggested was tabled in Committee, nor was the point extensively argued or discussed, if it was discussed at all. Unfortunately, when I made my speech on Second Reading I did not remember that I had been called at a time when there was a 10-minute limit on speeches, so just as I was about to voice my concerns about the Bill, I was stopped. If the Official Report is correct, I was stopped a minute before my time. Had I had that extra minute I would have been able to float the subjects and they would have been taken up in Committee. That is why I have been left to table the amendments and the new clause, which I hope the Government will consider.
  I believe that the Government should be more at arm's length from the lottery, because what is needed in that great enterprise—it is an exciting, fun enterprise, which we hope will stimulate the British people's imagination—is not the dead hand of the state, which the Government have turned away from everywhere else, but the imaginative stimulation of an independent decision-making procedure.
  An agency is needed. In every other area, we are moving towards agencies at arm's length, agencies with directors general, and we should not be inhibited from following here the same process which we think is so important in many other areas of our political life.
  So long as the Secretary of State has control of the purse strings, the state lottery will be vulnerable to the greedy and lustful attentions of any future hard-pressed Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that Conservative Chancellors will not be hard-pressed or greedy as the years move on, but we cannot guarantee that that will be the position for all time.
  It was the intention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley not to substitute lottery money for money that might be raised by taxation. He said in the House that he was against additionality. He said:
  "Once fully developed, it could raise up to £1 billion a year for good causes. I must emphasise that this will be additional funding. The Government do not intend that the money
  1022
  provided from the lottery should substitute for existing expenditure programmes. Nor do we believe that lottery proceeds should go to the main areas of public expenditure, such as the national health service. These services are of fundamental importance to the community and must continue to be funded by the Exchequer in the normal way." —[Official Report, 6 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 563.]
  I apologise to my right hon. Friend for the way in which I have delivered what would have been a perfect delivery coming from him.
  7.30 pm
  The point is this. Where is my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley? He is no longer Home Secretary and no longer a Minister in charge of these matters. He is now on the relatively powerless Back Benches with the rest of us. Such undertakings cannot be guaranteed from Government to Government. All that can guarantee that there will be no additionality is the enshrinement of protective measures in the Bill. The most important of those would be to take away the power of the Secretary of State to control the running of the national lottery. That point should be enshrined in the Bill.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: There is already additionality in the national health service budget. Scanners, for example, are provided almost entirely through public subscription by the running of local lotteries and other activities. Of the 78 scanners purchased in England, 52 were purchased by the local community and the resources for them are still being provided by the local community. The Department of Health gives no money for the maintenance of those scanners. The problem raised by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) is already happening. The Government should address themselves to his comments and should give some concrete commitment. If they do not, additionality will come into play in a range of other services.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I half agree with the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I see no reason why the desire of the community to raise money for important equipment for its local hospital should be stopped, but I am concerned that no part of the essence of the national health service or of any such vital control activities should be funded out of the national lottery. Such areas should be funded out of taxation in the normal way and that should remain the case. There should be no temptation for the Government to use the national lottery for such purposes, and that is why I quoted the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley. As the Minister then in charge of the lottery, he stated that view.
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: My hon. and learned Friend spoke of the relative powerlessness of Back-Bench Members. It was such relatively powerless hon. Members who secured from the Minister a valuable commitment, which is embodied in new clause 7, that bodies that receive funds from the national lottery will have to account wholly separately for the moneys they receive. Although that will not ring-fence the money in the way that some people would like, it will bring about total transparency so that all of us in the Chamber and people elsewhere can see how the funds are being used. We can then make our own comparison with Government funding.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: That is a substantial step forward, and I welcome it as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) has done. However, when the Minister turns to Back-Bench Members, whatever their power, and says, "It is vital for the maintenance of the national health service that we should decide to use some of the lottery money," will my hon. Friend go into the Lobby against the Government and against the party? He may well be as brave as some of my hon. Friends have been in the debates on the Maastricht treaty, but the point is that they are not winning. With the best will in the world, ring fencing cannot be achieved unless we take away some of the powers given to the Secretary of State. I say nothing against him personally, because I know that he will operate the lottery with as much good will as is humanly possible.
  I have no doubt that the same undertaking that there would be no additionality was given about the Irish state lottery. But, as a journalist said in The Irish Times last week, the Irish lottery is accused of deviating
  "so far from the original intentions of providing funds for arts, sports and community development, and it has largely become a slush fund to buttress inadequate Exchequer spending."
  I do not know how accurate that view is, but I believe that it shows that, six months or so into a national lottery, it can be easy for a modern Government to turn to the lottery to fund some of their necessary state expenditure.
  We must realise that the more money is taken in tax from the lottery, the less will be available for art, for sport, for heritage and for charities. Irish state funding for sport was reduced dramatically shortly after the lottery started. The purposes of the lottery have been modified and sport has suffered. Ireland still does not have enough Olympic-sized swimming pools, and it has almost no large sports arenas. As Mary Harney, a prominent Irish politician, said last week at a conference in England on the national lottery, there is a need to make the lottery "politician-proof".
  The lottery will be tax-productive enough without tax being deducted from the institution itself at source. It will generate thousands of jobs. It will make small businesses and corner shops more productive and thus keep them in existence. It will stimulate the sport, arts, heritage and construction industries. Increased taxes will roll in. If so much power is given to the Secretary of State that he is able to introduce taxation at source for the lottery, the good causes will lose out all along the line.
  That is why I tabled amendments Nos. 123 and 127, with 24 consequential amendments. I suggest in those amendments that the powers given to the Secretary of State should be transferred to an arm's-length director general. Amendment No.124 seeks to delete the requirement that the licensee shall pay such sums of money to the Secretary of State as the Secretary of State shall from time to time require.
  The new clause would strengthen the powers of the director general. I hope that I am not alone in preferring a national lottery that is not in the Government's pocket. If the public believe it to be a Government activity, they may say, "We have given already" when the lottery seller invites their participation. Sport, arts, heritage and charities will be the losers.
  The reasons why I believe that the lottery should be run as a charitable foundation are linked to my first point, as
  1024
  has been accepted in the grouping of amendments. People will support a charity, but they will be less willing to support the Exchequer. A charitable foundation properly led and guided by philanthropists can be better trusted to spend the money than a Government—even this Government—can be.
  There are even more cogent reasons for having a charitable foundation rather than big business in control. The pools, which are big business, manage to devote only 27 per cent. of their take to prizes, while 32 per cent. of their turnover goes in expenses and profits.
  A recent article in one of the national papers reported the expectations of prospective operators as being £100 million of profit a year. I have nothing against profit; our free enterprise system depends on it. However, if that profit diminishes the purposes of the national lottery, and if it deprives art, sport, heritage and the charities of £100 million a year, I am against it. We set up a national lottery so that the money should go to those causes.
  The more big business becomes involved for profit, the more difficult it may prove to keep the workings of the national lottery free from abuse and scandal, either of which would destroy public confidence in the institution. Those involved in organised crime will be looking with greedy eyes at the profits of lotteries. A charitable foundation, properly run and controlled, will make their intervention less likely.
  For those reasons, I have tabled amendments Nos. 125 and 126, which provide that the director general may license a charitable foundation to run the lottery, and not a body corporate—in other words, big business. I hope that I will not be alone in preferring a charitable national lottery to a lottery run by big business. The public are more likely to respond if they feel that a profit is not being made out of giving for good causes.
  The new national lottery that is shortly to be born will be an immense force for good. When it gets going, the quality of our nation's life will benefit immensely. Up to £3 billion of additional finance will be raised, and £1 billion will be available to use for good causes. There will be improvements in our sports, with more stadiums, running tracks and swimming pools; in our arts, with enormous scope for more theatres and music; in our heritage and the protection of our national history and buildings; and in our charities—although they may or may not be adversely affected by the idea of the national lottery.
  Perhaps most important of all, our children will grow up in a society t hat is physically and mentally healthier. They will have less need to take to the streets or look to crime for diversion or peer approval. Our society will be calmer, safer, healthier and more stable.
  We must get the national lottery right: it must not get off on the wrong tack. I believe that the dead hand of Government and the dangerous and unnecessary hand of big business in running what is essentially a chartiable undertaking—which will be enormous fun if it is properly run—are simply not desirable. If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State does not have time to consider these important measures today, I hope that he will at least undertake to think further on them. I look forward to the issue being pursued further—if necessary—in the other place.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I support new clause 10 and the amendments grouped with it, especially amendment No. 197, which provides that the director general may appoint

  1025
  such staff as he may determine. The intention behind the new clause and amendments is to stop the Government hijacking the national lottery, which they seem to me to have done. The amendments provide the basis for a hands-off operation to be conducted by an independent charitable foundation totally independent of the Government rather than by a profit-making organisation —not least because such arrangements will generate more trust among those in the community.
  The arguments are simple and straightforward. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) has covered them, so I shall be brief. There can always be the imputation of political patronage in the allocations determined by a Government body or agency. That imputation is always there and will always be made. The hon. and learned Member for Burton quoted The Irish Times, which talked of the Irish lottery being used as a slush fund: political imputations were being made about the allocations. This Government sincerely and honestly trust this Government. We can say objectively that they are as pure as driven slush, but there is always the imputation that the funds will be used in that fashion unless an independent charitable foundation handles them. I want to ensure that that happens, and the amendments provide the basis for that.
  7.45 pm
  The amendments tackle a second problem—the danger that the Government will use the proceeds of the lottery as a substitute for funds allocated to the arts, sport or other purposes which should properly be sustained by the Government. The lottery promotion company, which put forward the idea of the establishment of a charitable body to run the lottery, has sensibly suggested that: the management of that arm's-length structure should include representatives of the Arts Council, the Sports Council, the National Trust and so on. That will ensure not only proper co-ordination but that the lottery money is not being used as a substitute for Arts Council or Sports Council funding. The lottery represents a great opportunity, but if lottery money is simply used as a substitute for other forms of spending that are properly the responsibility of the Government, that opportunity will be missed.
  We must ensure that we are talking not about substitute spending but about additional spending. In that sense, an independent body—particularly a charitable foundation —could act as a court of appeal. These days, if one develops an enemy on the Arts Council, one does not get one's grant. if there is an additional source of funding in the form of an independent charitable body, there can be a court of appeal.
  A further great advantage of a charitable body is that it will enable us to avoid both the bureaucracy of a governmental body and the profiteering orientation of a lottery run by a private company. We certainly want to avoid the high administrative expenditure attached to other bodies. Amazingly, the Arts Council costs £7·8 million a year in administrative expenses alone. The administration costs of the Sports Council are £9·5 million a year and the regional arts bodies cost £8·3 million a year to run, which means that 20 per cent. of the money that they distribute goes in administrative expenses.
  It is crucial that the punters know that all the money is going to dedicated purposes, that the overheads are low and that the lottery is run by a charitable organisation that
  1026
  they can trust. An independent charitable organisation can also give the lottery a long-term sense of purpose rather than its zig-zagging every which way in response to pressures from the Government.
  The lottery represents one of the most exciting opportunities that we have had for many years. It gives us the opportunity to bring facilities to areas outside London, and I am anxious that money should be spent on a considerable scale outside London.
  I used to go on holiday every year to a little village called Beg Meil in Brittany. It was enormously exciting to find that it had its own maison de culture—a centre for the performing arts, for exhibitions and for workshops and where facilities were made available for craftsmen and artists. All that was provided locally for a small community of about 1,000 people. Just think what the opportunities would be if we could provide in Grimsby the sort of auditorium that we need to attract theatre companies and to put on local performances, orchestral concerts, opera and pop. Most communities—indeed all communities—need such facilities, which could be provided from the funding that the national lottery will provide if it is efficiently and effectively run.
  We have the opportunity of a cultural renaissance and provision of facilities on a huge scale outside London in communities which need them and which are deprived of them at present—if we run the national lottery on the proper basis for which the amendments provide.
  Mr. Corbett: I shall be very brief. Ever since the idea of a national lottery was first mooted, there has been a debate about the best basis on which to establish it. The Library issued an intriguing note in January about the history of lotteries in Britain. It seems that they all collapsed in scandal. Although memories of such things may not he fresh in the minds of those in the Department of National Heritage, I have no doubt that they are fresh in the minds of those in the Home Office. If we are to run a lottery for the purposes set out in the Bill, all the best and sensible steps must be taken to safeguard the interests of those who participate in the lottery so that some of their ticket money goes to good causes.
  I understand the amazement of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) about the fact that the Government have chosen to run the lottery almost as a nationalised lottery instead of relying on the private sector to deliver it with the necessary safeguards from this place.
  We debated such issues on Second Reading and in Committee. We must ensure that the moneys generated by the national lottery in no way substitute for the proper investment of public funds in the good causes listed in the Bill. It is proper that there should be concern about that point.
  We were frustrated when we tried to write that provision into the Bill, partly because it was not the Committee's concern to set the level at which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would dip his fingers into the price of tickets, and partly for the broad reason that levels of spending by Governments year on year will alter for a variety of reasons, some good and some bad. There is no reason why those levels should not change over time.
  It is difficult to nail down something that is moving. We have now decided that we want what my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) has described as transparent accounts so that, as the hon.

  1027
  Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, when we see the accounts and compare them with the level of Government spending in that financial year, we can draw our own conclusions about whether any substitution has taken place.
  The ambition to avoid substitution is perfectly clear and I believe that that ambition is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. On those grounds, there is a great attraction in the new clause and the amendments suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Burton. However, I must point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—I saw the Home Secretary in the Chamber a moment or two ago and perhaps he has been bought another pair of shoes—that it is not clear from the amendments whether the setting up of a charitable foundation would mean that no tax would be payable on the price of a ticket.
  If there is any form of tax, one of the ambitions to make it impossible for the Government to engage in substitution would go out the window. While there is a tax, demonstably it can be altered over time. It can go up or down and I suspect that I know in which direction it is likely to go.
  In an enterprise of this kind, we are concerned to ensure that there is more to it than simply the making of money. It is not that we are anti-profit, but the exercise is not wholly or mainly about putting dividends into the pockets of private people. The whole purpose of the lottery, as described by the Secretary of State, the Minister and others, is to raise new money for the good causes on the face of the Bill. If that is the case, I see risks in relying on the private sector to ensure that that is achieved in an open and accountable way, as is broadly proposed in the Bill, because the private sector will face other pressures.
  The Minister may want to think very deeply about my next point before the lottery is up and running. Under the arrangements proposed by the Government, the lottery will rely to a large extent on the competence of the people in the distribution bodies who will need to build on and extend the skills that they presently exercise when handling money from Government by way of grants.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby referred to what, on the face of it, appears to be a fairly high proportion of the moneys that go on administration. The Minister will be as aware as I am of criticisms which are made from time to time about what I would broadly describe as bureaucracy around the Arts Council and the Sports Council. Such claims are perhaps easily made.
  The Sports Council, the Arts Council and similar bodies were designed to listen to, meet and represent the constituent bodies that are part of the particular sectors of sport, the arts or whatever. Trying to make such a body more accountable and democratic will cost more in administration than a purely commercial exercise. There is a price tag involved, although it need not be a large amount.
  That is a price worth paying to achieve that involvement. It is also a price worth paying to have bodies that are open and accountable to those on whose behalf they were set up by the House and, in addition,
  1028
  accountable to the House where—if not on the Floor of the House then through the Select Committee system—they can be asked to explain what they have been up to.
  I do not want to finish before paying tribute, as I am sure we all do, to the work of Denis Vaughan, the executive director of the Lottery Promotion Company. He has been extremely persistent in his efforts to get a national lottery off the ground. He feels—I perhaps share this sentiment to some extent—that his case, which is reflected in the amendments, has not received a satisfactory response from the Government. The Government have not established whether their proposal is unarguably better than the charitable foundation route suggested.
  Even at this late stage, and before the Bill goes to another place, the Government should take another look at the mechanics and return to the position as it was when we set out to put the Bill on the statute book. We should try to have a system that can persuade people that there is no intention to have substitution. Although I accept that, it must be demonstrated. Perhaps we can find a better way to demonstrate that to people whom we want to participate in the national lottery.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I welcome the tribute that the hon. Gentleman has bestowed on Denis Vaughan and the Lottery Promotion Company, but does he realise that Denis Vaughan is not alone in his view? Millions of people would prefer the lottery to be run as a charitable foundation, rather than as big business: they would like it to be a free foundation, rather than being in the grip of the Secretary of State and the director general.
  Mr. Corbett: That is an important point, but, although the mechanics involved in achieving the desired result are not unimportant, the central issue is substitution. I would have been more impressed by the case that has been made had it been founded on the principle that the Chancellor should take no tax from a charitable foundation. That may or may not be possible.
  I know that the Government are aware of our concerns. Perhaps, in the other place, they will find a way to demonstrate that the fears expressed by some hon. Members today bear no relation to their intentions.
  8 pm
  Mr. Key: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) has done for some years. He must be very proud of the progress that the Bill has made, but he must also be frustrated by the fact that it is not proceeding in the exact form that he planned. Having read the debate that he secured just over a year ago, before the general election, I know that his idea of a national lottery attracted wide support—and someone else who has attracted wide support and has campaigned for years is Denis Vaughan, to whom tribute has already been paid.
  Let me answer some of the specific points that have been made before dealing with the principles. New clause 10 seeks to allow Parliament to prescribe the powers and duties of the director general by affirmative resolution of both Houses; that, of course, is already in the Bill. Amendment No. 127 would leave the Secretary of State with no means of controlling, for example, certain sorts of game that might be considered undesirable on social policy grounds, but which would not give the director general similar cause for concern.

  1029
  Amendments Nos. 124 and 128 to 158 would change the director general's role entirely: instead of taking sole charge of the regulation of the lottery and the licensing of the game—which together would constitute no small task —the director general would also have a controlling role in the distribution of the money available for good causes.
  One of the strongest points that emerged from the consultation period that followed the White Paper's publication last year was that the functions of running the game and distributing the money should be kept separate. The powers that the amendments would give the director general would allow him to decide on, for example, changes in the shares going to each of the five beneficiary sectors and on the matters that the distributing bodies should take into account when deciding on grant applications.
  Amendment No. 160 would give the director general complete discretion in regard to the number of staff in Oflot, and their pay and conditions. Amendments Nos. 125 and 126 would make it a statutory requirement that the licence to run the lottery, and the licences to run games as part of the lottery, could be held only by a charitable foundation. There is nothing to suggest that a charitable organisation would be able to introduce a more successful United Kingdom lottery than any other organisation. Amendment No. 159 would remove the Secretary of State's power to enforce the Bill's provisions as appropriate—a power that is not unusual in legislation.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton is inviting us to go back to the drawing board—to produce a completely different national lottery. Let me make it clear that the Government have been thinking about and working on the lottery idea for more than a year. We have sought advice widely; we have examined the experience of more than 50 lotteries around the world. We have taken a view on a number of difficult issues and have come up with an animal which is indeed rather different from the original proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) before the general election. We have done that for good reasons—precisely the same reasons that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton now suggests that we consider.
  First, there is the suggestion that the lottery should be politician-free. Everything that the Bill is designed to achieve is indeed at arm's length from Ministers. Ministers will not be able to decide who is given any money; that will be entirely up to the distributing bodies. We decided to establish more than one such body, for the good reason that a single body would constitute another substantial bureacracy, duplicating the expertise that already existed in the bodies we chose—the Sports Council, the Arts Council and the National Heritage Memorial Fund. We decided that, rather than establishing a single ministerial-led body to deal with charities, it would be far better to establish a system with the charities board that would have the confidence of charities, which would know that it would distribute money fairly between charities and across the nation.
  A different set of considerations apply to getting the money in. We felt that the efficiency of the lottery should be paramount and that the maximum possible sum should be raised for good causes. There are various ways of approaching that aim. We decided that the most efficient private-sector operations should be invited to compete and that competitive tendering was most likely to put
  1030
  downward pressure on profits, to ensure that excess profits were eliminated and to maximise the efficiency of the machinery for securing the money.
  There is, of course, another overriding factor, in the form of the members of the public who are to part with good money. The main objective of the lottery is to provide fun and prizes for those who put up the stakes. We decided—admittedly, it was not a difficult judgment to make—that the chance of winning was what would encourage people to have a bit of fun, in the same spirit in which they might buy a raffle ticket for their local church or a political party. We felt that people's motives for taking part in a national lottery would be quite different from their motives in giving money to a charity or other good cause at a time of crisis. We believe that those motives will continue to flourish in this country, as in others. There should be no confusion in people's minds between charities and the efficiency of a national lottery.
  Mr. Tracey: The House appreciates the way in which my hon. Friend is setting out the argument, but he must be aware that, in one regard, the lottery is not politician-free. I refer to the level of taxation. The public, and the various good causes that will receive the proceeds of the lottery, are still very unhappy, even with a 12 per cent. rate. I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that he had originally envisaged a higher rate, but 12 per cent. is still too high.
  Mr. Key: I was coming to that, as they say. The taxation issue is crucial. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley and others always envisaged a tax take; it is a fallacy to pretend that, if the whole operation were run as a charitable foundation, it would somehow escape taxation. Taxation is right for a national lottery because expenditure is displaced from other parts of the economy on which tax would be levied.
  Mr. Renton: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend in full flood, but I must tell him that I disagree with his comment about the White Paper produced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). As Minister for the Arts at the time, I played a part in its composition: perhaps over-optimistically, we felt that we had a real chance of getting away with no tax at all. [Laughterter..] I understand why hon. Members laugh at our naivety, but I am merely taking up my hon. Friend the Minister.
  I fully understand the work that has gone into developing the model in the past year, and that other models around the world have been looked at. But, as my hon. Friend will know, the Irish national lottery, which I visited twice and which impressed me with the way in which it was run, pays no tax. It is an arm of the treasury, but it pays no tax. We hoped that perhaps we would get
  Another point that my hon. Friend may consider—forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I shall bring my intervention to a close soon—is that the real difficulty is that if an arts company already does not find favour with the Arts Council for subjective reasons, perhaps because it does not like the quality of its performances, and therefore does not receive the amount of subsidy for its current expenses which it feels that it deserves, it will have to go back to the same lady bountiful for its capital requirements from the national lottery. It could lose on both counts.
  Mr. Key: My right hon. Friend is far more experienced in the art of politics and the art of the possible than me, but he was perhaps over-optimistic in thinking that there might be no tax on the national lottery. Of course, he was there and I was not. If he says that that is what he and the Government envisaged at that time, I accept it. But it was always my understanding that it was accepted that there would be some level of taxation.
  The point on which I shall finish is central to the argument about the national lottery. We decided that it was crucial that, if changes were to be made to the lottery, they should be made by Parliament. We decided that Parliament should have the last say and that the operators and distributors should ultimately be responsible to Parliament through the Director General of Oflot and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.
  Probity and transparency are fundamental to the success of a national lottery anywhere in the world. Once there is any idea in the minds of the public that a fiddle is going on at any level, the first thing that happens is that receipts drop off sharply. That is why we have improved the transparency and accountability of the lottery since the Bill first appeared, as we have been requested to do. But we do not want a director general of some charitable foundation to decide who gets what. We believe that the construction of the lottery with 20 per cent. bands is sensible.
  We shall come to the millennium fund later. We believe that it should receive 20 per cent. After the millennium, the amount will reduce and that money will go to the other four areas. So Parliament will have the final say. It will be able to change the 20 per cent. distribution figures. Parliament will be responsible for ensuring that there are fair shares for all the beneficiaries and that the Government keep their word on additionality.
  We could not have been more clear about additionality. It would not have been possible to make it clearer that the money for the national lottery was outside the planning total and that we have no intention of substituting it for other money. However, ultimately substitution will be in the hands of the distributors. For example, if a distributor in sport slips into the habit of giving grants for parts of sport which would normally be funded by a local authority or the Sports Council, it will have only itself to blame if in future years a Chancellor of another political hue said, "They are funding that themselves now."
  The intention is clear. We have done all that we can. I hope that I have answered my hon. and learned Friend in the serious way in which his arguments should be addressed. He invites us to start again and produce a different model of national lottery. His new clause and amendments would certainly have that effect. They would take us back to the drawing board. I could not recommend that to the House for a good reason. Every day that we delay the implementation of the national lottery, good causes will suffer.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has the right to reply.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his helpful and well-meaning speech. I appreciate that the argument is not one-sided. Things can be said on both sides—[Interruption.] If my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman) will allow me to think without babbling away behind me, I shall be grateful and my remarks will be shorter.
  I fail to see how my hon. Friend the Minister can sustain the argument that the national lottery will be politician-free in the light of clause 11, which says:
  "The Director General shall in exercising his functions under sections 5 to 10 comply with any directions that he may be given by the Secretary of State."
  8.15 pm
  Clause 5(6) clearly states:
  "A licence under this section shall include a condition requiring the licensee to pay to the Secretary of State at such times as may be determined by or under the licence such sums out of the proceeds of lotteries forming part of the National Lottery as may be so determined."
  He who pays the piper calls the tune and he who takes the money also calls the tune. That is the politician.
  It would be sensible if I did not press the new clause at this stage because it is clear that the Government of a year ago had a different view from that of the Government of today about how the national lottery should proceed. If such a change can take place, perhaps with a little more time the change can be reversed. That time will be provided by due consideration in the other place. That consideration will not be helped if I press the new clause tonight. So with the leave of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

  OVERRIDING DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND DIRECTOR GENERAL
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 16, at end insert—
  '() The Secretary of State shall provide for monitoring to be undertaken in order to determine the effect, if any, of the National Lottery on the level of charitable income.'
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 9, in page 6, line 37, at end insert—
  '; and such report shall include an estimate of the effect, if any, of the National Lottery on the level of charitable income during that financial year.'.
  Mr. Howarth: The purpose of the amendment is to place an overriding duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that the effects of the national lottery on charitable donation income are identified and monitored. That was, indeed, a recommendation of the National Heritage Select Committee. Several members of the Committee have participated in our debates this afternoon.
  Paragraph 11 of the Select Committee's report of 14 January 1993 states:
  "A fourth matter of concern to the Committee relates to the position of charities and the likely impact of the Lottery on their resources. The Bill contains proposals intended to make small charitable lotteries more attractive. But the Committee remains concerned that competition from the National Lottery will have an adverse effect on the level of funds donated to charities. Nor is it convinced that the distribution of funds through the new National Lottery Charities Board will leave no individual charity in a worse

  1033
  position. The Committee accordingly recommends that the Department of National Heritage should monitor the possible impact of the National Lottery on charities."
  It is against that background, and because I feel that it is extremely important that monitoring should take place, that I have tabled amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
  I am glad that amendment No. 8 was selected. I believe for two reasons that it is preferable that the duty to monitor be placed on the Secretary of State. First, it will ensure that the Secretary of State has control of the methodology of monitoring. Secondly, it should mean that the funding necessary to conduct the exercise will come from the Department rather than from the proceeds of the lottery. Placing that general duty on the Secretary of State will make it possible for the appropriate research to be carried out into any area where the possible effect of the national lottery on charitable income may be a matter of concern.
  Three areas of concern have already been identified. Rigorous impartial research to establish the position in each of those areas as the national lottery becomes established and proceeds would make it possible to determine whether any action to restore the financial position of charities were required. I believe that the Government ought to accept this responsibility since they are creating the national lottery and unleashing an immense force, the effects of which cannot be predicted with precision but which will undoubtedly be important.
  The first area of concern that I wish to see monitored is that of any possible reduction in funding from local and central Government. I fully accept the genuineness of my hon. Friend's pledges that it is the Government's intention that the resources generated by the national lottery should be additional to any funding that the Government would in the ordinary way provide for the good causes that will also be beneficiaries of the lottery. It is critical that the generation of funds from the national lottery does not, over time, lead to a reduction in the existing funding of charities from either local or central Government.
  I greatly welcome what I regard as a significant statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister in the previous debate, when he made it clear that it was his view that Parliament should monitor the issue of additionality. If we are to monitor, we will need the data that a monitoring exercise sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would provide.
  It is disappointing to hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Government have not found a way to write their pledge on additionality in watertight terms into the Bill. To be fair, I accept that that is an extremely difficult thing to do—I cannot see how it can be done—but the fact that it is impossible to do so in the way that we would desire, makes it all the more important that the monitoring should take place.
  The second concern that should be monitored is the impact that the national lottery may have on the income from small charitable lotteries. There are reasons to be apprehensive that the introduction of the national lottery may lead to a decline in charitable income from small lotteries, and it is a matter of regret that the Government rejected amendments in Committee to prevent the use by the national lottery of games giving an instant win. I would have preferred that the Government had been willing to allow charities to have a clear run in instant lotteries. That would still leave the national lottery immense scope to raise funds for its purposes.
  1034
  The third area of concern that ought to be monitored is the impact that the national lottery will undoubtedly have on charitable donations. Research carried out by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations suggests that the level of charitable giving will decline with the advent of the national lottery. My hon. Friend the Minister again made it clear that, in the context of taxation, the Government accept that the national lottery will displace expenditure elsewhere. That is the basis on which the Minister sought to justify the level of taxation that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed. If expenditure on the national lottery displaces expenditure in other areas, that will obviously include charitable giving and it is important that we should follow exactly what happens.
  The NCVO has estimated, based on market research conducted by NOP that the national lottery could lead to a loss in charitable donation income of around £230 million per year or 7 per cent. of the income currently received by charities from the public. That figure of £230 million has been decried as an exaggeration. It is, of course, based on certain assumptions and scenarios. The NOP survey concluded that the lottery is perceived by the public as a scheme to benefit "good causes". That picture of the lottery, as revealed by that survey, is one which accurately reflects the Government's own purpose.
  The NCVO concluded from that survey that £230 million is likely to be lost in donation income. That figure, I fear, is within the realms of possibility. I hope that those of us who have this apprehension are proved wrong, but it is on the cards that we could see a diversion of the donations given to charity of that order.
  I welcome the commitment given on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and confirmed by the Minister in Committee, that it is the Government's intention that the lottery will not be promoted in ways likely to lead to a reduction in donation income. I should like that commitment to be expressed in the Bill. Even if forswearing that kind of promotion may mean that the loss to the sector proves to be less than the 7 per cent. that I mentioned, research still suggests that it could well be in the region of 4 per cent. of donation income.
  The report of the Rothschild royal commission on gambling quoted its own market research, conducted in 1978. That research suggested that the lottery would result in a loss in income to charities of about 4 per cent. More recently, the report of DKM Economic Consultants, commissioned in 1991 by the Irish An Post National Lottery company, also revealed that 4 per cent. of those who bought Irish state lottery tickets said that, in the absence of the state lottery, they would have given the money to one charity or another.
  I concede that market research has its limitations. It does, after all, ask people to consider their likely future actions and none of us can be certain of them, not even Ministers; to their own surprise, they may be moved to accept amendments—if not today, perhaps in another place. However, as the Rothschild royal commission accepted, market research is the best means that we have to reach a judgment about the likely activity of the public in such matters.
  A drop of 4 per cent. in donation income may not sound terrible, but given the scale of charitable giving in this country, it would mean a considerable loss in cash terms. The same NOP survey revealed that the public

  1035
  donated £3·1 billion to charity in 1992. A drop of 4 per cent. in that income would mean a loss of £120 milion per annum. A loss in income on such a scale would mean a reduction in services to some of the most vulnerable groups in our society that the charities serve.
  In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister referred to the overriding duty placed by the Bill on the director general and the Secretary of State to maximise the proceeds available to beneficiaries from the lottery. The expressed aim of the Bill is to ensure that the lottery generates maximum additional resources for the specified "good causes"—arts, sport, heritage and charities. The available evidence, however, suggests that the lottery would result in a reduction in donation income and public support to charities.
  It is possible that lottery proceeds may fail even to compensate for the income lost to charities as a result of the lottery. Surely it is intended that proceeds from the lottery will not only compensate for any loss, but provide additional new money. In Committee, the Minister said that the Government had acknowledged that probable outcome by including charities in the list of beneficiaries, which was not part of the original intention, on the assumption that proceeds from the lottery would, in part, compensate for the resulting drop in income. That decision has been greatly welcomed.
  The corollary of the Government's concern that they will wish to satisfy themselves about the practical effect of their policy. As things are, however, nothing in the Bill provides for the effect of the lottery on charities to be monitored. It is vital that its impact on voluntary sector donation income is monitored and assessed.
  In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister also gave a welcome assurance that the impact of the lottery on voluntary sector income would be taken into account when beneficiary shares come to be reviewed. That being so, surely it is sensible to incorporate amendment No. 8, or something along the same lines, to ensure that the Government have the data and the information on which to base their consideration of the effect of the lottery on donations to charities.
  Mr. Orme: The issue of additionality is important, because there are signs that the Government are considering funding the millennium fund for the year 2000, out of lottery proceeds. Who is to say that the Government would have donated such money to that fund if those lottery proceeds were not available? This issue is important because hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about it. How does one check it? How can one tell what the Government would have put into sport or the arts without it? It is only human nature, is it not? My experience of the Treasury, as a Minister and as a Member, is that it cannot be trusted when it comes to finance on this sort of scale.
  I accept that the Government have given an undertaking that lottery proceeds should be additional to the funds provided by normal Government expenditure programmes, but there is no evidence of how it will be programmed or monitored. Experience in other countries suggests that unless very firm measures are put in place this undertaking will be eroded after a relatively short time. Elsewhere in the world lottery proceeds are dedicated to particular causes, as they will be in the United Kingdom,
  1036
  either to the arts or to sport. The mention of sport prompts me to refer to the rather small attendance in the Chamber this evening which may have something to do with the fact that England is playing Holland at the moment.
  Mr. Corbett: What is the score?
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Orme: I have no idea, but England is playing Holland at Wembley at the present time, and some of our thoughts are with the English team.
  Let me give an example of the erosion of funding. In 1976, the Massachusetts state lottery was set up to raise money for the arts. State funding from taxation for the arts gradually decreased until by 1992 all public funding in that state had stopped. Similarly in New Zealand a lottery for the arts was set up in 1987. For the next three years Government funding of the arts remained at the same level, although without any increase for inflation. Four years after the lottery was established, the Government grant for the arts in New Zealand was cut by half.
  We must take these things into account. For instance, a study has shown that, in the state of New York, the decline in support for education programmes set in five years after the establishment of the lottery. In New Jersey it was six years. However, in Michigan and Illinois, the states in the study which has most recently established their lotteries, the decline in expenditure by the state on education was almost immediate.
  We are, of course, opposed to any of this money going into education or social services or any other particular area—a point that was made by the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). But I warn the House that there will be pressure from some sections of the public that this be taken into account, and unless the guidelines are very firmly established and hon. Members clearly stipulate what they want to happen, the effect could be disastrous.
  The evidence from Ireland regarding additionality is even more striking. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) referred to DKM carrying out research in 1989 on behalf of the Irish An Post lottery company. It estimated that, between 1987 and 1989, 49 per cent. of lottery funding substituted for Government expenditure and only 51 per cent. of the total received by the beneficiaries from lottery proceeds represented new money.
  In the light of this evidence, it is of the utmost importance that the monitoring proposed in the amendment should also take into account the effect of the lottery on public support of causes benefiting from the lottery. This is particularly important for the charitable and voluntary sectors. Voluntary organisations currently receive almost £600 million per annum in support from local authorities. A National Council for Voluntary Organisations survey in 1991 revealed that in the previous financial year this funding had been cut by almost £29 million.
  Local authority support for voluntary organisations is discretionary. It is therefore one of the areas of local authority funding most under threat at times when public expenditure is tight. The availability of new sources of funding locally, such as the lottery, may tempt local authorities into using it as a justification for further reducing their support for voluntary organisations.
  The Government have made it clear that they do not intend lottery proceeds to be a substitute for local and

  1037
  central Government support for charities, the arts, sports and heritage projects. They have made that declaration. But we want a guarantee that this will not take place, and many of us are concerned that, in the case of a new opera house or even the development of Covent Garden, or some other spectacular development, much of the money could be siphoned off into that project when it should be funded by the state because of its national status.
  Monitoring mechanisms are therefore important. I do not expect the Government to accept these amendments of clauses 8 and 9. Nevertheless, I hope that they will take into account the importance of additionality and monitoring and of the fact that many people will judge the success or otherwise of the national lottery by its development and by its independence from the Government, not least from the Treasury.
  Lady Olga Maitland: I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon. The amendment came about as a result of fears voiced to us by a considerable number of charitable and voluntary organisations which can see themselves being totally swamped by an enormously successful national lottery. I fear that the Government are almost backing away from envisaging just the kind of figures that the lottery could bring in. Experts who have studied lotteries in other countries and based their analysis on the success of those lotteries estimate that, within four years of being established, a national lottery in this country could bring in an income of about £2·8 billion in one year or, to put it differently, £55 million a week.
  Just how can small voluntary or charitable organisations stand up to such a stupendous success unless provision is made to protect their interests? It is therefore vital that the Government not only monitor the progress of the income of voluntary organisations but put that commitment to monitoring in the Bill so that there will be no doubt about their sincerity. I know that they have taken the point and that it has been heard in Committee. Nevertheless, there is a slight flaw—the belief that somehow or other all will be well on the day.
  The voluntary organisations have a real concern that they could be totally overwhelmed and that their donation income could sink unless we pay due attention to the problem. We must make sure that the money they lose is more than made up by additionality which could accrue from the national lottery. I support the amendment, and I trust that those considerations will be taken into account.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I declare an interest, although not a financial one, in two charities: the Foundation for Management Education and the Cancer Research Campaign, both of which have reason to expect—particularly the latter—that their incomes will be adversely affected by the Bill.
  Historians may look back on this as the point when the country first failed to match its aspirations, with Exchequer money, by backing projects that it valued with taxpayers' money. The passage of this Bill is likely to mark the point when a great nation turned away from funding important projects in the arts and in sport in this way. Instead, like the Roman empire in decline, we have begun to rely on lotteries and the impulse of greed to meet our aspirations. Charities will probably begin to feel the adverse effects of the change more immediately than any other sector.
  1038
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) was right to try to chart the consequences of what we are doing.
  Mr. Renton: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he has just made the most astonishing statement. Does he not know that the Sydney opera house was built from the proceeds of a lottery? No one could possibly call Australia a declining or tired nation. How was the British museum built, if not from funds raised in a lottery? It was built to house the Sloane collection in the second half of the 18th century. We are only going back to the same means of raising money for good causes that was followed successfully by our Georgian and Victorian ancestors.
  Mr. Maclennan: Our Georgian and Victorian ancestors —particularly the Victorians, who are often prayed in aid by the Government—had a greater sense of civic pride and responsibility. The great municipal collections and institutions were the result of private giving or of municipal endowment. Only in the 20th century have we sought, using taxpayers' money, to establish institutions on the scale that we have come to enjoy. It is a sad comment on the decline of this country that the Government have begun clutching at straws, for that is what this Bill amounts to. Some people have been remarkably naive to believe that the Bill will have any lasting beneficial effects on the good causes that it purports to help.
  I say "naive", because it is not possible to write into the Bill any sort of protection for additionality. Ministers have given their word in this respect in earlier debates, but already the Department of National Heritage has been blighted. I cannot prove this, but I would be astonished if the Minister said that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury did not tell him during the last public expenditure round, in which the Department took a savage cut by comparison with other Departments, that he could look forward to the bounty of a national lottery to make up the shortfall in the Department's vote. That was but a foretaste of what is to come. Future public expenditure rounds will show up the consequences of this unfortunate measure.
  8.45 pm
  The charities did not ask for this. The Government have claimed that charities will be protected, in the sense that they will benefit. To the extent that that intention is translated into fact, it will be necessary to judge the impact on charitable giving. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon has done us a valuable service, although it will be very difficult to chart the impact charity by charity, as people change from putting something in the tin proffered at the underground station on behalf of guide dogs for the blind and instead buy lottery tickets from a kiosk. That this change will happen, however, is certain. I hope that the Government will respond positively to the amendment.
  Mr. Peter Lloyd: I can well understand the concerns voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and other hon. Members about the effect of the national lottery on voluntary organisations' incomes. Much of the debate inside and outside Parliament since the national lottery became a real prospect has centred on this.

  1039
  The evidence from abroad is inconclusive, but I believe that most people will go on giving to their preferred charities and taking part in their small lotteries, which the Bill includes major measures to encourage.
  Nevertheless, I have a great deal of sympathy with the motives behind the amendments. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon and for Sutton and Cheam (Lady O. Maitland) have actively sought to protect the interests and incomes of charities in the new situation that the Bill will create. I applaud their objectives, although I do not think that they will be effectively advanced by adopting these amendments at this time.
  In any survey it would be very difficult to separate beyond dispute the impact of the lottery from the effect of other factors, such as changes in the economic climate or in the voluntary sector. Although I did not agree with everything that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) had to say, his scepticism about how far research can dissect what has occurred is well placed.
  I do not believe that a requirement to make a comprehensive assessment of the impact of the national lottery on every part of the voluntary sector every year, as the amendments would require, would be illuminating or a good use of resources. It would be quite expensive; there are 500,000 voluntary organisations. The charities board, however, will have to keep a sharp eye on all charities as it decides how best to distribute its share of the funds raised by the national lottery. It will soon learn of it if charities are experiencing a drop in their incomes, for charities will not be slow to let the board—and Ministers —know if they believe that they have lost out.
  The Charities Aid Foundation also provides statistics which are illuminating—as far as they can go. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be able to set in train research when he judges that more information on a certain sector is needed. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said that he expects the issue to be considered by the House every Parliament so that the House can express its view on these matters.
  I accept my hon. Friend's essential point that the Government and the House must continue to take an informed interest in how the charities succeed in living and hopefully prospering, with the national lottery. There are more flexible and useful ways to get the necessary information and to inquire into prima facie problems than the amendment would provide.
  Additionality lies slightly outside the scope of the amendment, but it is important and was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). The Government have given undertakings that lottery money will not be used as a substitute for public spending. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) opined some scepticism. As I have said, the hon. Gentleman was right to say that it was difficult to judge whether, ultimately, there has been substitution because public expenditure moves up and down and there are always complaints.
  However, it would be difficult to see whether the movement had been affected in any way by the lottery. Suffice it to say that recipients of money from the lottery who felt that they had lost an equivalent or greater sum
  1040
  than that which they could have expected from the Treasury will not be slow to say so. There will be not a dearth of information but a surfeit and hon. Members, the Select Committee and others will have to make a fair and reasonable judgment upon it.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon for drawing our attention to this issue and for making it clear that it requires continuing attention. It will certainly have the Government's sustained interest and I am glad that the amendment has enabled me to put that on the record. The Home Secretary and I will seek to produce methods that will show useful known trends in charitable giving and the effect of different lotteries. However, I suspect that we shall rely much more on the resources of outside resource bodies, which will keep an eagle eye on what is happening.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for taking part in the debate. I do not agree with everything that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said in his lugubrious analysis, but he certainly underlined the importance of the lottery's impact on charitable giving and on other aspects of our national life.
  I am grateful to the Minister for his recognition of the importance of the issue. I agree that it would be a technically difficult, extensive and demanding exercise to carry out the sort of systematic monitoring that I continue to think it is incumbent upon the Government and Parliament to find ways to carry out. I am grateful that he acknowledged that it is important to continue the search for ways to enable the Government and Parliament to follow closely and assess critically and intelligently the national lottery's impact.
  The Minister used a phrase that gave me some encouragement because he suggested that it was not appropriate to legislate now. Perhaps the issue will be further examined in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

  LICENSING OF A BODY TO RUN THE NATIONAL LOTTERY
  Mr. Corbett: I beg to move amendment No. 101, in page 2, line 22, at end insert—
  '() A licence under this section shall include a condition forbidding the licensee from making arrangements which seek to prohibit the sale of tickets in local or society lotteries in outlets authorised to offer for sale tickets for the national lottery and those lotteries forming part of it.'.
  The amendment is designed to avoid what happened in Ireland, where, over a period, those who operate the national lottery have driven from outlets authorised to handle national lottery tickets those who sell society and local lottery tickets. The Government cannot want that to happen, so there should be no difficulty in accepting the amendment or its principle.
  The Under-Secretary of State may say that this is a matter for the Director-General of the National Lottery, but it is too risky to leave to him or to the good sense of those who will eventually be licensed under clause 5 to operate the lottery. The retail outlets that will be authorised to sell lottery tickets are matters for the

  1041
  commercial judgment of the lottery operators.
  There must be ground rules, and the first, must be that exclusive arrangements which compel shopkeepers to get rid of local lottery and society tickets if they want to sell national lottery tickets are unfair and anti-competitive, and should not be tolerated. In a phrase that will doubtless appeal to the Under-Secretary and his hon. Friends, the decision should be left to the person running the retail outlet and his customers. It is for them to decide and decisions must not be imposed upon them by those who operate the lottery.
  There is no reason at all why the national lottery operators should try to do that, because we are virtually agreed that, generally, the two sets of tickets are competing for different money, probably from different people. I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State nods. However, there is a suspicion that in circumstances where the national lottery is not doing as well as expected, the operator may feel that the best way to drive up custom is to bear down on shopkeepers and threaten that unless they stop selling all other forms of lottery tickets they will not be allowed to sell tickets for the national lottery.
  Under competition policy, a shopkeeper, probably a customer and certainly a large retail chain would be able to take action. As the Under-Secretary knows, that is the case in Ireland and I suspect that it is a fairly long route. When local lottery and society tickets have disappeared from the shop counter, the shopkeeper may decide to acquiesce and agree to what is going on.
  If the Minister feels unable to accept the amendment, perhaps he will acknowledge its principle and think about ways to try to ensure that this does not happen, so that retailers and customers can decide on the tickets they want to buy—none or both, one or the other.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I endorse the arguments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). It is important that we do what we can to ensure that the national lottery does not become a monopoly. We can guard against this by legislating to ensure equal opportunities for small lotteries in the marketing and distribution of tickets in the United Kingdom. As he said, in Ireland the national lottery reinforced its monopoly position by practices that severely restricted the sales of tickets for charity lotteries. We would do well to learn from the experience of Ireland, where the system is similar in many ways to the one that will exist here.
  Within two years of the introduction of the national lottery in Ireland, sales of charity lottery tickets were reduced by 60 per cent. The reason was mainly a concentrated selling campaign by the national lottery and its insistence that sellers of national lottery tickets did not sell the tickets of any other lottery.
  Mr. Key: I know all about that.
  Mr. Howarth: I am glad to see my hon. Friend acknowledging the importance of that experience. I would expect him to be aware of it. It is important to state on the record now what has happened and the danger that we need to guard against.
  The tactics went further, in that the best sales outlets of charity lotteries were specifically targeted to sell national lottery tickets. When a market for those tickets had been built up, the operators refused to supply further national lottery tickets unless the outlets stopped selling tickets for
  1042
  any other lottery. That resulted in the national lottery coming to control 98 per cent. of the market. An outcome along those lines would be a disaster to charities here.
  I accept, as the hon. Member for Erdington said, that national and European legislation forbids such restrictive trade practices, but by the time that action can be taken under such legislation the damage will already have been done and it will be too late to save most small lotteries. The practices of the national lottery in Ireland were the subject of protests to the Office of Consumer Affairs and Fair Trade and a restrictive practices order was made in May 1990, but I am advised that those practices continue and that the problem has not altogether been resolved.
  9 pm
  Furthermore, another practice has been developed. The Irish national lottery sets much higher targets for retailers handling other lotteries and, if they miss their targets, they lose the agency, or the most lucrative part of it. That threat has worked and charities in Ireland have found it impossible to persuade shops and other outlets to take on their business. It is important that there should be specific provision in the Bill to prevent such an experience in Britain. Unless it is written into the Bill, small lotteries will be at a severe disadvantage and in danger of being forced out of business.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I support the amendment. It is necessary to protect small lotteries as much as possible. I have here a letter from Bradford Northern rugby league football club. I am sure that the Minister will know that it has the best amphitheatre site in the north of England and probably in the country, but it has financial difficulties in maintaining the ground and the site. I will not go into the detail of the letter, because this is not the debate in which to do so, but it makes the point that small lotteries such as the one that it runs could be in difficulties as a result of the national lottery unless statutory protections are given, to enable it to run its lottery, as it does now, to provide income for the worthy cause of helping to maintain rugby league football at Bradford Northern.
  The club says that, already, much of the Bill is designed to make life as difficult as possible for the small local lottery. It feels that some of the Bill's provisions are unnecessary. Therefore, a safeguard on the sale of tickets would be a useful protection for small lotteries. I am sure that the Minister does not want to see worthwhile ventures such as that pushed out of existence. If that occurs and the lotteries run by Bradford Northern are prejudiced, it will be a serious financial blow to them. Like most Bradfordians, and many others besides, I want rugby league football to be maintained in Bradford for many years to come.
  Mr. Davidson: One issue has been concerning small lotteries, and I hope the Minister will address it. As he will be aware, in Committee we debated what should happen in the event of there being more than 52 Saturdays in a year. Has the Minister made an adjustment to the rules covering that? Another amendment deals with the matter, but I hope that he will take the opportunity to address it now.
  Mr. Key: That last point is important. However, it is the subject of a different amendment, and it would be helpful if we dealt with it in its turn.

  1043
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is right. We do not wish Bradford Northern or any other club to be prejudiced. That point was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office and we will bear it in mind. It is also relevant to the clause, because it is a question of fair trading. I hope to reassure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) that I concur with his instincts, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-upon-Avon (Mr. Howarth) that we have learnt from the Irish experience.
  The concerns behind the amendment, which are well taken, were addressed in Committee. It seeks to prevent those who deal in national lottery tickets from entering into exclusive deals with retailers that would preclude the selling of other lottery tickets. As I said in Committee, a contract that sought to hold a retailer to an exclusive deal would have the potential to be anti-competitive and would be open to scrutiny and challenge by United Kingdom competition authorities—principally the Office of Fair Trading—and by the European Commission. It would also come under scrutiny by the lottery's director general.
  There would of course be nothing to stop an operator establishing its own shops or franchises dealing exclusively in national lottery products—that is a separate issue—but an operator would clearly be open to challenge if it entered into exclusive, anti-competitive deals with general retail outlets, as would pools companies or United Kingdom charity lotteries.
  Although I agree with the principle behind the amendment, it is not necessary. I realise that it is based on fears expressed by charities as a result of practices in the Republic of Ireland, which were graphically described this evening, where the Irish national lottery marketed itself very aggressively against existing lotteries. It is made clear elsewhere in the Bill that such practices will be dissuaded. There is no intention to market the national lottery against existing lotteries.
  The United Kingdom is not the Republic of Ireland. The economy and the market in which the national lottery and other lotteries operate in the two countries are significantly different in a number of ways. We have also had the benefit of observing what happened in the Republic of Ireland, and of course we recognise that such practices are undesirable.
  Those who run small lotteries in this country will be quick to spot tell-tale signs of uncompetitive behaviour and it will need only a telephone call to Oflot's director general to alert him to the problem. I do not accept that that will be a long and bureaucratic procedure.
  Mr. Cryer: That is the very point that concerns me. It might be helpful to have some indication in the Bill so that people do not become bogged down. If an exclusive trading agreement is reached which puts out a local lottery, and if several weeks elapse before any effective alteration can be made, the local lottery will be severely handicapped during that period. I suspect that the Minister wants to avoid that as much as I do.
  Mr. Key: Yes, we both want to avoid that happening. I made the point earlier, in a different context, that we have more than a year to get this right. Precisely that sort of detail must be addressed by the lottery's director general.
  1044
  It would be against the operator's long-term interest, if it wants its contract to be renewed—because contracts are likely to run for only two or three years under clause 6—to enter into anti-competitive deals that would prejudice its future. I hope that I have reassured the House that the situation does not call for the amendment. When the director general is appointed, he or she will want to bear that aspect in mind, because it will be in no one's interests to damage club lotteries, large or small, or any other lotteries.
  Mr. Corbett: The Under-Secretary of State has again demonstrated that he is not only or mainly the gas and gaiters that he may have inherited from his father. He has listened and demonstrated that he understands the anxieties voiced tonight and those of the organisations that properly expressed their concerns to us.
  I am also grateful to the Minister for putting it on record that the lesson from the Irish experience has been learnt. I feel as satisfied as anybody can be that those who are thinking about applying for a licence under clause 5 will know that this has been said and that the director is likely to jump on them hard if they try it on. With the leave of the House, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 8, after 'lotteries', insert
  'other than lotteries using scratch-off instant tickets'.
  If the Minister has paid great attention to the experience in Ireland, I hope that he will give a sympathetic hearing to amendment No. 3. Its intention is to deal with a problem that has been identified in Ireland in the working of the national lottery there.
  The Irish National Lottery Company has used aggressive practices, as the Minister said when he replied to the previous debate, and has, apparently, put pressure on retailers not to sell competing charity scratch card tickets. Many retailers there no longer accept these tickets for sale, with the result that charities find it difficult to obtain good sales outlets.
  It is fairly widely accepted that the main motivation of lottery operators in using instant win scratch card games is to drive charitable lotteries, particularly small ones, right out of the market. Evidence of that has been drawn to the attention of hon. Members by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, in New Zealand and a number of other countries. We are not in entirely uncharted territory.
  Scratch card tickets can account for as much as a quarter of the revenue of state lotteries abroad, so it is not an insignificant amount, particularly if it is transferred directly from charitable giving. That is why I move the amendment, which is intended to restrict the use of scratch card tickets in the national lottery. I do not doubt that the charitable sector will inevitably lose income from small lotteries as a result of the national lottery, but if we do not do something about instant win scratch cards in particular, its position will be substantially worse.
  I need not delay the House unduly on an amendment whose purpose is widely understood.
  Mr. Orme: This matter was raised by the Minister in Committee. He said:
  "The operators will have to form a view as part of their overall marketing strategy. It may be reasonable not to have

  1045
  instant gains, but we want to leave that up to them."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 4 February 1993; c. 74.]
  I was astounded when I heard that the national lottery would allow scratch games to be played. I had assumed that the national lottery would be a weekly affair and that people would buy a ticket for it. Scratch cards are used by football clubs, charities and political parties and bring in a great deal of revenue. Scratch cards will, I believe, demean the national lottery.
  The Government, I acknowledge, have gone a long way towards meeting the issues raised in many of the amendments and that they have met some of the anxieties that have been expressed. However, many of us still oppose in principle the establishment of a national lottery. However, it is our job to try to improve the Bill and to safeguard the charities which it will put in jeopardy.
  The House will obviously approve the Bill, which will go to another place and receive Royal Assent. It will establish a national lottery, but we do not need scratch cards within that lottery, and I ask the Minister to acknowledge that.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Graham: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). Many organisations in my area, which work on behalf of people with mental handicaps or for football clubs or the scout organisation, rely on charitable ventures and use scratch cards, domino cards and spot-the-ball games. The Minister should not allow the national lottery to stray into scratch card territory. Scratch cards are like an instant lottery, and political parties use them all the time. My idea of a national lottery is something like that which operates in Spain, for example. If we allow the national lottery to use scratch cards, we shall be adversely affecting charities, sports clubs and other organisations which the Minister would like to help.
  Most of the instant scratch cards are sold by guys in pubs and clubs—Labour has had some success in that way and— usually cost 10p or 25p. I plead with the Minister not to allow the wee clubs to be harmed, although I fear that the national lottery will clearly affect those which raise their own funds. I hope that he will take steps to ensure that they can still earn their dough through the scratch card.
  Mr. Key: There are many lotteries in life, one of which is up and running and doing well at the moment—I gather that England was 2:1 up at half time and that Wales drew 1:1 in Prague. However, the lottery with which we are dealing is not yet up and running, but I want it to be up and running and to be a huge success.
  If there is any misapprehension about the nature of the national lottery, let me dispel it. It will consist of more than one game. Different types of game will be licensed under clause 6. The issue of scratch cards, which was raised at length in Committee and again this evening, is important. National lotteries worldwide are a mixture of longer-term draw games and instant games. At the birth of this new enterprise—raising money for good causes—we should not shackle it with primary legislation ruling out an entire important category of lottery.
  Instant games are an important source of income in the majority of national and state lotteries. Instant lotteries operate in all the states of America in which lotteries are
  1046
  run and contribute about 26 per cent. of overall turnover. In other countries, the contribution made by this type of game can be as high as 40 per cent.
  Mr. Graham rose—
  Mr. Key: I shall give way in a moment, but I must make a little progress.
  The impact of outlawing instant games as part of the national lottery could therefore lead to the loss of many millions of pounds for good causes, including charities, and may call into question the very viability of a national lottery.
  Mr. Graham rose—
  Mr. Key: I promise that I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's point about local charities. If I do not, I shall of course allow him to intervene.
  The Bill does not designate particular games for the national lottery. Such legislation could soon become outdated and would place burdensome restrictions on the director general and the operators. Each individual game will require a clause 6 licence from the director general, who will be able to examine in detail the proposed workings of a game. Games should not be accepted or rejected at this stage by rules set in stone a full year before the lottery even begins running.
  I am aware that the promoters of some society and charity lotteries are worried that the national lottery will provide them with direct competition backed by a higher market profile. However, as we have argued for some hours, the national lottery will be an entirely different proposition from charity lotteries.
  No one will be in any doubt about the distinction. The lottery will not be marketed in the same way as charity lotteries. I expect that, within reasonable limits, marketing decisions will be taken independently of Government. Evidence submitted by respondents to the White Paper, and other contributions that have been made over the past few months, have suggested that the fun, winning images of national or state lotteries are by far the stronger in promotional terms. The motivation is what matters, and the motivation for buying charity or club lottery tickets is very different. Charity and sports club lotteries are played by people who, for the most part, identify with the cause that they are supporting. I am sure that we shall continue to purchase lottery tickets and raffle tickets for local good causes and other causes dear to our hearts.
  Part III makes further provision for charity and society lotteries, raising the existing limits on turnover and on prizes and improving their ability to continue to raise funds. Motivation is what the hon. Gentleman was concerned about, and I believe that people will continue to support their local football clubs, local charities and other clubs, in addition to any fun that they may derive from buying national lottery tickets.
  I know that some hon. Members are concerned that instant lotteries may be addictive. It is impossible to state categorically that no one will find a certain form of game addictive, but our intention is clear: the director general will not license games structured or marketed in such a way as to heighten the aspects of a lottery which most appeal to the gambler. If at any stage such tactics appear to be a problem, the Secretary of State can use the powers in clause 11 to direct that certain types of game should be ruled out altogether. However, to rule out every sort of

  1047
  instant game at this early stage could in effect ensure that the national lottery was a failure, so I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will join me in opposing the amendment.
  Mr. Maclennan: This has been a short debate, but I hope that it will not be considered unimportant. I realise that the Minister, who has shown good temper and patience throughout the proceedings, would no doubt like to canter quickly through the latter part of the process.
  Mr. Key indicated dissent.
  Mr. Maclennan: I am delighted that the Minister is still so enthusiastic about his job.
  I do not wish to press the amendment to a Division, and I hope that the debate will be noticed in another place so that the matter can be raised again.
  I do not think that the Minister's answer to the debate, and especially to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), was wholly adequate. He sought to make comparisons with the United States, and did not deal with the example of Ireland at all. The position in the United States is simply not comparable. The whole ethos of charitable giving in the United States is made entirely different by the tax structure in that country, which positively induces people to give money to charities and other good causes. In this country people are not drawn to give in the same way, because there is no obvious benefit in doing so. In the United States there is far less reliance on the scratch card technique of fund raising.
  Mr. Graham: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman heard the Minister say that scratch cards may be used and that the quick money makes roughly 26 per cent., so there will only be that opportunity to make all that money. In that case, why do the Government not take control of all types of gambling in which instant money can be made? It goes against the grain if we are to punish organisations that use instant scratch cards, and the Government will not allow them to carry on, so that the charity organisations will lose again unless they get money from other sources.
  Mr. Maclennan: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is right. My point about the United States is that lotteries relying on scratch cards there do not have the adverse effect on charities that they will have in this country where charities rely on scratch cards to a far greater extent. There are different tax incentives for private giving in the United States.
  I find it notable that the Minister failed to address the Irish example. In Ireland, there has been a charted decline in charitable giving which the Irish attribute in no small measure to the use of instant-win scratch cards. I do not wish to repeat the arguments that have been well made by others in this debate. However, I wish to signal clearly to the Minister that the matter will be returned to in another place.
  I acknowledge that none of us can predict with certainty what the outcome of the Bill will be. He and I are both in the dark to some extent. However, when so many charitable organisations whose very existence is at stake take a certain view, we as a legislature are obliged to give them heed.
  Mr. Robert Banks: I support what my hon. Friend the Minister has said tonight.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to scratch cards in the United States. Is he aware that scratch cards printed in this country cannot be imported into the United States? Does he agree that it would be highly undesirable for tickets printed in the United States to be imported into this country for the purposes of the national lottery?
  Mr. Maclennan: I did not know that. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. On first blush, I think that the hon. Gentleman must be right. I hope that that point is also borne in mind by the Minister.
  Scratch cards are a major issue. The Minister illustrated their significance when he said that, if the lottery was not able to use that technique, it could make or break the lottery. By the same token, if it makes or breaks some of our major charities, it will have a damaging effect which can be no part of the Government's purpose. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7
  LICENCES UNDER SECTIONS 5 AND 6:

    FURTHER PROVISIONS
    Amendments made: No. 27, in page 3, line 41, leave out 'and' and insert 'including'.
    No. 28, in page 3, line 42, leave out 'documentary form' and insert 'writing'.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

  Clause 12

    REGULATIONS AS TO THE PROMOTION OF LOTTERIES
    Mr. Pendry: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 5, line 36, at end insert—
    '() the use which may be made in advertising and promotion of reference to charitable causes which may be likely to receive moneys from lottery proceeds;'.
    The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the regulation-making powers of the Secretary of State include specifically the possibility of the imposition of requirements or restrictions on the use of images or other materials derived from the charity sector in the advertising or promotion of the national lottery. The Secretary of State gave an assurance on Second Reading that the national lottery would be marketed as a lottery and not as a charitable enterprise. That assurance can only be welcomed. However, I am glad that the Secretary of State is in his place because I want to point out to him that his statements relating to the issue appear to be contradictory.
    The Secretary of State said that the lottery—[Interruption.] The rugby crowd are in. The Secretary of State said that the lottery would attract those interested in having a flutter who would also contribute to a good cause. He thus appeared to acknowledge that the good cause element would encourage more people to participate in the lottery. That was confirmed—I am sure that the Secretary of State is all ears as I proceed with the argument —by the findings of the NOP survey commissioned by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. Some 24 per cent. of those questioned said that their main reason for purchasing national lottery tickets would be to make a

    1049
    donation to a good cause. That research clearly shows that the term "good causes" is identified in the public mind with charities.
    9.30 pm
    There is a potential danger, therefore, that, unless there exist specific controls on the ways in which the lottery may be promoted, it will be promoted using captions and images that are likely to mislead the public. The NOP research shows —and other research studies confirm these findings—that projects that meet people's urgent needs, such as those assisting the elderly and the disabled, are more popular causes than sports, arts or heritage. The lottery operators may therefore be tempted to use images of charitable organisations in their advertising material.
    Lottery operators could, for example, use to a disproportionate degree in their promotional material images of famine relief work undertaken by organisations such as Oxfam or the work of organisations such as Help the Aged, recognising that images of starving children or isolated elderly people will be more likely to encourage people to buy tickets than images of sports stadiums or restored monuments.
    Although the Minister gave an undertaking in Committee that the amount of stake money available for good causes would be included on the ticket, that will not rule out lottery advertising of a nature that encourages the public to slide into the assumption that a greater proportion of lottery proceeds than is actually the case will be passed on to good causes, and to charities in particular. If that happens, it will have a serious effect on charitable donation incomes, as people will feel that they have given to a charity when they buy a lottery ticket and will therefore be less inclined to give directly to charity.
    There is also the issue of the sort of images of charity work that are used in advertising material. A number of charities have made efforts to ensure that their work is presented to the public in a way that does not patronise or offend the groups of people for whom they are working. It will be important that those promoting the lottery obtain the advice of charities on how to present their work and develop good practice. That is especially important, as the advertising budget for the national lottery is likely to rival that of some of our largest corporations.
    The Minister may respond by saying that our anxieties are unnecessary because the Advertising Standards Authority would be able to address such problems if they arose. The ASA has a responsibility to monitor advertisements and investigate complaints if advertising material is not legal, decent, honest or truthful. We are arguing not that the lottery promoter will make unfair claims about what proportion of the lottery proceeds will go to good causes but that lottery promotion may be of a nature that encourages the public to believe that charities will benefit more from the lottery that is actually the case. That is more intangible and difficult to monitor than the making of false claims.
    Although the ASA would have a role in monitoring and responding to anxieties that lottery advertising implied exaggerated claims, we should prefer the Government to give a commitment to prepare and consult on regulations imposing restrictions on the use of charities in lottery promotion material. On the issue of the presentation of charitable work in lottery advertising, the ASA would provide some, but not sufficient, protection.
    1050
    The ASA responds to complaints that advertising has caused grave or widespread offence. Therefore, it would only offer protection in some of the more extreme cases to charities anxious about how their work was being presented to the public. Although we appreciate the good work of the ASA, we consider it vital that the Government introduce specific regulations covering the way in which the lottery uses good causes in its promotional material.
    The question of lottery advertising is important to charities, as I am sure the Minister will agree. The way in which the lottery is promoted will directly affect the income of the voluntary sector and will also have an impact on the public's perception of the work of charities. I therefore hope that the Government will be prepared to accept the amendment and, in consultation with the charities, to consider further the restrictions that should be placed on the use of charities in lottery promotional material.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: I have a great deal of sympathy with the objectives of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) in moving the amendment, but I fear that considerable problems of definition and practicality will be involved in the achievement of that objective. I wonder whether the right way to achieve such restraints on detrimental advertising is not through contracts with operators rather than through the Bill.
    As my hon. Friend the Minister considers the amendment, I invite him to reflect on the desirability of taking steps to ensure that the national lottery cannot advertise in terms that are effectively disparaging of small charities' lotteries. That will be very important in relation to scratch cards where the competition will be intense.
    The national lottery will have available to it the saturating power of large-scale advertising backed by very big money. It is extremely important that the lottery should not abuse that position by suggesting to members of the public that they can win only peanuts if they buy a ticket in a charity lottery, while they can win a massive jackpot in the national lottery. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider that point.
    Mr. Cryer: It would be a good idea to incorporate the provisions in the amendment into the Bill. The power for the Secretary of State is not mandatory, it is permissive. Clause 12(1) states that the
    "Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision",
    and clause 12(2) states:
    "Such regulations may in particular impose requirements or restrictions".
    The Bill does not state that the Secretary of State shall impose the restrictions. The power is permissive. It is all very well for Ministers and others to talk about the existing provisons for curbing false and misleading advertising, but it takes time to implement those provisions.
    If the Secretary of State is given a permissive power on the face of the Bill, he can say that if the national lottery pursues particular practices as it promotes itself which are detrimental to small lotteries, such as the lottery promoted by Bradford rugby league club at Odsal stadium, the Secretary of State can say that he will introduce regulations fairly quickly. As the Minister is aware, regulations can be introduced very rapidly.
    The regulations to which I am referring relate to the negative procedure. They can be stopped only if they are

    1051
    prayed against or if a revocation motion is made subsequently. The power is in the Secretary of State's hands. Knowing the object and aim of our debates, the Minister can bear our comments in mind and, if he sees abuse of the sort described tonight, he will feel bound to introduce regulations, and that will probably be sufficient to stop the abuse and exploitation which would militate against the good causes for which many local lotteries already seek to provide.
    As has often been said, the national lottery will be disruptive. The national lottery will be new on the scene and it will cause many difficulties for local lotteries and for existing organisations such as the pools promoters. If that is so, the Government have a duty to provide protection for small lotteries. The amendment offers a means of incorporating that protection on the face of the Bill.
    It would be extraordinary if the Minister were to reject the opportunity to have reserve powers which may never be used. If the Minister is right, they might never be used. However, if he is wrong, the powers will be contained in the legislation ready for him to operate and so end any difficulties that might occur.
    Mr. Key: I believe that this is the first occasion that I have heard the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) urging a Minister to take a permissive power to himself. My initial reaction is that there must be something wrong here. I will have to resist the temptation to accept the amendment.
    However, not for the first time, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) has made an important contribution to the debate. I detect that his thinking on the advertising and promotion of the national lottery has moved on since the Committee stage, as has ours. We have made progress in the past five or six weeks. We have talked to a good many people about the issue, because it is clearly very important.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon is right: the establishment of a national lottery should not denigrate smaller lotteries, nor should such a lottery seek to market itself in a way that detracts from the success of local or charitable lotteries. One way of safeguarding against that is to market the national lottery with its own logo, thus making it clear to purchasers of tickets that they are entering that lottery.
    The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde is right to say that we should consult the charities, and other beneficiaries of the lottery, about the most appropriate way of promoting their causes. However, it is clear from the experience of successful lotteries in other countries that productive marketing depends on a number of factors—in particular, the fun of participation and the prospect of winning. The benefit gained by a good cause is a non-specific seondary effect, which serves as a non-specific reinforcement but is not a principal stimulus that can be exploited as a marketing tool.
    That is why the national lottery will be clearly differentiated from lotteries whose whole purpose is to raise money for specific causes. Such lotteries have the advantage of benefiting specific causes, which encourages people to participate; if they are sensible, they will capitalise on that when the national lottery is introduced.
    If a lottery operator chose to market itself primarily on the basis of the good causes that it helped, it would have
    1052
    great difficulty finding an effective focus, given the wide variety of causes that would benefit. Such a campaign might lead to considerable under-performance by the lottery and the director general would then become interested in what a cursory look at lotteries abroad would suggest was an inept strategy.
    I am reluctant to accept the amendment. It is too specific and not in keeping with the broad enabling thrust of the Bill. However, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde for his important contribution to the debate. We have now reached a stage in dealing with the details of the Bill which means that we have time to get it right and we shall consider the hon. Gentleman's proposals over the next year.
    We shall bear in mind the problem that the hon. Gentleman has outlined. I hope that he will not press the amendment; I believe that we can achieve his objective in a better way.
    Mr. Pendry: As I am sure the Minister would expect, I found his reply rather disappointing. However, I believe that the issue is likely to be raised in the other place; I also take on board the Minister's assurance that the position will be monitored over the next year. He can rest assured that we shall do the same.
    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 20

    APPORTIONMENT OF MONEY IN DISTRIBUTION FUND
    Amendment made: No. 29, in page 9, line 16, at end insert
    'and held in the Distribution Fund for that purpose'. —[Mr. Key]
    Mr. Pendry: I beg to move amendment No. 90, in page 9, line 18, leave out '20' and insert '25'.
    Madam Speaker: I understand that it is convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 91, in page 9, line 20, leave out '20' and insert '25'.
    No. 92, in page 9, line 22, leave out '20' and insert '25'.
    No. 93, in page 9, line 24, leave out '20' and insert '25'.
    No. 94, in page 9, line 24, leave out from 'expenditure' to end of line 26.
    No 95, in page 9, line 24, at end insert—
    '(4) Until the year 2000, of each allocation specified in section 20, 5 per cent. shall be spent on projects approved by the Millennium Commission established under section 36 to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium.'.
    Mr. Pendry: I must say that, from the beginning, I have had difficulty with the concept of the millennium fund. According to the White Paper "A National Lottery: Raising Money for Good Causes", published last March, national lottery proceeds would benefit
    "arts, sport, heritage and charities".
    It was last year's Conservative party manifesto that introduced the fifth beneficiary, the millennium fund. How does the manifesto describe the purpose of the fund? It says that it will be used for projects to
    "commemorate the start of the twenty first century and will be enjoyed by future generations."
    I consider that a pretty vague and unsatisfactory description of the aim of a fund that will receive 20 per cent. of net proceeds. We hoped that the Minister would further clarify the Government's thinking on the fund in

    1053
    response to probing in Committee. However, after the Committee stage, we are left with no clear idea of how eligibility for the fund might be determined.
    9.45 pm
    The Conservative party manifesto last year provided a list of undoubtedly worthy projects which could receive millennium fund money. They include restoring historic buildings, improving amenities of canals and rivers and bursary schemes for volunteers. However, that list makes me more dubious than ever about the worth of establishing a separate millennium fund with separate bureaucracy to administer it.
    All the projects that I mentioned would surely be eligible for funding as the main beneficiaries of the lottery —arts, sport, heritage and charities. So why set up a separate and expensive bureaucracy funded from the lottery proceeds, thus reducing the total amount available for good causes, to make decisions better made by the four specialist distribution bodies?
    One of the only projects mentioned in the Conservative manifesto which would not be eligible for funding for the arts, sport, heritage and charities is an international trade fair. I shall deal with another one in a moment. I know that industry in Britain is in the grip of recession, but does the Minister really believe that an international trade fair is a good cause which should be funded from lottery revenues?
    The list of projects set out in the manifesto also gives rise to a more important query. I address this point to the Secretary of State. The manifesto suggested that the Manchester bid for the Olympics could receive funding. Yet that is a scheme in the pipeline and not, in our view, one which should be eligible for public support. How can the Government claim that they want to safeguard the additionality of lottery funds and then announce that a project such as the Manchester bid for the Olympics could be funded from lottery proceeds?
    Opposition Members are as anxious as anyone to see the Manchester Olympic bid succeed. I have a sports portfolio and a Greater Manchester constituency, so I am as anxious as anyone to see it succeed. But the funding should be provided by the Government. They secured a high profile by acclaiming Manchester's previous unsuccessful bid when the games went to Atlanta. Chris Patten, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, gave an assurance that adequate public funding would be made available if Manchester's bid was successful. That should be the case with the current bid.
    More importantly, in the context of the Bill, the Government's suggestion that the Manchester bid could receive national lottery funding highlights the Government's inconsistency on additionality. The Government's position in the Second Reading debate was clearly stated by the Secretary of State. He said:
    "I am excited by the potential of the millenium fund. It offers a scope for making real improvements to the face of the United Kingdom. Because it will be funded out of a new income stream, which will not count as public expenditure, the projects that we will be able to take forward will be additional to those already planned and in prospect. This will apply to the private sector as well as the public sector, for I envisage that the main large-scale projects will involve funding partnerships with the private sector."—[Official Report, 25 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 728.]
    The Opposition concur with those remarks.
    However, it would appear that Ministers, including the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister no less, are not ruling out funding from the millenium fund some of the
    1054
    planned projects already submitted to the International Olympic Committee in the official bid document. Clearly, that is a breach of the Government's stated aim on additionality spelt out by the Secretary of State on Second Reading. I have here documents on some of the plans that are already in the pipeline. Therefore, I ask the Minister to deal with that specific and important point.
    The Bill creates three new bodies—Oflot, the National Lottery Charities Board and the Millennium Commission. We acknowledge the need for a lottery regulator and for a new board to distribute funding to charities, as recommended by both the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Association of Charitable Foundations in reports on the distribution of lottery proceeds.
    We do not object to setting of the Millennium Commission to assist in decision-making. However, we object to the creation of an unnecessarily large bureaucracy. As the Bill is currently drafted, the Millennium Commission will employ staff who will take decisions on projects which may be considered by the other four distributory bodies—the Arts Council, the Sports Council, the National Heritage Memorial Fund and the National Lottery Charities Board.
    May not the Minister be setting up a body which simply duplicates the work of those institutions in relation to lottery funding? Has he also considered that a further difficulty will arise because staff of the commission will not have the same expert knowledge as those employed by those institutions necessary to decide what counts as a good arts or sport project? A project could meet whatever criteria are set by the commission to receive funding, but I am at a loss if I try to speculate on just what specific criteria might be set for millennium projects. Experts in a particular sector may still consider that such projects are not of sufficient quality to be funded.
    The Opposition are not killjoys. We like the idea of grants to celebrate something, even something as nebulous as the start of the next millennium. Therefore, we do not oppose the idea of the Millennium Commission, which would approve millennium project applications. We believe that it would be prudent, however, if those funding decisions were made in partnership with the specialist bodies that distribute the lottery money to the arts, sport, heritage and charities. We believe that the millennium fund should be excluded from the Bill and that the allocations to the arts, sport, heritage and charities should be increased from 20 to 25 per cent. of net proceeds.
    We believe that 5 per cent. of each beneficiary allocation should be ring-fenced for millennium fund projects. Each distributory body would submit a programme or projects to the Millennium Commission, which would approve the spending of that ring-fenced 5 per cent.
    Would it not give the Minister a warm glow to be able to increase the amount that will go direct to charities and other good causes at so little cost to himself? He must be only too well aware that, with a taxation rate of 12 per cent. on lottery proceeds, lottery beneficiaries are disappointed about their share. Who knows what that percentage will be after the first year of operation?
    If the Minister were to accept the principle of the amendments, which represent a sensible modification to the Bill, it would increase the amount of money going direct to the distributive bodies for the arts, sport, heritage

    1055
    and charities. That would be partial compensation for them for the fact that they must pay a higher level of taxation.
    The proposal would mean minimal staff costs for the commission and would therefore mean that more money was in the fund to be distributed to good causes. It would also mean that the decision taken would be more likely to be sound, since projects would be referred to the commission by experts in a particular sector.
    When we discussed this issue in Committee, the Minister suggested that the system proposed would result in the creation of more bureaucracy and that those seeking millennium funds would need to go, cap in hand, to eight bodies. That reveals a lack of understanding of what we are proposing. Our suggestion would result in a reduction in bureaucracy. It would mean that organisations in the arts, sport, heritage and charities would apply to one body responsible for funding rather than to two.
    The Minister raised a further difficulty about the distributive bodies being restricted as to the areas of activity that could be funded through millennium resources. It was suggested that the proposal would make it more difficult to make imaginative decisions. If that is so, surely there are other ways round it than through the creation of a large bureaucracy.
    I hope that the Minister will think again about the millennium projects about to be funded and will look closely at the constructive approach offered by the amendment.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: I do not agree with the Opposition proposal that the millennium fund should no longer be one of the beneficiaries of the money raised through the national lottery. I believe in the millennium fund and I believe that it will be possible to do some exciting, important things as a result of it which would not otherwise be done. I am sure that we should resist the amendment.
    We are faced with a problem, however, because I am concerned that too small a proportion of the resources of the lottery will go to good causes. After all, the object of that lottery is, overridingly, to benefit such good causes.
    If one breaks down the call on the proceeds, it appears that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor intends to take 12 per cent. in tax; the Government have said that they expect 50 per cent. to go on prizes and my hon. Friend the Minister has said that he expects administrative and operational costs to range between 8 and 18 per cent.—an average of 13 per cent. That leaves only about 25 per cent. of the turnover of the lottery for good causes.
    That must be divided five ways if the millennium fund is to remain among the beneficiaries. That in turn means that only 5 per cent. of the turnover of the lottery will go to charities and in most people's perception, "good causes" means charities. It is, sadly, a small proportion for good causes and particularly for charities. Then we must take into account the displacement of charitable giving which we are apprehensive that the national lottery will induce, and we are all aware that additionality is not quite cast-iron.
    My hon. Friend is the Minister of pastime and pleasure and I have no desire to be a killjoy, but I find it difficult to see how the Government can justify diversion of money within our society on this enormous scale, with all this immense activity and the profits of the operators, unless a higher proportion of the money involved goes to good
    1056
    causes. A year ago, the White Paper suggested that one third of the money from the lottery would go to good causes.
    The Labour party proposes to address this problem by cutting out the millennium fund. I do not agree with that. There are two other ways which we could consider and which would be preferable. We could look at prizes. I understand the need to have substantial prizes—if we do not have them, the whole soufflé may collapse—but we face a dilemma. Huge prizes will increase the likelihood that charitable giving will be displaced. I am unhappy about that, because, instead of people giving 100 per cent. of their donation to charity, they will buy a lottery ticket and, at the end of the process, only 5 per cent. will go to the charity. In that sense, it is a very poor deal for charities.
    What I hope my right hon. and hon. Friends will be prepared to reconsider is the question of rollover. If we are to have rollover, as the Government seem determined we should, we will be looking at rollover jackpot prizes of the order of £20 million. I have seen persuasive calculations to suggest that that will be so; it could well be more. In Ireland, the average spend per head on the lottery is £72. In the United States it is $110, which is almost exactly the same. If we assume a greater native caution in this country and contemplate the possibility that expenditure will be £50 per head, the computations indicate that rollover jackpots could be as large as £40 million.
    I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to think very carefully about what they would be doing in creating such a situation. The lure of such great prizes may provoke people's fantasies and they may flock to buy tickets, but a considerable number of our compatriots may say that there is something rather indecent about prizes on this scale and about huge sums of money being gambled in a scheme not only authorised but created by the Government. They may look at the pockets of poverty that remain in our society, even after all the enormous social progress achieved by the Government, and at the other problems in society, and ask whether it is right that such huge sums should be absorbed in a national lottery.
    It is my belief that the scale of pools prizes has in the past been enough and that the national lottery could prosper sufficiently on the basis of smaller prizes and without rollover. My hon. Friend the Minister earlier in the evening said emphatically that this is not the United States of America. Quite so. We need not emulate the United States in this respect. We do not need the $118 million jackpot that the state lottery of California has created or the $106 million jackpot of Florida. The national lottery here is overridingly for good causes, and I should be happy to see a smaller proportion of its turnover go on prizes and more on good causes.
    I appreciate that prizes must be attractive, but we should not overdo it. I would he happy to contemplate a smaller turnover and a higher proportion of that turnover going to good causes, if that were necessary. The object should be not to maximise the total take of the lottery, but to maximise the amount that goes to good causes. So I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider the question of rollover.
    We could use another angle of attack to deal with the problem that the amendment seeks to tackle: how to increase the proportion that goes to good causes. We can look at the tax treatment of the lottery. I suggest the Minister encourage the Chancellor to adjust his approach to taxing winnings instead of what he proposes to do.
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) ,
    That, at this day's sitting, the National Lottery etc. Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.— [Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
    Question agreed to.
    As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
    Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
    Mr. Howarth: In the United States of America, the tax on winnings is often as high as 30 per cent. The public there seem to accept that, even though the culture does not favour high taxes. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor sought to justify the 12 per cent. rate on the basis that it would compensate the Treasury for income lost on account of the national lottery.
    I was surprised by this proposition and I should be interested to know my right hon. Friend's evidence for it. It would be helpful if he revealed it. Surely the national lottery will generate additional revenue for the Exchequer, especially downstream tax revenues based on construction activity and a host of other activities that will be generated —even administrative and operational activities associated with the lottery will yield resources for the Exchequer: income tax paid by national lottery employees, VAT on purchases and so on.
    I therefore anticipate that the revenue that the Chancellor will receive, generated by the lottery, will be significantly more than the 12 per cent. figure that he gave us. He will probably take in tax from the national lottery three or four times the amount that will go to charities.
    Public expenditure is no doubt a good cause, at least in nearly every instance, but I submit that the public may take it amiss if they begin to perceive the national lottery as disguised extra taxation. The real good causes should not be an obscure residual, the poor relations to the Exchequer in the competititon for funds from the lottery. Ultimately, society's evaluation of the national lottery and the Government's policies in this regard will be based on its effect on good causes.
    If Ministers are not prepared to write into the Bill the commitment that I have sought in an unselected amendment, that 35 per cent. of the turnover from the lottery should go to good causes, will they at least undertake to write that into the contract with the operator? Although I oppose the Opposition amendment, which would remove the millennium fund from the ranks of the beneficiaries, as a means of ensuring that enough can go to charities, the arts, sport and heritage, I ask Ministers to look again at this problem.
    Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) on this issue. He has said, in much the same vein as many of his colleagues in the Committee said, that it is desirable to try to ensure that between 30 and 35 per cent. of the total take goes to good causes. We discussed this subject at some length in Committee, so it is not worth detaining the House further, except to say that I am confident that the Minister has realised that Conservative as well as Opposition Members want a larger take for good causes.
    I would only ask the Minister to assure the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) that the
    1058
    very purpose of the arm's-length commission for the millennium fund is to ensure its independence. I oppose the amendment.
    Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) for his contribution. The Millennium Commission is an arm's-length organisation and I am glad that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to that. I should like to think carefully about the wide-ranging speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). However, I can say at once that I shall have to disappoint him in terms of writing a 35 per cent. figure into any contract, let alone into the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office has said that the Government will produce proposals on rollover. They will be considered in another place.
    The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) asked me to address the issue of Manchester's bid for the Olympics. The Millennium Commission is an independent body and will make its own decisions in the light of the quality of the applications it receives. There is no possibility of the Government allocating any money for a specific project, whether a facility for the Manchester Olympics or anything else. Legitimate applications for funding from the Millennium Commission will be judged by the commission, on which Ministers would be in a small minority. The hon. Member for Stalybride and Hyde will recall that I conceded that in Committee.
    A substantial amount of public money is already committed to Manchester's bid. When Manchester wins —hon. Members representing Manchester constituencies are in no doubt about that—there will be substantially more money. Perhaps one of the special or one-off projects for the Manchester games in the year 2000 would be appropriate for an application. It will not be in my gift to say whether it will succeed. The arguments in Committee about additionality and the Manchester games were thorough and I have nothing to add to them.
    The amendments seek fundamentally to alter a key provision in the Bill to establish a commission to mark the beginning of the third millennium and the year 2000. Far from having a rosy cheek if I accepted the amendment, I would undoubtedly have a blush of shame at deserting an important national lottery objective, which is to find an appropriate way to mark the new millennium for the nation.
    The Bill as drafted establishes an independent commission, appointed by the Queen and free to make its own decisions on spending from a discrete pot of money that will form 20 per cent. of the lottery proceeds until the end of the year 2000. There is provision to extend the amount of time during which money will flow into the funds in order to allow funding to continue for projects that overrun. This is clearly prudent and it is not, I hasten to add, an invitation to profligacy. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that a half-finished millennium project which no funding could be found to finish would be regarded less as a memorial to the achievements of the previous millennium than a monument to folly and the short-sightedness of the House.
    I have been at pains to point out that the United Kingdom national lottery and the benefits accruing from it should be set in the context of a vision of improved

    1059
    quality of life for the whole nation. The amendments seek to blinker some of that vision and to change the character of the Millennium Commission and of the Bill as a whole.
    The provisions are also impractical. We envisage that millennium projects should consist of a small number of large projects and a larger number of small projects, which might be of local significance, as well as bursaries, which might be for people from particular walks of life to undertake work within the United Kingdom on projects that will enhance their contribution to the community on its completion. However, exactly how the money is used will be a matter for the commissioners themselves. They will take a bold, forward-looking approach to their task, and it is important that they they have discretion in this area.
    I have already said that they will fund a small number of large projects. They need access to reasonably large funds to do this, and a reasonably free canvas on which to work. Going cap in hand to eight or more bodies for money to spend and being constrained over areas to work within will not make for imaginative decision making. If the bodies were tardy in releasing funds, a mechanism to require them to do so would be necessary. There might be a need for appeal machinery and so on. We should be creating a bureaucratic framework for what is a simple process, already effectively provided for in the Bill as drafted.
    I regret that I cannot agree to the amendments. They are outside the spirit and vision of the Bill and would fundamentally alter its purpose. I am not willing to accede to that.
    Mr. Pendry: That was a disappointing reply. My hon. Friends have told me that the Minister was saying no. He missed the point about what the Secretary of State said on Second Reading on the Manchester Olympics bid, which was that no lottery money would go into the planned projects. That will not be the case. The matter will run and run—but not now, as it is obvious that the House wishes to make progress. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Corbett: I beg to move amendment No. 102, in page 9, line 19, at end insert 'including films,'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to discuss the following amendments: No. 119, in page 9, line 19, at end insert—
    'including films, for which purpose monies shall be allocated to the British Film Institute and the National Film Corporation.'.
    No. 120, in page 9, line 25, leave out '20' and insert '5'.
    No. 121, in page 9, line 26, at end insert;
    'and

    (f) 15 per cent. shall be allocated for expenditure for the purposes of film, to be divided between the British Film Institute and a body established for the purpose of assisting British film production and approved by the Secretary of State under directions provided in section 21.'.

    No. 104, in page 9, line 28, clause 21, after 'arts', insert 'and film'.
    No. 193, in page 9, line 29, leave out '97.2' and insert '82.2'.
    No. 103, in page 9, line 30, after 'Britain', insert'
    1060
    who shall distribute such proportion as they think appropriate for the purposes of film'.
    No. 122, in page 9, line 30, after 'Britain', insert
    'who shall distribute such proportion as they think appropriate for the purposes of film between the British Film Institute and the National Film Corporation'.
    No. 198, in page 9, line 30, after 'Britain', insert
    'who shall distribute not less than 15 per cent. for the purposes of film to the British Film Institute'.
    No. 194, in page 9, line 30, after 'Britain', insert—
    '(aa) as to 15 per cent. for distribution by a sub-committee of the Arts Council of Great Britain, for expenditure on or connected with film, and'.
    Mr. Corbett: The amendments bring us to the British film industry. The House will recall that we could hear the cheers down Whitehall when the Secretary of State expressed his delight at the six Oscars that British entries took at last month's awards and then claimed that that demonstrated that Britain was "a centre of excellence" for cinema film production. It is true that we have excellent writers, producers and directors, but they work mainly for foreign earnings in foreign lands. The film industry is in crisis.
    Mr. Key: Nonsense.
    Mr. Corbett: I hope that the Under-Secretary will listen to the facts behind that assertion.
    Last year, just one big feature film, "City of Joy", was made here. As to the Oscars, most of the cash for "Howards End" and "The Crying Game" came from abroad, with British contributions limited to welcome slices from Channel 4. There is nothing the matter with that. I am not complaining. I am asserting that we do not do enough to ensure that more films are made in Britain, whether by British producers, writers and directors or anyone else. Fewer and fewer genuinely British films are being made by the cinema. Only 15 cinema films were made last year by British production companies. Some 59 films were shot, but most were low-budget, partly financed by television and consequently with limited cinema potential.
    As Derek Malcolm, the distinguished film correspondent of The Guardian commented after the Oscar awards:
    "If we do well"—
    that is, the British film industry—
    "the government suggests that we don't need assistance. If we don't, the government complains that we hardly deserve support."
    That is about the length of it.
    Although we welcome the round of talks about the future of the film industry on which the Secretary of State has embarked, we want that talking followed by action. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition told the Prime Minister:
    "our film industry could be even more succesful if it received the same backing and support from Government as do its competitors in other countries".
    By that, he meant capital allowances and tax breaks that many, if not most, other European countries offer to those making films.
    The Prime Minister's response was somewhat mean-spirited. He said:
    "Once again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman equates real encouragement with the spending in subsidy of taxpayers' money".—[Official Report, 30 March 1993; Vol. 122, c. 152.]
    No one is asking for subsidy in that sense. Alongside what the Government decide separately to do, the amendments are designed to ensure that our film industry, especially its

    1061
    independent sector in production, distribution and exhibition, gets a proper share of the cash available for the arts from the national lottery.
    When that matter was debated, the Under-Secretary of State said that a special Arts Council committee, including film industry representatives, would be established to deal with the allocation of money from the lottery. He undertook to reconsider the arrangements for distribution to film but alas, despite talks with the British Film Institute and other bodies, no changes were proposed.
    10.15 pm
    The present arrangements are not believed to be sufficient. The Arts Council remit on film, as the Under-Secretary of State well knows, is very narrow and confined to activities relating to avant garde films and documentaries about artists. Of course those have their place, but the arrangements do not begin to address the problem confronting the British film industry. In any event, the Arts Council is far detached from the industry.
    The BFI argues that there is a need to assess how the development of film and video should proceed across the whole country and to back that with lottery distribution. It adds:
    "If the present proposal is maintained, we fear that film will continue to be treated as the poor relation within the national funding system."
    The amendments seek, on behalf of the BFI, to establish a separate film committee of the Arts Council's lottery committee, so that people with expertise and knowledge of the industry can help direct where lottery moneys can best be spent to support it. That sub-committee should examine applications for funding relating to film and video and make recommendations to the Arts Council's main lottery committee. The Minister will be aware that such an arrangement does not fully meet the film industry's wishes, but it does go with the grain of the Bill.
    I hope that the Government feel able to accept the spirit of the amendments, if not to the letter, and will agree that such an arrangement can be sensibly considered and made in the year before the lottery comes into force. That would give another signal to the industry that the Government do more than talk and generally want to act to help the British film industry.
    Mr. Cryer: I shall concentrate my remarks on amendments Nos. 119 to 122 and 198, which I tabled and which fall into two categories, and declare my interest as a governor of the British Film Institute. Although I am very pleased to hold that office, I hasten to add that I receive no remuneration—I just have the pleasure of taking part in the work of the most important body in the country working for the preservation and promotion of the visual arts.
    Being the Member of Parliament for Bradford, South, I represent the city that is the home of the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television, which is extremely successful. A new cinema, Pictureville, also opened there recently—and that cannot have happened in many cities. Pictureville is promoted by the museum and has become a centre of interest and importance for film and television.
    As a matter of historical interest, the major office of what used to be Gaumont British was centred in Bradford. It was promoted by the Ostrer brothers, who were very big in the wool industry as the owners of a firm called Salts
    1062
    (Saltaire) Ltd. As one of them was a socialist, he offered the whole Gaumont British film circuit and the Gaumont British film studios to Ramsay MacDonald's Labour Government, who told him firmly that they did not think that Governments should have anything to do with film production. We have come a long way since then. The Ostrer brothers developed that great circuit from their offices in Bradford. I want to persuade the Minister that the Government should have something to do with promoting film archive work, promotion work and representation of the industry work and with the production of films.
    My amendments provide for a reduction in the Millennium Commission's funds and for the allocation of money to film—to be divided between the British Film Institute and a national film corporation. They also provide for money to be provided directly to the BFI from the section allocated to the arts. An allocation percentage is provided for. I point that out so that the Minister will have plenty of alternatives on which to draw when making the sympathetic reply that I know he will wish to make.
    It is important to emphasise that this money is not designed to be a substitute for existing grant aid on which the BFI exists. Therefore, I draw the Minister's attention to the purpose for which this money for the BFI, if supplemented, could be used. At the Elstree studios near Borehamwood, film archives for the old Associated British Picture Corporation were established. When the old ABP studios were sold off to Cannon, Cannon sold off the film archives—the visual treasures of our nation's history, going back to the 1890s—to an American company, the Weintraub Organisation.
    Elstree studios were sold off by Cannon, and some of the ground area has been converted into a supermarket. The result is that the film archives are being transferred elsewhere. The BFI wanted to buy those precious film archives, for they represent living history, animated in a way that has never been possible before. These precious assets belong to our nation. Although it made an effort, the BFI did not have sufficient money, from its existing grant, to purchase those precious millions of feet of film and preserve them for the nation, although that is the very purpose for which the Department of National Heritage is designed. When archive material of that nature becomes available in future, lottery money could be used to obtain it. However, those archives have been sold off to a French firm, Le Studio Canal.
    If film archives were considered to be works of art, an export licence would be required if somebody wanted to export that material, but no export licence is required to export film. Many great British films are regarded by everybody as works of art. It is the most popular form of artistic culture that we have ever achieved. It touches more people than any other art form. It combines all the arts into one medium which, at its best, can be the most powerful medium that humanity has known, yet those millions of feet have simply gone outside our control. The allocation of lottery money to the BFI could be used for that important purpose.
    Let us take another example—the archives at Berkhamsted, where precious film which has been purchased, allocated or donated to the British Film Institute is carefully preserved. As the House is no doubt aware, though, until the mid-1950s, film was developed on cellulose nitrate stock. Cellulose nitrate stock is fragile. It has the extraordinary and very disturbing property of

    1063
    being self-combustible at certain stages of degeneration. If, therefore, films are to be preserved, they have to be transferred to cellulose acetate stock, which is not subject to that degenerating process and is permanent.
    The problem is that the transfer process is costly and is being undertaken by the BFI from its existing funds. We hope that the money allocated by the Arts Council to the BFI will be a fixed percentage, if the Minister agrees, so that the BFI can calculate what sort of programme it can undertake and the transfer programme can be undertaken with money which is not part of the BFI's existing grant. That would mean that, if there were any serious deterioration in the nitrate stock, the stock could be transferred much more rapidly. I mention that as an example of what the BFI and other bodies could undertake if there were an allocation of funds from the lottery beyond their grant aid, which would give them more certainty for the future.
    I know that it is late; the Minister should not frown about that, because the Government should have realised that such important legislation would be subject to scrutiny on Report. It is right and proper that the House should spend some time on this examination.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) mentioned film production. Some of my amendments would allow for an allocation to an organisation developed for the promotion of British film production and to the BFI, or to the BFI alone. The British Screen Advisory Council sent me a proposal for film production which, in essence, involves the development of a national film corporation. It was only a proposal, so the amendments provide for the creation of a body that could be authorised by the Secretary of State to allocate money. The amendments are highly flexible, which means that the Minister has a number of choices.
    Film production is very important. The United States has two major exports. Aerospace items are first on the list and film and television programmes are second. They create revenue but also a cascade effect for a range of products. If British films are selling well abroad, the likelihood is that British aerospace items, British textiles and British engineering will benefit from their success. If the films are seen by millions of people—they will be if they are successful—they can establish a benchmark of excellence. That is what has happened in the United States because of the success of its manufacturing technology. It is not a question of production for production's sake—it is a matter of our national presence in the rest of the world.
    We have the advantage of speaking English. The American market is the biggest English-speaking market in the world. It is worth bearing it in mind that this country has unsurpassed standards of technical excellence. That is why Steven Spielberg produced so many films here before the erosion of the capital allowances reduced the American presence in this country.
    Spielberg attended a meeting in the House and I asked him whether it was true that, despite the fact that America has a great history of making classic films which we have all had the pleasure of enjoying, the standards of technical excellence in this country were as good as or, in many cases, better than those in the United States. Spielberg answered that it was true: the standards of technical excellence in this country are better because of our system
    1064
    of apprenticeship and the gradation of age. Older, more experienced people can pass on knowledge to younger people in the industry. If we have no British film industry and no British film production—we are already reaching that stage—the reservoir of knowledge and expertise will be eroded.
    In 1991 there were 59 feature films, in 1992 there were 42, and as for this year, Screen Finance, produced by the Financial Times on 24 March 1993, said:
    "Just four films involving British production companies and intended for a theatrical release are likely to have gone before the cameras by the end of the first quarter of 1993, according to information collected by Screen Finance. The figure, which includes three co-productions, is six fewer than in the comparable period in 1992 and five fewer than in the first three months of 1991".
    So the prospect is not hopeful.
    10.30 pm
    The British Screen Advisory Council suggests that, especially in view of an increase in cinema admissions in this country from the low of 53 million in 1984 to more than 100 million in 1992, a national film corporation should be established on the basis of the successful period of the firm EMI, in which it had a pre-selling arrangement with the United States for five successful major feature films—"The Deer hunter", "Death on the Nile", "Convoy", "Warlords of Atlantis" and "The Driver". Only when EMI began to promote its own films in the United States did it pursue a disastrous production course, and it then lost about £90 million.
    The company's earlier success was achieved on a basic budget of $9 million, which produced a gross profit of about $24 million for EMI, irrespective of the additional profit for the United States. That is the basis proposed by the British Screen Advisory Council, but that sort of money is needed to start things off.
    A criticism of the EMI programme is that it could be argued that, apart from "Death on the Nile", the films involved were much closer to the United States than to indigenous British life and did not reflect our aims, culture and ambitions—which they should have done. However, on the back of successful co-productions, we could have smaller productions that reflected our way of life—films such as "Gregory's Girl", which was made for £350,000 10 years or so ago, and took more than £2 million.
    My amendments cover such a proposal, and I hope that the Minister will respond sympathetically because, as a result of various failures which I do not have the time to enumerate—Goldcrest was a symbol of over-expenditure and financial failure, as subsequently was EMI, as I have just explained—the film industry now has a proposal for a potential success, but only if it receives help from the Government through the lottery. The Minister may say that that is not the Government's policy, but other nations in the English-speaking world are providing the help that has supplied the basis for export success. We have only to consider Australia to realise that its film production industry has been successful because of a basis of central and state government help.
    I hope that the Minister will consider my proposal sympathetically. We must bear in mind the fact that, as he has repeated several times, he is considering the whole period of 12 months over which the lottery will be brought into operation. Proposals such as mine could be incorporated into the legislation so that we could both give the British Film Institute the extra money with which it

    1065
    could do so much to preserve our film and cinema heritage and enable British film production to get off the ground again—I must tell the Minister that it is on its knees at the moment.
    Sir Anthony Durant: As the other governor of the British Film Institute, from the Government side, I should like to contribute to this short debate.
    There is no doubt that there are concerns in the film industry about the lottery and the way in which it is being handled. When the Government were returned at the general election, the industry welcomed the policy of having one Department to look after it. That was a great step forward, for which the industry had pressed for years. It was fed up with being handled partly by the Department of Trade and Industry, partly by the Education Department and partly by the Home Office. Being looked after by three Departments made it difficult for the industry to get its cause before the Government, so it welcomes as a great step forward the fact that there was to be only one Department.
    The film industry has also welcomed the discussions that it is having with the Secretary of State. However, it feels that, because the Minister is suggesting that the money will go through the Arts Council, it will be sidestepped and will not have the opportunity to put its own case and to get its own money. The British Film Institute does not have great confidence that the Arts Council really looks after it. The institute feels that the Arts Council does not entirely understand films. Why not have a specialist committee to distribute money to the film industry? I urge the Minister to consider that point again.
    The film industry remains a mixture of an art form, an entertainment medium, an educator and a big business. It is the art form—the cultural form—about which we are talking principally tonight. We need a greater British input to highlight our national heritage and culture. We make very good films when we are given the opportunity, and they do very well. However, the opportunities to make such films are diminishing. Distribution is one of the difficulties we face, although that is a side issue in this debate.
    We should put more money from the lottery towards the film industry by the methods that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has mentioned to the BFI. I urge the Department to talk to the Treasury. The classification of film as a capital item some years ago revived the British film industry. It really got going, but then the scheme was stopped. It was a wonderful opportunity. An opportunity was created for people to invest money in the film industry, which is the key to it all, and it got the film industry going again.
    We could use some of the lottery money on the Children's Film Foundation. It is a tragedy that the television companies do not make films for children, but only children's programmes. The foundation has done a remarkable job over the years in making very suitable films for children, especially for the Saturday morning matinees. That is a positive, educational and constructive area into which we could put some of the lottery money. I urge the Department to look again at the proposals for the film industry and at the way in which the money is distributed.
    Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) for his contribution,
    1066
    and to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). My hon. Friend raised some important and interesting issues. I shall consider the question of the Children's Film Foundation and learn about its contribution. It is clearly a matter of great concern to my hon. Friend.
    My hon. Friend asked why we could not have a sub-committee for film. In a nutshell, the answer is that, if we had a sub-committee for film, we should have to have a sub-committee for every other branch of the arts. That would be wasteful and would not address the problem of how best to provide a fair distribution of resources within the 20 per cent. category for the arts as a whole. I take the point that the world of film feels that the Arts Council does not love it. That notion has been around for a long while. I do not intend to comment on the substance or otherwise of it. Nevertheless, it is a perception that we cannot ignore. I shall explain how we shall seek to address that point.
    The hon. Member for Bradford, South made a very helpful contribution, and I am grateful to him for raising what he described as right and proper concerns even at this hour. I take on board what he says about Elstree. I recall my visit to Pinewood not so long ago, when I met a number of the interests there. I was, as ever, impressed by the capability and competence of our production centres. I include in the same breath Shepperton, which still makes a remarkable contribution and is very much part of our heritage. It is well represented by its Member of Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie), who is here tonight.
    The hon. Member for Bradford, South also drew attention to the interesting ideas in the amendment. We shall think about them. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's various suggestions.
    I shall disappoint the House by not accepting wholesale—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or retail."] or, indeed, retail—the amendments on offer tonight, and I shall seek to explain why. I shall also seek to explain why I am prepared to listen and to work during the next 12 months to ensure that we get the answers right.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has initiated a new round of discussions with the film industry. We have already had the first session, and we shall have another tomorrow, and a number are planned for the coming weeks. We are very much in listening mode and have specifically asked the film producers—and will ask the industry more widely—to think for themselves and then to share with us thoughts about the ways in which we might legitimately make progress on the issue of the national lottery.
    I am well aware of the importance of the United Kingdom film industry; that goes without saying. I enjoy as much as anyone else taking my family to the cinema, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently went to a cinema in my constituency to see an excellent British film. I am very proud of what the industry has been able to achieve. Although Oscars do not mean everything, those awarded recently mark the success of the United Kingdom film industry, which has been very significant of late. As the House knows, we support the film industry in a number of ways.
    In the Bill, we have chosen to use one body—the Arts Council—to distribute lottery money to the arts. We are quite clear that the arts include film and crafts. We decided that it would not be practical to use a specific film sub-committee, because if we did that for film, we would have to do it for every other sector of the arts: there is no

    1067
    reason why we should not multiply the number of distribution bodies in other sectors to follow that argument. In effect, we would be opening the floodgates, and I do not think that that would be an effective way to proceed.
    Under clause 24, we will direct the Arts Council to take into account the need to fund film and craft applications and we will generally direct the Arts Council and other distribution bodies that, if they do not have specific expertise in a particular area, they should seek it from a relevant expert body—unless, of course, that expert body is the one applying for the funding.
    In considering applications for lottery funding, the Arts Council proposes to use a special lottery committee which will have on it at least one member with expertise on film and one with expertise on crafts. Those members will call on the advice of many expert bodies, such as—but not exclusively—the British Film Institute, to help them to make their decisions. We think that that provides a very flexible framework within which film stands to benefit a great deal from lottery proceeds.
    I fully accept the spirit of amendments Nos. 102 to 104, although I hope to reassure the House that they are unnecessary. The Arts Council charter makes it clear that the council can fund film. I have said that, under clause 24, we will direct that it should fund applications from the film and craft sectors. In its annual report on how it has distributed the lottery proceeds, the council will have to publish the directions and demonstrate achievement against those directions. If film is not being given a fair share, it will be quite clear to the House.
    On a practical level, it is now up to the Arts Council and the interested bodies to work together to find the best way to develop the film element. There is a read-across to other areas: the Sports Council will clearly be able to fund football and hockey from its lottery allocation, but we do not need—nor do we want—to specify that in the Bill.
    Co-operation and a willingness to work constructively and with enthusiasm for the task are the key, as is an ability to use imagination and to regard the lottery money as a new source of funding that should be considered in a new way. Organisations, whether in the film world or in other areas, should not look to lottery funds as a means of financing long-cherished grant strategies or as a source of core funding. The intention of the lottery is to develop projects that are developed from the ground, not dictated as part of some grant plan. That is why I was especially grateful for the practical suggestions made by the hon. Member for Bradford, South.
    The House should remember that, once the Bill is passed, the Arts Council and film representatives will have a year or so to get things right and to work out a suitable system to enable film to benefit to its maximum potential.
    I cannot accept amendments Nos. 119 to 122, as they bring into play two additional bodies, including one which does not at the moment exist. The British Film Institute is very important and that is why we choose to allocate to it £15 million a year. However, it is only one player in the varied world of film and to name a particular body in the world of film in respect of the amendment would, to say the least, be a source of contention.
    The BFI has a clear opportunity to work with the Arts Council and to discover the best way to distribute money
    1068
    for film within the framework offered by the Bill. The amendments also suggest removing most of the allocation of lottery proceeds from the Millennium Commission and giving them to film outside the arts allocation. I cannot accept that. The Millennium Commission is an intrinsic part of the Bill and film will clearly receive funding from the arts element.
    10.45 pm
    The amendment specifically mentions film production. The Bill does not rule out the possibility of funding film production. The exact use to which lottery money should be put will be for the distribution body to establish with the expert bodies in the film world. At the Secretary of State's first meeting on film last week, we specifically asked the film producers to work out ideas on how they believe lottery money might reasonably be applied. That will be of great assistance to the Arts Council, which will, in any case, consult widely about how money for film should be distributed.
    We have an open mind and believe that the provisions in the Bill provide a wide canvas to create an excellent distribution mechanism that will work to the best advantage of film. I hope that I can persuade hon. Members not to press the amendment. I hope that I have been able to reassure them that we understand the problems of the film industry and that we will understand them better after we have completed our round of consultation.
    As the Minister responsible for film, I will of course be paying the usual visit to the Cannes film festival. I expect no tears about that. It will be an extremely hectic and short weekend and I am warned that there will be no time for fun. Later in the year I will visit Paris and Berlin with David Puttnam to learn more about their industries. I will go with him so that I get the proper perspective.
    I hasten to add that, following the examples of the French and the Germans, who have particular problems in having lesser used languages, does not necessarily mean that we would wish to emulate exactly what they do. Film producers have repeatedly stressed to us that they are not simply coming with a begging bowl looking for subsidy. They have a sophisticated and precise range of requests to which we are listening.
    I have described a distribution mechanism that we have constructed which I believe will deliver to film and crafts a fair share of lottery proceeds.
    Mr. Corbett: With the leave of the House, I would like to reply.
    This has been a helpful and useful debate with some extremely informed contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) with their great interest in the film industry.
    The Minister's remarks are helpful, as they were designed to be, not least perhaps to the Arts Council, which will know that the film industry expects more than a nodding acquaintance in the distribution of lottery moneys under its auspices. The Minister is right to say that in no sense should the film industry look to lottery funds to take on the bulk of whatever may be decided as a result of the Secretary of State's consultations with the film industry and the propositions that it makes about how the Government may better help the industry. I understand that important distinction.

    1069
    On the back of the Oscar awards, it does not help to say that they mark the success of the British film industry. The most that can be claimed is that they mark the success and excellence of a number of individuals in the British film industry which collectively is, and should be, more important than that. I am not knocking the contribution that those individuals and their colleagues made in the winning of Oscars, but that is no substitute for us having a properly based and organised British film industry.
    The consultations in which the right hon. Gentleman is engaging with all branches of the industry prompts us all to ask whether we really want a British film industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South demonstrated—I know that he could have said a great deal more—it is not simply a question of what the British film industry can do in terms of our own popular culture, important though that is; it is a question of our ability to do what we have done so successfully in the past through the medium of film. Those films—many sadly, made in black and white—said so much about the Britain of that period. In a sense, they represent a sort of visual BBC World Service—but we should also see films as many of our European partners do: as a source of revenue for the industry and the country.
    The debate has been worth while, and I thank the Minister for what he has said. I am sure that he appreciates that this is not the last that we shall hear of the matter, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Pendry: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in clause 20 page 9, line 21, at end insert
    'of which some proportion shall be allocated for expenditure on or in connection with football'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 15, in clause 21, page 9, line 35, at end insert
    'who shall distribute such proportion as they I think appropriate to the Footbal Trust'.
    Mr. Pendry: Rather than speaking to the amendments, I had hoped to be returning from Wembley after cheering on our national side. I had to give the tickets back; I hope that someone will shout out the score before I finish speaking.
    The amendments go to the heart of a vital issue. We must ensure that, in introducing a national lottery, we safeguard the interests of football in this country. I hope that the Minister shares my view that football has particular needs which must be taken into account: it is our national game, and it is an important part of the fabric of many people's lives.
    Happily, the game is thriving at all levels, from the very top of the professional game down to junior boys' and—in these enlightened times—girls' teams. Football has no parallel in terms of the extent and depth of participation; and, of course, no sport has such spectator appeal. The huge following that the game attracts represents a special dimension when we consider the needs of the sport.
    It is right for the Government, and all of us, to take every possible step to ensure that our football grounds are safe. Clubs must meet the requirements laid down by Lord Justice Taylor in his report following the Hillsborough disaster of 1989, and ensure that spectators enjoy the standards of safety and comfort that they have every right to expect. I have no quarrel with any of that, but we must recognise that football faces a huge task in converting
    1070
    grounds to all-seated accommodation, and—in the lower divisions of the Football League and in Scotland—ensuring that any retained standing terracing is safe.
    A great deal of ground development work has still to be done, and football faces an enormous bill in completing it —probably as much as £400 million in the years ahead. The traditional source of funds for football—indeed, until the recent television agreements, virtually the only source —has been the football pools. That is one of the main reasons why all my hon. Friends—and, I suggest, many Conservative Members as well—are so insistent that there must be fair competition between the pools and the national lottery. The lottery gives us the chance to do more for football, and that is the purpose of these amendments.
    How can the funds best be channelled into the game? That is no easy task, as the Minister recognises. The needs and resources of clubs vary enormously. Clubs at the grass roots need basic facilities like pitches and changing rooms; as we move up the leagues, the requirements become greater. Certifying authorities are rightly concerned about safety and crowd control; that concern is reflected at the lower levels of the league as well as at the top. Many conference and feeder league clubs need to undertake major ground redevelopment work for safety reasons and to meet league requirements.
    Fortunately, we have the Football Trust, a body vastly experienced in the complex matter of grant aid in football. I am sure that we are all aware of the crucially important work carried out by the trust. It provides essential help to football clubs from the top level to the grass roots of the game throughout the country. It has provided more than £150 million in grant aid to football at all levels since it started life as the Football Grounds Improvement Trust in 1975.
    In 1990, the Government reduced pool betting duty by 2·5 per cent. on the understanding that the funds produced —some £20 million a year for each of the five years for which the agreement with the Government runs—would be used to help clubs to meet the requirements of the Taylor report.
    The Government chose the trust as the vehicle for channelling much-needed support into the game. The Opposition fully understood why that decision was made. The trust has a long history of distributing grant aid money. It has tackled its priority task of helping clubs to implement Taylor. It has particularly helped clubs in the premier league and first division of the Football League to convert their grounds to all-seated accommodation. That has been a great success.
    Grants totalling more than £63 million have been made to major ground redevelopment works, costing some £235 million. All that has been achieved with the interests of efficiency, cost-effectiveness and accountability firmly in mind. The trust has proven procedures in place involving professional surveyors and accountants designed to ensure the proper appraisal of clubs' plans. It has an annual budget of more than £36 million and a staff of only nine. Its administration overheads account for less than 2 per cent. of its income.
    I have seen a letter, as I am sure the Minister has, from Sir Peter Yarranton, the chairman of the Sports Council, to Lord Aberdare, the chairman of the Football Trust, in which he acknowledges the position of the trust in channelling funds to football clubs. He says in his letter:
    "the Football Trust is clearly the appropriate organisation to continue its excellent and highly regarded work in this sector.

    1071
    I envisage that the Sports Council for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would each wish to devote a significant share of their lottery revenues to annual allocation of the Football Trust, taking full advantage of your well tested methods of appraisal and allocation."
    I quote that letter because it describes perfectly the sensible position that the Opposition wish to reach. I look forward to the Minister's commendation of it.
    The Government have said that once they are satisfied that the football leagues and clubs are playing their full part in meeting the cost of ground redevelopment work from their own resources, they will extend the life of the reduction in pool betting duty for a further five years from 1995, to match the Taylor timetable. Football has already demonstrated that it is taking its responsibilities seriously and providing a reasonable part of the cost of redeveloping grounds from its own resources. I hope that football and the trust will not have to wait much longer for confirmation that the life of the betting duty concession is to be extended.
    The point of the amendment is to say to the Minister that the Sports Council does not have a relationship with professional football and needs the assistance of a football trust and people with expertise to channel the moneys into the proper quarter.
    Someone has told me that the score is England 2 Holland 2. I say that for the benefit of the Minister, but he knows already. I hope that the Minister accepts that we need a professional body linked with the Sports Council which can channel the money effectively to ensure that our football grounds are safe in line with Lord Justice Taylor's report. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), who is a Derby County supporter, agrees with me.
    Mr. Key: I believe that we all agree about the importance of football as our national sport. In the past week, the saga of Gazza's knee has been a source of great concern to many people in England. The capacity crowd at Wembley has carried the burden of anxiety for many people tonight as England played Holland and drew, 2–2.
    Other national teams of the countries of the United Kingdom were facing similar challenges tonight. Scottish hearts were turned to Portugal; Scotland, I fear, went down 5–0; the hopes of Wales were set on the Czech Republic, where the team drew; 1–1 while Northern Irish eyes were directed to Spain, where, unfortunately, their team went down 3–1.
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: Can we have the rugby league results as well?
    11 pm
    Mr. Key: Later.
    The prospect of all four nations being represented at the world cup in the United States next year is rather a faint one at the moment.
    I understand the intention behind the amendment, but I am reluctant to agree to it. It would have many undesirable consequences. For example, to single out
    1072
    professional football for special treatment might be highly contentious—some hon. Members in the Chamber might agree—and could be detrimental to other sports.
    The argument against singling out one potential beneficiary in the Bill was put when we discussed the film industry. I do not accept that, as a result of the lottery, the pools will suffer and so the income of the Football Trust will fall. I do not accept that, given competent management, the pools should suffer as a result of the national lottery. The changes already made to the pools regime places it in a far better competitive position than it has ever occupied. It would not be surprising if the pools increased its current turnover.
    The income for the Football Trust comes partly from the 2·5 per cent. pools betting duty, contributed by the Treasury, and a contribution from the spot-the-ball competition organised by that happy band of Littlewoods, Vernons and Zetters. That is a proper contribution to the game, without which that band's competition could not exist.
    It would not be right to name the Football Trust as a beneficiary in the Bill, but we are determined that football should be able to benefit from the lottery. It has been suggested that, as the Sports Council has not funded football hitherto, it will not do so in the future. That is not so.
    How football clubs use their programme money is dictated by a set of priorities according to the level of resources available. Those clubs will, of course, be able to apply for funds from the lottery and it will give them far greater sums to use, according to applications received. Applications by that sport will be judged, genuinely, on their merits. The Football Trust will also continue to carry out its valuable work. That means that the sport will be in an extremely good position.
    The amendment is unnecessary. We have no doubt that those connected with football will be able to apply for funds and that the Sports Council will do its duty. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) will not press his amendment to a vote.
    Mr. Pendry: With the leave of the House, I wish to reply.
    The Minister has missed the point completely. In Committee, I asked him if he would endeavour to build a bridge between football and the Sports Council and he said that he would. I had expected him to give a much more positive response tonight.
    I support the Sports Council, but its staff do not have the necessary expertise to do the jobs that football requires to be done as a result of Government legislation, no less. The sport therefore needs a much more positive response from the Minister. I hope that he will reflect on the matter.
    I shall not press the amendment to a vote, but I should like to visit the Minister, if he will receive me, to put the case more clearly, if I did not do so tonight, because he has missed the point. I shall then try to offer him a better explanation of our argument. At this stage, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

National Lottery etc, Bill
  Clause 21

    THE DISTRIBUTING BODIES
    Amendments made: No. 30, in page 9, line 27, leave out 'in' and insert 'paid into'.
    No. 31, in page 9, line 28, at end insert 'in the Distribution Fund'.
    No. 32, in page 9, line 33, leave out 'in' and insert 'paid into'.
    No. 33, in page 9, line 34, at end insert 'in the Distribution Fund'.
    No. 34, in page 9, line 42, leave out 'in' and insert 'paid into'.
    No. 35, in page 9, line 43, after 'held' insert 'in the Distribution Fund'.
    No. 36, in page 10, line 1, leave out 'in' and insert 'paid into'.
    No. 37, in page 10, line 2, after 'held' insert 'in the Distribution Fund'.
    No. 38, in page 10, line 4, leave out 'in' and insert 'paid into'.
    No. 39, in page 10, line 6, after 'held' insert 'in the Distribution Fund'.—[Mr. Brooke.]

  Clause 23

    APPLICATION OF MONEY BY DISTRIBUTING BODIES
    Mr. Key: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 10, line 12, leave out from 'body' to 'for' in line 13 and insert 'shall distribute any money paid to it under section 22'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 41 and 42.
    Amendment No. 11, inclause 24, page 10, leave out lines 33 to 35.
    Government amendments Nos. 43 to 47.
    Amendment No. 22, in clause 24, page 10, line 45, at end insert—
    '(4A) The Secretary of State shall, before making directions under subsection (1) and (3), consult the parties concerned and publish reasons for the making of such directions.'.
    Mr. Key: I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon may wish to speak to his amendments Nos. 11 and 22, which are grouped with amendment No. 40. That is certainly acceptable to me, if, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is acceptable to you.
    On Second Reading my right hon. Friend made it clear that we were considering how the drafting of parts of clause 24 might be changed. In Committee I undertook to table amendments which would take account of some of the concerns expressed to us. The first change that we propose—amendment No. 42—would change the contents of directions which I might give to the distributing bodies. The original draft of the Bill would give the Secretary of State the power to direct bodies as to the purposes for which the money might be distributed or applied and adds the conditions which must be satisfied before money is distributed or applied.
    We have listened carefully to the concerns of potential beneficiaries and of disinterested parties that, under these powers, a Secretary of State might be unnecessarily
    1074
    prescriptive. It is certainly not the intention to be so, but I understand that the original drafting gave cause for concern and that the distributing bodies might be presented with either a shopping list which they would be required to fund or with a long list of proscribed projects.
    We propose, therefore, to replace the current subsection (1) of the clause with the one now on the amendment paper. This new subsection will enable the Secretary of State only to direct the bodies on matters which must be taken into account in distribution decisions. With this amendment there is no scope for the Secretary of State effectively to take the distribution decision himself. However, he will be able to set broad criteria for applications, for example, that capital projects should be favoured where possible—this might not be appropriate in the case of the Charities Board—or that partnership funding arrangements are to be preferred.
    Amendment No. 45 specifically extends the scope of directions to the National Heritage Memorial Fund so that the NHMF must comply with them when applying money. This takes account of the fact that the NHMF has the power to apply money on its own behalf, to purchase objects or buildings of importance to the national heritage and to hold these for a transitional period.
    Amendment No. 47 requires the Secretary of State to consult a distributing body before giving any direction to it. This is to ensure that directions cannot be made which are unworkable or without the views of the body concerned being taken into consideration and it reflects the undertaking that I gave to the Standing Committee.
    In amendment No. 47 we accept the principle behind the first part of amendment No. 22. It is desirable that the issuing of directions should be informed by the experience and opinions of the distributors. I cannot, however, accept the second part of amendment No. 22 because the Secretary of State may not refuse to account for decisions taken in the fulfilment of his duties. But to require the reasons for every decision to be published would place on the Department the duty to produce documents which, to a great extent, would not be of interest to anyone save the distributors themselves.
    During the consultation process, before a direction is issued, the distributors will be made aware of the intentions behind each direction. If a direction appears to be based on unreasonable grounds, the Secretary of State can be asked by Parliament to account for his decision. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will agree that amendment No. 22 is not necessary.
    I cannot accept amendment No. 11. Our purpose in drafting subsection (2) was to ensure that the distributing bodies did not act in a way that might give rise to conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest would arise if a distributor made grants to a body which it owned or wholly sponsored, or whose members were all appointed by the distributor, or whose membership was conterminous with that of the distributor. It is vital that the Secretary of State should be able to make it clear that certain categories of potential beneficiary should not receive money. This power is exercisable only by order, so Parliament would have the opportunity to scrutinise and the Secretary of State could be required to account for decisions taken on the use of the power.
    In drafting the clause we considered whether it might be possible to state this aim explicitly in the Bill, and amendment No. 10 attempts to do just that. However, there would be problems in reaching a statutory definition

    1075
    of a controlling interest, particularly since we are likely to be dealing with public bodies which are not always constituted in similar ways. In addition, the inclusion of a statutory definition would remove any discretion on the part of the Secretary of State to take a reasonable view.
    It is possible that a body might appear technically to be substantially controlled by the distributor, but the working arrangements might make a conflict of interest unlikely. The option suggested here would be to remove the Secretary of State's power entirely, and that we cannot accept. The subsection as drafted would make it possible for certain types of potential beneficiary to be ruled out, but at the same time to ensure that a decision to do so could be scrutinised. So I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that this mechanism is necessary and desirable and that they will agree to retain the subsection.
    Mr. Corbett: I thank the Minister for the way he has responded to the concerns voiced by hon. Members on both sides of the House. He understands them and has set out fairly to meet them.
    As the Minister knows, both the Sports Council and the Arts Council have close working relationships with the Department of National Heritage, but they are their own people. They work closely with and consult officials in the Department, but in a hands-off way. I am quite sure that those officials would never try to lean on the Sports Council or Arts Council when those bodies came to distribute the grants allocated to them. The councils lead lives separate from that of the Department, although they sensibly get together with Department officials from time to time.
    I invite the Minister to acknowledge that this is so—that the Government have no intention of disturbing the relationship. I hope that he will confirm that the councils' role as distributors is not to be altered. The Minister, I am sure, can easily give this undertaking; but he will understand that there is some nervousness about the future. We are all reluctant about and resistant to change, and especially suspicious of anything new. I am sure that the Minister can make a statement to allay these fears.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: This is a very important group of amendments. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister undertook to redraft subsection (1) of clause 24 to make the powers contained in it less sweeping. He has been as good as his word, and I welcome the Government amendments, which limit the Secretary of State's powers in a reasonable way and require him to consult before making a direction.
    My amendment, No. 22, contains, as the Minister observed, a requirement additional to the requirement that the Secretary of State would place on himself by means of Government amendment No. 47. He would be required not just to consult but to publish reasons when he makes directions. I believe it right that if the Secretary of State uses his power in an area where traditionally the Government have dealt at arm's length, he should explain what he has in mind.
    I did not entirely follow the Minister's problem with the documents. No one is asking for immense numbers of documents to be published. We simply want some explanation of why the Secretary of State intended to use his power of direction in this sensitive area.
    1076
    Subsection (2) will also give rise to some anxiety. In his letter of 3 March to members of the Committee, the Minister explained that it is intended to ensure that the distributing bodies do not act in a way that would lead to conflicts of interest. The provisions of subsection (2), however, give the Secretary of State a much broader power to restrict persons or classes or descriptions of persons who may not be funded by the distributing bodies. The subsection therefore needs re-examination.
    Amendments Nos. 11 and 10 attempt to deal with the matter in such a way as to make the Bill reflect more precisely the intention behind subsection (2), as set out in the Minister's letter. I hope that the Minister will accept the purpose of the amendments, which is to address in a more precise way the matter about which he is concerned.
    Amendment No. 10 places a clearly stated duty on the distributing bodies to ensure that no possible conflict of interest arises, or seems to arise, in their grant-making decisions. Amendment No. 11 seeks to remove the more general power of direction to exclude beneficiaries, a power that I cannot imagine the Government wishing to use.
    Unless clause 24(2) is replaced or redrafted, it runs the risk of affording some future Secretary of State the opportunity to forget the intention behind the clause and to use it to restrict the payment of grant to organisations that are perceived to be at odds with Government policies. We rightly pride ourselves on being able to operate an effective arm's-length relationship between Government and the voluntary sector, as well as the arts, heritage and sport. I am certain that we should not do anything to undermine that proper liberal principle.
    11.15 pm
    In the Committee debate on the clause, the Minister emphasised that the power in subsection (2) could be invoked only by order. While that represents some safeguard against the power being used unreasonably. it does not provide the same watertight guarantee that would be provided by redrafting. The terminology of the amendment is taken from the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in which the question of local authority interests in companies is dealt with.
    No doubt the amendment would technically need to be accompanied by other amendments to clarify aspects of its definitions and so on, but if my hon. Friend considers that the amendment is not the appropriate means of specifying his intention, perhaps he will undertake to look at the matter again with a view to tabling an amendment in the other place so that the matter may be made clear in the Bill.
    Mr. Key: I thought that I had covered all but one of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). The exception was the detail in amendment No. 10, which I do not think is necessary.
    We are satisfied that the intention of amendment No. 10 is correct, that bodies should not distribute money to bodies in which they have a controlling interest. We thought carefully about a number of wordings, any one of which was similar to the amendment. However, I regret that the amendment as drafted would not work. Defining a controlling interest would be impossible and would be open to many interpretations and challenges. We

    1077
    concluded that the measure in clause 24(2) is the most practical approach. It might look draconian, but it is not intended to be.
    I should like to read my hon. Friend's remarks to see whether I have failed to answer all his points. Perhaps he would also read what has been said, and we shall see whether we need to reconsider the matter.
    I have no difficulty in giving the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) the reasonable assurance that he seeks. We have no intention of disturbing the relationship that we enjoy, and the arm's-length principle remains intact because it is a well-proven way forward.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 41, in page 10, line 16, leave out from 'manner' to 'if' in line 17.—[Mr. Key.]

  Clause 24

    CONTROL OF DISTRIBUTING BODIES BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE
    Amendment made: No. 42, in page 10, leave out lines 26 to 32 and insert—
    `(1) A body shall comply with any directions given to it by the Secretary of State as to the matters to be taken into account in determining the persons to whom, the purposes for which and the conditions subject to which the body distributes any money under section 23(1).'.—[Mr. Key.]
    Mr. Hinchliffe: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 10, line 32, at end insert
    "except that in exercising their functions under section 21(2) above, the sports councils shall in no circumstances distribute money to any organisation which practices discrimination as between players in amateur and professional sport".
    I appreciate that it is late and that hon. Members have had a long and hard day. However, the issues with which the amendment deals are serious, and some of us have been waiting a long time for a proper debate on them. People have been waiting since 1895. The amendment is an all-party attempt to address discrimination in sport. 'Were it to relate to women or people from ethnic minorities, such discrimination would be illegal.
    Mr. Maxton: That is not correct, because private clubs and sporting organisations can and do discriminate against women in many ways, and are not breaking the law in doing so.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: I did not expect an intervention before I had put the arguments in support of the amendment. It addresses specifically what is deemed amateurism within the regulations of the Rugby Football Union and concerns the relationship between that and rugby league players, not just professionals but amateurs. The vast majority of rugby league is played by amateurs, not professionals. The professional game is a small part of rugby league and it annoys many of us interested in the game to hear it described as a professional code.
    Some hon. Members will recall a recent early-day motion, 1342, on some of the issues with which the amendment deals—in particular, the case of Steve Pilgrim, a rugby union player who until recently played for Wasps in London. He also played as an England B team rugby union international. He had the audacity to go for an unpaid amateur trial with Leeds rugby league football
    1078
    club. As a consequence, he was automatically banned by the Rugby Football Union from playing rugby union football for two years.
    The interesting point is that, if Mr. Pilgrim had gone to the Headingly rugby league ground in Leeds, but appeared on the other side of the main stand, on the Yorkshire cricket ground, for a professional trial for Yorkshire cricket, he would not have been banned. Had he gone to Elland Road, and been paid for playing for Leeds United, he would not have been banned. Had he been playing professional tennis, professional golf or even American football, he would not have been banned. Unfortunately, he played the game of rugby league.
    He has not received a penny for playing rugby league, although he has had trials since then with the Halifax rugby league club. Neither club has signed him on, and he is now between the devil and the deep blue sea—not signed on by rugby league but banned from his previous sport. In the view of many decent, thinking people in sport as a whole, including many in the sport of rugby union, that is unacceptable in this day and age.
    I mentioned 1895 because that was the year when what was then the northern rugby union split away from the rest on the issue of broken time payments. They are related to the fact that in the industrial north, and elsewhere, working-class people could not afford to miss time from work to play rugby union; therefore, young men were paid to cover the money that they could not earn in their normal course of employment because they were playing rugby. The ultimate result was the development of rugby league football.
    Unfortunately, since 1895, some in the 15-a-side code have attempted, right up to the present day, to kill off the game of rugby league—both the amateur and the professional games. Many who have been involved in both rugby codes feel that that is unacceptable in this day and age. It is some measure of rugby league's strength and popularity that, despite all those attacks over nearly a century, the game continues to thrive and prosper, at both the amateur and professional levels. I shall be pleased to attend the nation's main sporting event on Saturday, to watch Widnes win the rugby league cup, along with the 75,000 other people who will pack Wembley to witness a great sporting occasion.
    It is some measure of rugby's league greatness that, despite the obvious prejudice of the establishment, the media, the education system and the armed forces against the 13-a-side code, the professional sport of rugby league is second only to association football as the most popular spectator team sport in Britain. It would be encouraging if media coverage of rugby league reflected the fact that it draws crowds second only to those attracted to soccer. In terms of spectators, it is more popular than rugby union and cricket. The House has not considered the fact that rugby league is such a popular sport.
    Amendment No. 1 attempts to address the discrimination against those who play rugby league football as amateurs of professionals that is still evident nearly 100 years after rugby league's break with rugby union.
    Some years ago, when I played both league and union, I participated in a game of rugby union at a club in Otley, which is an area that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) knows well. When I entered the club house, I noticed a painting of the team that had won the Yorkshire rugby cup two years before the 1895 breakaway. A number of the faces had been blanked out. They were

    1079
    players who had, after 1895, moved from northern rugby to play in the new northern union. They have never been forgiven. I want to see the day come, before too long, when the faces of those players are painted back into that picture, and an end to the nonsense of the past 100 years.
    I speak with some passion because I, as an amateur league player, was banned from playing rugby union. Many of my friends and peers in Wakefield of a similar age still retain the letters that they received from local rugby union clubs saying that they were no longer welcome because, after the age of 18, they had played rugby league. We were considered sporting lepers. I will never forget that experience for as long as I live. Sadly, that attitude still prevails. Tonight, we hope to do something about making a long-overdue change to that period of history.
    I pay tribute to those of my hon. Friends who, some years ago, achieved—at least in theory—a free gangway between the code of amateur rugby league and rugby union. I say "in theory" because I could give example after example to show that, often, that free gangway does not exist in practice. I shall cite just one that came to my attention as joint secretary, with the hon. Member for Keighley, of the parliamentary rugby league group.
    In Reading, an attempt was made to form the Unity rugby club, to play both rugby league and rugby union under the same banner. That is entirely reasonable. Plenty of clubs play cricket and rugby, or soccer and rugby. Why not rugby league and rugby union? Why should they not use the same facilities, pitches and equipment? It would be sensible. However, permission could not be obtained from Twickenham, simply because, they were told, they were playing rugby league. Had it been cricket, soccer, or any other sport, there would have been no problem. There are many examples of the rugby union establishment leaning on the game of rugby league.
    11.30 pm
    My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) has had to leave the Chamber, but before he did so he drew my attention to correspondence that he had received about a rugby league tournament that is held at Swansea Uplands ground in Wales. Amateurs from both codes are involved in games there each year. Rugby union players received letters threatening them with action if they took part in an amateur tournament, where the trophy was presented by Jonathan Davies, who, it just so happens, has left the rugby union code and gone north.
    There have been many examples of what can only be described as blatant discrimination in the armed forces against people who want to play the game of rugby league football. We met Lord Merlyn-Rees, a former Defence Minister, who headed the delegation. The prejudice with which we were confronted at that meeting had to be seen to be believed. We were told that the armed forces could not afford to fund the game of rugby league. We made the point that the same balls, jerseys, shorts, boots, socks and other items that rugby players wear are used in both codes, but we were told that, because of insufficient resources, rugby union, not rugby league, was played in the armed forces. It is high time that we did something about that prejudice.
    Mr. Hargreaves: Many of my hon. Friends probably share the hon. Gentleman's concern, and what he has said
    1080
    is enlightening. Those of us who served on the Committee probably missed out by not having this matter drawn to our attention earlier in the debate. However, at this stage of the proceedings on the Bill, is this the right place to raise such an important issue concerning rugby? Ought it not to be the subject of a debate?
    Mr. Hinchliffe: I should be only too happy to initiate such a debate. The reason for the amendment is that many of us feel that although the rugby union game receives substantial public funding, particularly from the Sports Aid Foundation, the Sports Council and the education system, it practises blatant discrimination against rugby league players. That is why we feel that the Bill is an appropriate mechanism to get rugby union to take account of the strength of feeling in the nation about the way that it treats rugby league players.
    The rules relating to amateurs appear to apply only to people who are concerned with rugby league, not to rugby union, although those people are, to all intents and purposes, professionals. We know for a fact that rugby union players are paid and that they receive rewards often far in excess of what is payable in the rugby league game. In France—which is a party to the International Rugby Board's rules on amateurs, which forbid professionalism in rugby—entire rugby league teams have transferred to playing rugby union because they can get more money from playing rugby union. In New Zealand and Australia, payments are commonplace. Can anyone tell me that David Campese is an amateur? Does he go to Italy every winter to play for nothing? Of course he is a professional, and rightly so. He is an excellent rugby player, so why should he not be rewarded for his skills and for the fact that he, like many others, entertains vast numbers of people?
    Payments are also commonplace in South Africa. Recently, my own team, Wakefield Trinity, was in the process of signing a Springbok rugby union player called Albertus Einslin. He pulled back from signing the deal because he had been offered £200 a match and a job playing "amateur" rugby union in South Africa. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that rugby union is an amateur code. Many of us are annoyed that the South African Rugby Union has attempted to stamp on the development of rugby league in the black townships on the basis that its amateur code there will lead to professionalism although, as everyone knows, the South African Rugby Union is semi-professional, if not wholly professional.
    In this country, the Pugh report considered the British rugby union players who went on the so-called centenary tour of South Africa against the advice of the various home unions. The Pugh report, which has been suppressed, suggested that those players received about £30,000 each. Let us remember that that was in an "amateur" game.
    "Week In Week Out", a BBC Wales programme, recorded a player—I seem to remember that he was an international player—saying that, to his knowledge, payments were made in Wales in the dressing room, in front of a Welsh rugby union official, an official from the union that banned Jonathan Davies from commenting for the BBC at Cardiff Arms Park because he had gone north to play for Widnes rugby league club. That is the union that continuies to ban Stuart Evans from returning to

    1081
    playing rugby union in the valleys because he flirted with St. Helens' rugby league club but unfortunately did not have a very successful career in the 13 a side code.
    We have in the House an hon. Member, who is not here tonight, whose main distinction in life was not arriving here some years ago but playing in my team, Wakefield Trinity. He told me one night that he had received far more money playing rugby union than playing for teams such as Wakefield Trinity.
    The parliamentary rugby league group, which comprises about 70 members from this place and another place, has become rather impatient about this matter We contacted the International Rugby Board to ask it to explain what its rules on amateurism meant in this day and age. Last Wednesday, we met Mr. Dudley Wood, the secretary of the Rugby Football Union, and Mr. Bob Rogers, the chair of the English Rugby Football Union amateurism committee. On behalf of the parliamentary group, I must say that we were most grateful that they were prepared to meet us. They had a fairly hot reception.
    The two gentlemen said that the problems which they conceded were occurring in certain unions—not the English union—were due to interpretation of amateurism, not the principle. They insisted that, although there were problems in Wales, France and here, there and everywhere, in England everything in the garden was fine. They said that there was no evidence of any payments to players in the English Rugby Football Union.
    The most memorable part of our meeting was a comment from the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who told us of his experience of standing as the Conservative candidate in Wakefield against my predecessor's predecessor in the 1959 general election. Because of contacts with the local Conservative party—at that stage, the chair of Wakefield Trinity was a prominent member of the Conservative party—the right hon. Gentleman was allowed to kick off the Wakefield Trinity versus Hunslet league match.
    I was present, and there was a crowd of about 15,000. The local Conservative parliamentary candidate was allowed to kick off, which would be a huge boost to anyone campaigning in an election in that area. The right hon. Gentleman kicked off, the incident was reported in the press, and he found that he had professionalised himself and was banned from playing rugby union. The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale—he is not an Opposition Member; no hard lefty he, but a former Minister and Government Chief Whip—is still banned by the rugby union. Thirty years of anger came out in the right hon. Gentleman last Wednesday in Committee Room 14—and rightly so. That nonsense is still with us, and we are sad that such attitudes still prevail.
    There have been one or two developments since last Wednesday's meeting; things have moved quite rapidly. First—I believe that it happened the day after we met the two gentlemen—in Edinburgh the International Rugby Board came to the decision that rugby league professionals who have never played union would be allowed to play rugby union within two years of making their desire to switch codes known, but union players who have turned to league are still banned from returning to union. That reads like a Monty Python script.
    The news was picked up in The Independent yesterday, when Alan Watkins wrote about what nonsense it was:
    "Religious conversion is much in the air these days, with several Anglicans going over to the Church of Rome. If we
    1082
    regard rugby league players as Anglicans, and union players as Catholics, it will be as if Anglicans can become Catholics and Catholics Anglicans. But Catholics who become Anglicans will not be allowed to revert to their original faith.
    As Winston Churchill once said of his own early shifts of political loyalty between the Conservative and Liberal parties: anyone can rat once, but it takes a man of character to rat twice."
    Alan Watkins makes the important point that the lack of equality between the codes means that
    "White Jonathan Davies",
    who, of course, will play for Widnes at Wembley on Saturday,
    "cannot return to Llanelli, or Martin Offiah to Rosslyn Park, there is nothing to prevent Ellery Hanley, say, from signing on for the Harlequins as Peter Winterbottom's successor, playing a couple of seasons at the Stoop, and then returning to Leeds or some other Northern club to see out the autumn of his days."
    What absolute nonsense—yet that is the present position.
    Another development following the denials of Messrs. Wood and Rogers in Committee Room 14 last Wednesday is reported in The Times this morning. The main article on the sports page is headed:
    "RFU finds breaches of amateurism rife".
    That means breaches of amateurism in the same English Rugby Football Union that we were told last Wednesday was totally amateur. We were told that amateurism was its members' sacrosanct principle, and the most important thing in their game. Yet according to the article in The Times, a report circulating in English Rugby Football Union clubs
    "has forced the RFU to confront a situation it denied existed to any serious extent. It reveals numerous illustrations of disregard for the amateur principles which officials at Twickenham insisted had more to do with imagination than reality.
    A working party set up by the RFU to investigate growing allegations of financial benefits for amateur players has found the claims to be substantially true. Its report … says many examples of such payments have been received".
    Is that not interesting? Yet at a meeting attended by many hon. Members who are in the Chamber now we were given clear assurances that everything in the garden was lovely in the English Rugby Football Union.
    To put it mildly, there appears to be some inconsistency between the official position and reality. The official position is clearly in conflict with what we know and what the union, too, knows is happening. The worry is that the rules of amateurism as administered by the RFU apply only to those who have contact with the game of rugby league. It seems that anything is allowed to go on in rugby union.
    I emphasise again the fact that many of us have no objection to rugby union players receiving payments. We have no wish to prevent funding from going to rugby union clubs. I have two—Sandal and Wakefield—in my constituency. I played discreetly for both teams many years ago as a rugby league player. I have friends who are involved in both clubs. They are two excellent rugby union clubs which are a credit to the game of rugby as a whole. I have no wish to see them deprived of funds that may accrue from the national lottery. However, the amendment would affect them only if the attitudes to rugby league continued. Through the amendment, we are saying, "For goodness sake, address the issues about which all of us here are concerned and back off. Let us have some common sense after 100 years."

    1083
    11.45 pm
    I am grateful to the House for tolerating a fairly lengthy contribution at this late hour. It is an important matter. The London-based media largely disregard rugby league. Many of us in the north are used to that. We can manage without them. From the point of view of the media, it is sad that they do not see the great sporting spectacle—some say the greatest sporting spectacle and I concur with that view—of rugby league football. What is more worrying is that the media fail to. cover the civil liberties questions raised by the issues I have described. They do not cover the way in which players are refused their basic civil rights by those who run rugby union.
    I pay tribute to the rugby league press for the way in which it has pushed the matter. I pay tribute to the Rugby Leaguer newspaper, to Open Rugby magazine, which has had a continuing campaign for freedom in rugby, and to the League Express newspaper for its campaign on the issue.
    I shall read from the editorial in this week's League Express because its comments put more succinctly than I can the feelings that many people have about the matter.
    The editorial says:
    "If the Union actions did not impinge on League, they could go to hell in their own hand-cart, at their own pace, without any comment from us, but the Union's hypocrisy, dishonesty and blackmail—to give it an honest name—prevent many people who would like to try our game from doing so. The message goes out to schoolboys and adults alike, that playing rugby league can seriously damage your health and career prospects.
    As we have endlessly pointed out, professional soccer players, golfers or cricketers, don't need special dispensations from Twickenham to play union. And league players, union players or players of any damn sport at all, should not need permission from Dudley Wood and his cohorts to take some exercise on a football field.
    They have no moral, legal or any other right to pronounce on the sport of rugby league, or prevent free men and women playing whatever sport they like. No amount of window-dressing…will alter the fact that their game is continuing to use unjust and illegal discrimination against a sport they perceive as a competitor to their own."
    There is great anger on the issue. I hope that the Government will grasp the nettle and end this nonsense once and for all.
    Mr. Gary Waller: I strongly support and warmly commend the words of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). Some people—this point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves)—may consider that the issue does not relate easily to the Bill. As the hon. Member for Wakefield explained, the rugby union is in receipt of substantial public funds through the Sports Council, so public policy issues arise which the Government cannot thrust to one side.
    As an adherent of both rugby league and rugby union, like many other hon. Members, I do not seek to adjudicate between the qualities of the two codes. I congratulate Ilkley rugby union football club in my constituency on its achievement in gaining promotion this season. I also pay a warm public tribute to Keighley rugby league club, which had a magnificent season, winning the third division of the league and, equally importantly, attracting massive gates in the process. In the town and in the club there is enthusiasm to go on to greater things. Wigan and St. Helen's should watch out.
    It is regrettable that the policy of disallowing a free gangway maintained by the International Rugby Board,
    1084
    which, despite its title, has no responsibility at all for the league game, should still mar the reputation of rugby after so many years. The Rugby Football Union claims that it wants to protect its amateur status. That makes no sense whatever because everyone with eyes to see and ears to hear knows that, in the top echelons, amateurism is an absolute sham. Many international rugby union players quite clearly have the benefit of a car and other benefits —including, perhaps, a job—simply because of who they are and because they are exceptionally good at the game they play.
    As the hon. Member for Wakefield said, it cannot be right that a senior player like Steve Pilgrim should be banned from playing rugby union, possibly for life—certainly for a year from the time when he applies for reinstatement—just because he had a trial with a professional league club. That is a case about which Sir Peter Yarranton, chairman of the Sports Council and a past RFU present, has expressed concern.
    The hon. Member for Wakefield referred to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) was banned from playing rugby union many years ago because, as a parliamentary candidate, he was invited to kick off a rugby league match. I am sure that that goes a long way towards explaining why my right hon. Friend has such strong feelings about the issue.
    Some forms of the discrimination practised by the administrators of rugby union may eventually be tested in the courts, where a finding that they are illegal may bring the whole house of cards crashing down. That may apply in relation to differential treatment of former union players who have played rugby league. The payment of money and inducements to move from one union club to another, revealed in the newly circulated RFU report, to which the hon. Member for Wakefield also referred, also casts doubt on the possibility that the present situation can be maintained indefinitely. Not for nothing did an article in today's issue of The Times refer to a "malaise among administrators". One day soon, the little boy who pointed out that the king was not wearing any clothes will prove impossible to shut up.
    Tennis, cricket and athletics eventually came to terms with professionalism and in no way was the amateur sport harmed—quite the reverse. In due course, rugby union will have to do the same. In the meantime, however, the Government should take a leading role in making it clear that discrimination—even if well-intentioned but misguided—is not acceptable in any sport.
    Mr. John Maxton: As an ex-rugby union player, I find little with which to disagree in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). Unlike him, however, I am not happy about the way in which rugby union is moving towards becoming a professional sport. As its rules—or, rather, its laws—stand at present, it is far too dangerous a game to be played for large sums of money. Unlike rugby league, rugby union has not adapted its rules to ensure that people are not in a position to injure other players and, if people were playing for large sums, it could be an extremely dangerous game. People could be seriously injured; there might even be deaths. I deplore that state of affairs. I repeat, however, that I find little with which to disagree in the tenor of my hon. Friend's remarks.

    1085
    If I have an objection, it is to the wording of the amendment. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said that athletics has sorted out the problems of professionalism. That is not true. The so-called professional Powderhall sprints are held in Scotland every new year. The prize money is about £150 to £200. But someone who wins that race and accepts the £200 is barred for life from taking part in amateur athletics.
    If the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) had run in any of those races, he would have been banned from taking part in any other race, yet we all know that, as a result of his prowess as a miler and a half-miler, he made enormous sums of money out of athletics. Not all sports have done away with that kind of discrimination, and athletics is one of them. As it is worded, the amendment would hit athletics as well as rugby union. That may be right.
    The discrimination to which I have referred is not the only discrimination that occurs in sport. A very well-known golf club in my constituency is celebrating its centenary this year. It applied to Glasgow district council to ask whether it would hold a civic reception to celebrate its centenary. Quite rightly and very honourably the district council said that it was not prepared to give a civic reception to the Pollok golf club because the club would not allow women to become members.
    That golf club actively discriminates, openly and blatantly, against women. However, it also discriminates much more subtly, without any openness, against Jews. There is racial discrimination in individual golf clubs and also in other sports. The House and the sports council will have to address that problem.
    Bowls is another very popular sport in my constituency. However, in many bowling clubs, a woman can become a member only if she is the wife of a male member. She cannot join as a woman in her own right. There are other discriminations of which I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield is aware and they, too, should be addressed.
    I fully support what my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield said. However, I am concerned that the amendment would cover a much wider range of sports than simply rugby union and rugby league. I hope that rugby union will finally come to its senses and find a better way of dealing with players who play the two codes.
    Mr. McCartney: As chair of the all-party rugby league group, I support the amendment. I formed the group in February 1988. I had never played rugby league, although I had played in many positions in rugby union. As I grew older and slower, the positions seemed to change with regularity.
    We formed the group to promote rugby league in an amateur and professional way, to try to build bridges between rugby union and rugby league and to use our activities in the House to develop links between the codes in the hope that they would assist to break down the prejudices that have existed for 98 years and continue to exist.
    It took five years—until last Wednesday evening—for the English Rugby Football Union to agree to the first meeting. That meeting came about because of the publicity generated in the House over the discrimination against Steven Pilgrim. He has not been banned for one or two
    1086
    years. As Dudley Wood pointed out in the meeting that I chaired last week in Committee Room 14, Steven Pilgrim has been banned for life from playing rugby union.
    That ban does not just apply to playing; it applies also to coaching—whether of young children or adults. Steven Pilgrim's ability and right to play the game he loves has been taken from him by a group of elderly and out-of-touch gentlemen.
    We did not simply call the meeting because of Steven Pilgrim. As a parliamentary group, we had amassed a growing dossier of evidence of the discrimination at an amateur level with respect to the attitudes towards playing rugby league. I am pleased that the Minister has been able to listen to this debate, because the Government, in relation to Ministers at the Ministry of Defence, have a case to answer. I do not make the point in a partisan way because Ministers at the MOD under the last Labour Government had the same case to answer.
    Current Ministry of Defence policy is to try to ensure a complete blackout in the playing of amateur rugby league in the forces. The Ministry does that in two ways. First, rugby league is not allowed assistance from MOD sporting funds for development or insurance purposes, or to cover expenses in connection with playing the game. Secondly, when any attempt is made to organise rugby league—whether it is in the RAF, the Army or the Navy —senior officers take a number of steps to ensure either that the games do not take place, or that they can be quickly stamped out through the issuing of orders at specific stations.
    12 midnight
    The Ministry of Defence has been provided with the evidence on numerous occasions. We met the Minister of State and came to what we believed was an agreement on the development of the sport and its right to be treated in the same way as rugby union. Last week, in a meeting in Committee Room 14, we asked the Rugby Football Union to join us in agreeing a common approach to the right of armed forces personnel to play rugby league. Mr. Wood refused to participate and indicated clearly that the union, along with its colleagues in the MOD, would continue to oppose the introduction of the playing of rugby league in the armed forces.
    Last year, the Government gave the Royal Navy alone some £35,000 in development funds for the full-time employment of rugby union coaches in the MOD. Resources have also been provided for the RAF and the Army. We are not opposed to that; we are saying that people who join the armed forces should be allowed to engage in the sport of their choice and should be given the time and opportunity to do so rather than being discriminated against.
    We are concerned not only about the discrimination, but about the web of the deceit involved in sham amateurism. At the meeting, Mr. Wood and his colleague Bob Rogers were questioned in detail about the role of their organisation in relation to payments, or substitute payments, for playing rugby union. Mr. Wood made it absolutely clear that there was no evidence whatever of any payments, direct or indirect, for rugby union played in England under the direction of the Rugby Football Union.
    We now know that that was a direct untruth. Not only did Mr. Wood mislead Committee members; when questioned, he deliberately did not inform us that Mr. Rogers—who was also present—had chaired the

    1087
    investigation into the payments made to rugby union players. At the time when he told us that there was no proof whatever, the report was already on his desk awaiting his consideration. That report—commissioned by Mr. Wood and prepared by Mr. Rogers—is dealt with in great detail in The Times today.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am listening attentively to the hon. Gentleman; he has not once mentioned the national lottery, to which the amendment is supposed to relate. I do not think that it is in order to deal in depth with the pros and cons of evidence given to a parliamentary Committee. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who moved the amendment, related his speech firmly to the lottery; even that was stretching it, but I was prepared to be lenient in his case. I do not think that a repetition is necessary.
    Mr. McCartney: I made it clear at the outset, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was speaking in support of amendment No. 1. The wording is quite clear—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The wording of the amendment is, indeed, quite clear. The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he was speaking to it; that was the last that we have heard of it so far.
    Mr. McCartney: I am not challenging your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I feel that, in saying that this was an anti-discrimination amendment, I made it clear that I was trying to explain the reasons why an all-party group tabled the amendment and to give evidence. There is no point in tabling an amendment without being prepared to give detailed reasons for doing so. Some Conservative Members may, for whatever reason, find it uncomfortable to hear the evidence. But the evidence must be heard in support of the amendment.
    The evidence that I have is not a repeat of that put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) or the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). It is the evidence of the Rugby Football Union. The evidence should be placed on the record in the debate because the RFU was given an opportunity by an all-party group in the House to put its views on the matter. In the confines of the House, it made it clear and set out in crystal clear terms that there was no evidence of sham amateurism. It said that there was no need, therefore, for an amendment such as amendment No. 1. It is for that reason that I wish to quote the evidence in the report that Mr. Wood has received, produced by his colleague Mr. Rogers, whom we interviewed on 21 April.
    The evidence is contained in an article today in The Times, which is not known as a newspaper that supports the game of rugby league. The report was entitled "Inducements to move, incentives to stay and other illegal payments." It produced a "brief but not exhaustive" list of the evidence that it uncovered. The newspaper article said that payments to amateur players in England had arisen through the following:
    "excessive expenses, cars, … fictitious employment, cash-playing bonuses, clothing, fictitious expenses, housing-mortgage support, writing rugby articles, appearance money, overseas trips, luxury items, free or subsidised accommodation, car passenger expenses, fictitious appearances, sponsorship holidays, and family support."
    If that list does not suggest a professional sport, I do not know what is. The list shows hypocrisy. I know of few
    1088
    rugby league players even at the highest level of the game who are provided with such inducements to play their sport.
    It is also interesting to note that when members of the Committee raised the issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer he said that he could not investigate it or put it to the Inland Revenue because rugby union was an amateur sport and, therefore, payments did not exist. Perhaps the report of the debate should be passed on to the Treasury so that it can investigate what is known to go on but is not reported for tax purposes by the Rugby Football Union.
    On bank holiday Monday, at Wigan central park, a race will take place between Martin Offiah, a former rugby union player and now a Great Britain international winger who plays for Wigan and hopefully will be man of the match at Wembley on Saturday, Andrew Harriman, the man of the tournament at the seven-a-side world championships at Murrayfield two or three weeks ago, and Rory Underwood, the current English international wing forward.
    They will race to find out who is the fastest rugby player in Britain. Under the rules described by Mr. Wood, the players will not be playing rugby and, therefore, will not be banned. They will be in a rugby league ground running against a rugby league player, but because they will not be playing rugby league, it will be OK. They will turn a blind eye to it. Yet Mr. Steve Pilgrim, who played a trial match as an amateur on a rugby league ground has been banned for life from playing the sport in which he wishes to participate. It is a human rights issue and one which for far too long has been swept under the carpet in the House.
    Through the Bill we want to put on notice the Rugby Football Union, the Welsh Rugby Union, the Irish Rugby Football Union and the Scottish Rugby Union that unless they end discrimination no resources will be used from either the lottery or public funds to benefit those who, through discrimination, prevent others from playing the game of their choice.
    Mr. Davidson: I wish to speak briefly to this amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I thank hon. Members for their enthusiastic response.
    I do not represent a constituency in which rugby league is played, but I was brought up in an area in which many rugby union players went on to play rugby league. It always struck me as extremely unfair that those players, when they reached the end of their league playing days, were not allowed to return to rugby union to put something back in the game as coaches or in any other capacity.
    It is absurd to talk about the national lottery as a means of raising money for sport, when a certain sport refuses to allow former players to put something back, voluntarily, into their sport. Such behaviour should be subject to public policy. We should also question whether public money should be given to organisations that discriminate so blatantly against one group of citizens simply because they chose to play one sport rather than another.
    I know that the Bill gives Ministers a number of reserve powers. They should tell us their intentions regarding those powers. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has expressed his reservations about some sports clubs that discriminate on the grounds of race and other hon. Members have alleged that clubs discriminate on the grounds of sex. That matter, too,

    1089
    should be a matter of public policy. The Minister should make it clear that he wishes to have a level playing field so that all can benefit from the public moneys distributed through the lottery.
    Hon. Members have done the country a service by bringing certain issues about rugby league into the open. I hope that the Minister will give a clear statement to the effect that discrimination will not be tolerated. I hope that we can look forward to swift action and pressure being exerted on the English Rugby Union in particular, as well on the other rugby unions and other sports that practise similar discrimination.
    Mr. Pendry: I commend what my hon. Friends have done and I am pleased that, after some battle, their amendment was eventually selected for debate.
    The late hour may be inconvenient to some, but that is tough. My hon. Friends have raised an important issue and it falls within the context of the Bill, because the Sports Council should not be allowed to distribute lottery money to a body that actively discriminates. The Minister for Sport cannot stand aside after hearing about that discrimination. He should agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves), who thought that a full debate on the issue should be held in Government time. The Minister should institute that debate.
    The Minister is the custodian of sport and he should call for an inquiry into the matter. The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and my other hon. Friends for raising the issue. I hope that the Minister's response will be constructive, and I am as anxious as my hon. Friends to hear what he has to say.
    Mr. Key: It will come as no surprise to hon. Members to learn that I see myself as the custodian of the Bill. I shall be unable to recommend to the House that the amendment should be accepted for reasons I shall cite. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), however, for drawing attention to such an extremely important issue.
    We discussed the matter briefly in Committee, and I am aware of its importance to our clubs and those beyond our shores. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) have also contributed to a debate in prime Government time—some might find that hard to believe, given the lateness of the hour—during the important Report stage of an extremely important Bill. The issue has been put firmly on the agenda, and I recognise its importance. I undertake to the hon. Member for Wakefield that I shall see whether I can do anything appropriate about it, although it would not be appropriate to accept the amendment.
    I believe that this is best left to the determination of the distributing bodies subject, as regards this amendment, to directions laid down in the Bill by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. It would be quite inappropriate to make it an inflexible exclusion on the face of the Bill.
    The policy pursued by a governing body in respect of excluding participation by professional players in its competitions is a matter for it to determine and not a
    1090
    matter on which the Government should seek to dictate through access to lottery funds. Applications for lottery funds should surely be judged on their individual merits.
    The sports councils are well aware of the policies of the governing bodies of sport in the United Kingdom. To rule out whole classes of body in statute on the ground that some hon. Members were unhappy with one of the policies of the governing body, whatever the merits either way, would prevent an individual club from ever being able to apply for lottery funds for worthwhile projects and projects which would extend the general sport provision in their communities, for example, for children at local schools. Surely these potential beneficiaries should not be punished because of their local rugby institution which belongs to the Union and not to the League.
    12.15 am
    The Government want to keep the arm's-length principle intact. It is tempting to be drawn into exploring suggestions that I can intervene in the governing bodies of sport to make them change their rules and laws, but I do not find that attractive. It is against the spirit of successive Governments of all political colours over many years. What matters is that there is a proper public debate of the issue, and the governing bodies of the sport perhaps need to have their heads knocked together.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: I thank the Minister for his response, and I thank my colleagues, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), for their contributions. I did not expect the defence to come from this side of the Chamber and was interested to find that it did. Nevertheless, I understand the points that he made, although I disagree with him. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) for raising the matter in Committee. We take the points that he has made about the situation, especially in Scotland.
    I appreciate the Minister's response. I believe that he has taken close note of the comments made by those who have spoken tonight and that, privately, he shares many of the misgivings of hon. Members about the present situation.
    I made it quite clear when I moved amendment No. 1 that there was no desire whatever to block funding to the Rugby Football Union, but the discrimination that has gone on now for nearly 100 years is unacceptable. I make it clear that there are hon. Members on both sides who are not prepared to tolerate this practice any longer.
    I will in a moment beg leave to withdraw the amendment, having secured this important debate, but I make it clear that this matter may well be raised in another place by those who feel equally strongly about it. There are also moves in the European Parliament, where there is a well organised and successful rugby league group, to raise it at a European level. But I fear that what will happen to bring this matter to a head will be action taken by particular players through the courts, and that will be to me a matter of great regret. I hope that we can reach a common-sense resolution of the issue after this conflict of nearly 100 years.
    Having made those points, and having expressed my gratitude to those who have stayed to take part in the debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 24

    CONTROL OF DISTRIBUTING BODIES BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE
    Amendments made: No. 43, in page 10, line 34, leave out 'specified in section 21'.
    No. 44, in page 10, line 35, leave out '23' and insert '23(1)'.
    No. 45 in page 10, line 35, at end insert—
    '() The Trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund shall comply with any direction given to them by the Secretary of State as to the matters to be taken into account in determining the purposes for which and the conditions subject to which the Trustees apply any money under section 23(4).'.
    No. 46, in page 10, line 36, leave out 'specified in section 21'.
    No. 47, in page 10, line 45, at end insert—
    '() The Secretary of State shall consult a body before giving any directions to it under this section.'.—[Mr. Brooke.]

  Clause 25

    POWER TO AMEND SECTION 20
    Amendment made: No. 48, in page 11, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert
    'held in the Distribution Fund for distribution by a particular body to be held in the Distribution Fund for distribution by another body specified in section 21.'.—[Mr. Brooke.]

  Clause 26

    POWER TO AMEND SECTION 21
    Amendments made: No. 49, in page 11, line 45, leave out from 'held' to end of line 46 and insert
    'in the Distribution Fund for distribution by a particular body to be held in the Distribution Fund for distribution by another body (being a body that on the coming into force of the order is specified in the subsection amended by the order);'.
    No. 50, in page 12, line 2, after 'held' insert 'in the Distribution Fund'.
    No. 51, in page 12, line 3, after 'held' insert 'in the Distribution Fund'.—[Mr. Brooke.]

  Clause 28
    PAYMENTS FROM DISTRIBUTION FUND IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES
    Amendment made: No. 52, in page 12, line 24, leave out `has been allocated' and insert 'is held'.—[Mr. Brooke.]
  Clause 29

    INVESTMENT OF DISTRIBUTION FUND
    Amendment made: No.53,in page 12, line 37, leave out from 'money' to end and insert
    'in the Distribution Fund as is neither held under section 20(2) nor'.—[Mr. Brooke.]

  Clause 29

    INVESTMENT OF DISTRIBUTION FUND
    Amendment made: No.54,in page 12, line 38, leave out 'or 28'.
    No. 55, in page 12, line 41, leave out from 'Treasury' to end of line 43.
    No. 56, in page 12, line 44, leave out from beginning to `be' in line 46 and insert—
    '(2) The proceeds of any investment made under subsection (1) or this subsection may be re-invested by the National Debt Commissioners in accordance with such directions as may be given by the Treasury.
    (2A) The proceeds of any investment made under subsection (1) or (2) shall, if they are not re-invested under subsection (2),'.
    No. 57, in page 13, leave out lines 1 to 3.
    No. 58, in page 13, line 4, leave out 'investment was made' and insert
    'proceeds are attributable to the investment of sums paid under subsection (1)'.
    No. 59, in page 13, line 5, after 'held' insert 'in the Distribution Fund'.
    No. 60, in page 13, line 8, leave out 'investment was made' and insert
    'proceeds are attributable to the investment of sums paid under subsection (1)'.
    No. 61, in page 13, line 10, after 'held' insert 'in the Distribution Fund'.
    No. 62, in page 13, line 12, at end insert—
    `() In this section "proceeds", in relation to an investment, means any interest or dividends received in respect of the investment and any sums received on the realisation of the investment.
    '() For the purposes of subsection (2A), the extent to which any proceeds are attributable to the investment of sums paid under subsection (1) out of money held for distribution by a particular body or held in the name of the Secretary of State shall be determined by, or in accordance with principles determined by, the Secretary of State.'.
    No. 63, in page 13, leave out lines 13 to 15.—[Mr. Key.]

  Clause 30

    ACCOUNTS
    Amendments made: No. 64, in page 13, line 16, leave out 'Accounts shall be prepared' and insert
    `The Secretary of State shall prepare accounts'.
    No. 65, in page 13, line 18 at end insert—
    '(1A) The National Debt Commissioners shall prepare accounts in respect of any investments under section 29 in such form, and in such manner and at such times, as the Treasury may direct.'.
    No. 66, in page 13, line 19, at beginning insert
    'Each account prepared under subsection (1) or (1A) shall be sent to'.
    No. 67, in page 13, line 19, after 'General' insert 'who'.
    No. 68, in page 13, line 20, leave out 'each such account' and insert 'it'—[Mr. Key.]

  Clause 34
    ANNUAL REPORT
    Amendment made: No. 69, in page 13, leave out lines 36 to 43.—[Mr. Key.]
  Clause 40

    INTERPRETATION OF PART II
    Amendments made: No. 70, in page 15, line 34, leave out from `to' to 'means' in line 35 and insert 'a body'.
    No. 71, in page 15, line 37, leave out from beginning to `is' in line 38 and insert 'body'.—[Mr. Key.]

  Clause 42

    REGISTRATION OF SOCIETIES
    Mr. Alton: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 16, line 25, leave out '£50,000' and insert '£100,000'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 97, in page 16, line 25, leave out '£50,000' and insert '£250,000'
    Mr. Alton: I will not detain the House long, as we are all keen to make rapid progress.
    In Committee the Minister said that he would consider the position of the society and local lotteries dealt with in part III of the Bill. I refer the House to line 25 of clause 42, where the figure of £50,000 appears. Many members of the Committee expressed their anxiety that the figure was too low, and should be increased. I therefore tabled an amendment suggesting £100,000.
    Amendment No. 97, tabled by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), suggests the even higher figure of £250,000. I understand that the Government are willing to consider that figure, as they undertook to give the matter further thought in Committee.
    I am happy to be associated with the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's amendment and will therefore not press my own.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: In response to a debate instigated by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) I said in Committee that I would reflect on this. The House will be pleased to know that I have done that, and that I am happy to accept amendment No. 97—extending my regrets in the direction of Mossley Hill. I hope that the hon. Member will not be too disappointed.
    Mr. Orme: It is not often that I get £250,000 from the Government. Some of us, including the lotteries council, met the Minister and discussed the matter with him. We made a strong case for raising the figure to £250,000, and the Government have seen the wisdom of that.
    Mr. Alton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: No. 97, in page 16, line 25, leave out '£50,000' and insert '£250,000'.—[Mr. Orme.]

  Clause 43

    REGISTRATION OF LOTTERY SCHEMES
    Mr. Pendry: I beg to move amendment No. 96, in page 17 [Clause 43], leave out lines 1 to 5, and insert—
    '43.-(1) Section 5(3) of the 1976 Act (conditions that must be satisfied for a society's lottery not to be unlawful) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In paragraph (b) (registration of a society with the Gaming Board), after "society" shall be inserted "or a connected company to that society".
    (3) In paragraph (c) (promotion in accordance with approved scheme), after "society" shall be inserted 'or a connected company to that society".
    (4) Paragraph (d)'(lottery scheme to be registered with the Gaming Board if the total value of tickets or chances to be sold in the lottery is more than £10,000) and the word "and" immediately preceding it shall be omitted.'.
    It is clearly established in charity and tax law that lottery promotion is a trading activity. Consequently, charities undertake lotteries through connected companies
    1094
    controlled by them. Existing small lottery legislation, however, does not allow the Gaming Board to register the connected companies of charities to run lotteries. It allows only for the registration of the charities themselves. Charity, tax and small lottery law are thus incompatible, and the Bill gives the Government an opportunity to remedy that. We understand that Gaming Board practice until recently has been—sensibly—to register the connected companies of charities to run lotteries. In the past few weeks, however, some charity trading companies have had their registration requests refused.
    We do not believe that it is deliberate Government policy to impose further tax liability on charities, but we should like clarification that the Government intend to amend the law. If charities are unable to run lotteries through their connected companies, and must pay tax on their small lottery proceeds, it will greatly reduce the value of small charitable lotteries and provide a further disincentive to charities to run lotteries, thus reducing their income.
    As we have made clear, we are concerned about the impact that the national lottery could have on charitable income. Therefore, we welcome measures in part III which are aimed at securing charity income for small lotteries, although we think that the Government could go further. The amendment is compatible with the intention of part III. It is vital that the law be tidied up so that charities are not threatened with additional tax liability. We hope that the Government will accept the spirit of the amendement and will assure us that they will consider the matter and remedy the situation.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: At this time of night, I shall say only on the substance of the amendment that the hon. Gentleman's arguments and their purpose are absolutely right. If my hon. Friend the Minister has not already discovered that there are insuperable technical difficulties, I hope that he will do his best to persuade my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to support the proposals. The arguments that we have considered in relation to the amendment reinforce my view on Second Reading that it would be sensible for the Gaming Board to regulate all lotteries.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: If I understand correctly, the purpose of the amendment is to enable a wholly owned trading company of a charity to promote lotteries on behalf of that charity. That is already possible, and I shall explain. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) has been told by some of his contacts, the Gaming Board has not turned down requests for registration. It suspended consideration of applications for two or three weeks while the law was clarified. Under the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976, it is possible for wholly owned subsidiaries to be registered as charities and to conduct lotteries. There is no problem.
    Mr. Pendry: I am happy to have that assurance. I am sure that what the Minister has said is absolutely correct. beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 44

    LOTTERY MANAGERS
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 161, in page 17, line 16 leave out 'he' and insert `that person'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 162, 163, 164 and 165.
    Mr. Lloyd: Amendment Nos. 161, 162 and 165 fulfil an undertaking that I gave in Committee to exempt a wholly owned subsidiary trading company of a society that manages a lottery on behalf of that society from a new certification regime for lottery managers.
    Clause 44 is designed to bring under Gaming Board supervision what are known as external lottery managers. Those managers undertake the running of a lottery on behalf of a society in return for a management fee, which is often an agreed proportion of the lottery proceeds. It is important to provide for some control over the operations of external managers to ensure that the lotteries that they manage are properly and honestly conducted and to safeguard the interests of the societies or local authorities that employ them.
    The same considerations do not apply to a wholly owned subsidiary of a society. Such subsidiaries cannot be described as external lottery managers in the sense that they act independently of the society, and we therefore think it is right to exempt them from the requirement to obtain a Gaming Board certificate.
    Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 are technical. Proposed new section 9A(2) to the 1976 Act is drafted on the basis that a society must always be an unincorporated body. In fact, a society may be either an incorporated or unincorporated body, and the amendments alter section 9A(2) to reflect that position.
    Mr. Orme: Does the amendment deal with donated expenses?
    Mr. Lloyd: No, it does not deal with donated expenses. That is relevant to a later group of amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 162, in page 17, line 21, at end insert—
    `(ba) in the case of a society's lottery, a company that is wholly owned by the society,'.
    No. 163, in page 17, line 27, leave out 'a society or other' and insert 'an'.
    No. 164, in page 17, line 28, leave out 'society or other'.
    No. 165, in page 17, line 29, at end insert—
    `() For the purposes of subsection (1)(ba) above—

    (a) "company" means a company formed and registered under the Companies Act 1985 or a company to which the provisions of that Act apply as they apply to a company so formed and registered, and

    (b) a company is wholly owned by a society if the society is entitled (whether directly or through one or more nominees) to exercise, or control the exercise of, the whole of the voting power at any general meeting of the company.'.—Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

  Clause 45
    FREQUENCY OF LOTTERIES
    Amendment made: No. 166, in page 17, leave out lines 36 to 39.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
  Clause 46

    RULES FOR LOTTERIES
    Mr. Pendry: I beg to move amendment No. 196, in page 18, line 10, leave out '10 per cent.' and insert '20 per cent.'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 12, in page 18, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—
    '(6) The total value of the tickets or chances sold in any one such lottery shall not exceed one quarter of the total value of tickets or chances which may be sold in all such lotteries held in any one year and promoted on behalf of the same society or by the same local authority.'.
    No. 4, in page 18, line 13, leave out '£500,000' and insert '£1 million.'.
    12.30 am
    Mr. Pendry: The purpose of the amendment is to allow societies to offer larger, more attractive top prizes. That should assist small lotteries to survive the competition from the national lottery. Research suggests that the lottery could have dramatic effect on charitable income from small lotteries, as has already been pointed out. Charities in Ireland experienced a 60 per cent. drop in their small lottery income since the creation of the state lottery in 1987 and, according to that oft-quoted Guardian-GAH group report, the drop in small lottery income in the United Kingdom as a result of the national lottery could be as great as 50 per cent.
    As we know, the Government introduced amendments to the Bill in Committee which increased the limit of the size of the single lottery from £250,000 to £500,000 and changed the maximum prize limit from £25,000 to 10 per cent. of potential ticket sales, whichever is the greater. While those changes were welcome, as was said in Committee, many charities are still doubtful about whether they will be sufficient to maintain charitable incomes for small lotteries.
    The Opposition believe that the Government should do more to ensure that charitable lotteries are strong enough to survive the competition from big prize national lotteries. I am sure that every hon. Member has heard it argued that the size of the top prize in the national lottery will be the crucial factor determining sales. Surely the same argument holds for the smaller lotteries run by charities, sports clubs and community groups. We believe that the maximum top prize in a society lottery should be increased from £25,000 or 10 per cent. to £25,000 or 20 per cent. of the potential ticket sales. As the Bill is drafted, that would mean a top prize of £50,000 in a society lottery.
    We also support the amendment proposing that the size of a single lottery should be increase to £1·25 million. The amendment would enable charities and other societies to reach the £5 million turnover proposed in the Bill by running four rather than 10 lotteries. If the amendment were accepted, it would mean that charities would incur lower administrative costs in reaching the total turnover limit. More small lottery proceeds would be available for charity and community use.

    1097
    In debate on both the issue of single lottery size and the maximum prize level, the Minister said that the Government were not prepared to allow small lotteries that would compete with, and poach sales from. the national lottery. However, a charity lottery with a turnover of £1·25 million and 20 per cent. maximum size could hardly be thought to compete with a national lottery with jackpots that could reach, with the roll-over of three games, something like £44 million at one estimate.
    The purpose of the. amendment is to make charitable and other society lotteries more attractive and more likely to survive and prosper, given competition from a heavily promoted multi-million pound prize lottery. We hope that the Government will be prepared to consider again both the limit and the size of the single lottery, and the maximum prize in any society lottery.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: In deference to the lateness of the hour, I shall be as brief as I can. The House will be relieved to know that this is the last time that I shall seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    I want to speak to amendment No. 12, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I have considerable sympathy with the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). My amendment is an alternative means of achieving essentially the same objective.
    I appreciate that the Government have already amended clause 46, and the movement that they have allowed is welcome. The annual limit of £5 million is fair and sensible and I welcome the spirit of the amendment that the Government have already made. However, there seems to be a basic inconsistency in Government thinking on the issue. The Bill allows a society to run lotteries with proceeds of up to £5 million per annum, but limits the size of each lottery to make it impossible, in practical terms, to reach the new limit, because each society would have to run at least 10 lotteries a year.
    My hon. Friend the Minister said on a previous occasion that some societies do run instant lotteries 10 times a year. That is possible in the case of draw-type lotteries, which are suitable for football and supporters' clubs that meet regularly—but it is not realistic for national charities whose members and supporters are widely dispersed throughout the country. In practical terms, it is impossible for them to run more than four or five modern, instant lotteries a year on a national scale.
    A period of 12 to 15 weeks is needed for each game to be produced, distributed, sold and recovered. Tickets and posters must be designed and distributed to thousands of retail outlets, a publicity campaign organised, tickets sold, and money gathered in. The draw must then be held, and perhaps an event organised in that connection.
    Ten weeks is the very least in which that cycle of activity can be completed. I prefer my amendment to amendment No. 4 because it would still require societies to run instant draws every 10 weeks and that is too frequent. More time should be allowed. I note that the Government do not intend to restrict the national lottery's own instant lotteries in the same way.
    My hon. Friend the Minister also suggested that societies and charities could run concurrent lotteries, but that is not an attractive solution. It would require a double set of printing, posters, administration, accounting and advertising. That would be expensive and confusing for charities and for the Gaming Board. Also, I am advised
    1098
    that it would contravene the current regulations governing lotteries and would require the amendment of section 10 of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. It seems illogical to allow two lotteries of £500,000 and not one of £1 million.
    Charities depend on the efforts of their voluntary workers and everyone wants them to keep their administrative costs down. It is not realistic on either count to ask charities to organise 10 lotteries a year or to run two or three concurrently.
    Amendment No. 12 would raise the limit on the turnover for any individual lottery to £1·25 million, with a corresponding top prize limit of £125,000. My hon. Friend the Minister warned of the danger of creating mini national lotteries, but it should be borne in mind that a charity lottery would be able to offer a prize of that size only four or five times a year, at most. A prize of £125,000 would not compete in any real way with the national lottery's weekly prize of millions, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde suggested.
    Many charities want to continue to raise their own funds rather than rely on the national lottery. It seems unfair to restrict their initiative, particularly if the Government give them a total annual limit of £5 million which it is impossible to realise in practice. Charities should be allowed to run their lotteries on a cost-effective basis and to offer attractive prizes.
    My hon. Friend the Minister may argue that the arrangements can be altered by statutory instrument, but it is important not to start off on the wrong footing. I fear that charity lotteries would wither on the basis that my hon. Friend proposes. A prize of £500,000 only would be perceived by the public as just too unattractive compared with national lottery prizes. Irremediable damage would be done before the regulations were altered and charity lotteries would be virtually destroyed—as in Ireland, where, as was mentioned earlier, small charity lottery income has collapsed 60 per cent. If that were replicated in Britain, charity income from small lotteries would fall from the present level of £240 million to less than £100 million, which would be most serious. I ask my hon. Friend to address that point.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I support amendment No. 12, which was spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). It reflects my concern about how small charities and voluntary organisations that run their own lotteries can survive the anticipated enormous success of the national lottery. Scratch card lottery tickets are sold by 200 charities and bring in art estimated income of about £40 million a year. They are unlikely to be able to raise similar sums of money if the Bill as it stands becomes law.
    Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to give serious consideration to the amendment, particularly bearing in mind that the Government will be able to be generous after the undoubted success of the national lottery. I ask the Government to support what I call the little fella, the smaller charities, and allow them to raise the full sum to which they are entitled. The means for doing so has not been provided for in the Bill.
    Mr. Alton: I wish to associate amendment No. 4—in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—with amendment No. 12, spoken to by the hon. Member for

    1099
    Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), and amendment No. 196, which was moved by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). If any one of the amendments were accepted, the Bill would be improved and would go some way towards meeting the concerns which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady O. Maitland) raised this evening, but which she more appropriately raised in Committee, where she explored the issues raised in these amendments rather than scratch cards, with which we dealt earlier this evening.
    The amount of money that can be given in lottery prizes by charities, voluntary organisations, football clubs and others is an important matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), who has been here for most of today's debate, has made representations to me about the football clubs in her constituency. Recently, I met Liverpool football club representatives, and I know that many other voluntary organisations and charities are anxious about the amount of prize money that they will be able to give. Their concern is that, if they are competing with a lottery that is handing out huge sums of money, they will look like very poor relations.
    The arguments have been well put. Whichever of the amendments the Minister could find it in his heart to accept would improve the Bill. Even if he is unable to accept any of them tonight, I hope that he will continue to bend his mind to the issue and accept an amendment in the other place.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: As is clear from all the speeches, these amendments seek to increase still further the limit on the proceeds and prizes from a single lottery. We amended the Bill in Committee to increase the limit on proceeds from £250,000 to £500,000 and the limit on prizes from £25,000 to the greater of £25,000 or 10 per cent. of the proceeds.
    Amendment No. 4, spoken to by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), seeks to double the proceeds limit to £1 million. Amendment No. 12, spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), is even more ambitious, for it would provide, in effect, a limit of £1·25 million. Amendment No. 196, moved by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), would double the prize limit, so that the promoter of a £1·25 million lottery could offer a top prize of £250,000.
    It is a matter of judgment as to where the line between small and medium-sized lotteries, as provided for in the 1976 Act and the national lottery, is drawn. The Government's view, however, is that lotteries of the scale envisaged by the amendments overstep sensible bounds. We have drawn the line at £500,000 for proceeds and £50,000 for prizes. I accept that it is possible for others to take a different view, but what I do not accept is that the levels that we have provided for put small lotteries at risk. Although I know that some of the lotteries that describe themselves as small would like higher limits, most are pleased about the changes that we have incorporated in the Bill.
    It is beyond doubt that the Government's new limits represent a substantial increase on those currently in operation—£180,000 for proceeds and £12,000 for prizes. They will greatly enhance the appeal of such lotteries.
    I return now to what the hon. Member for Mossley Hill said, having experienced such debates many times before.
    1100
    It would be sensible at the very least for societies to become accustomed to the new limits before we contemplate further increases. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon said, we can keep all the limits under review and we shall do so. If further changes appear desirable in the future, they may be made by statutory instrument. We would not need primary legislation.
    I advise the House to accept the substantial increases and to leave matters there for the present.
    12.45 am
    Mr. Pendry: I expected that reply from the Minister, and I am sure that other hon. Members also expected it. As long as the Minister is in charge, I am happy that he will consider the issue sympathetically. I know that he will not be in his post for too long because we shall be on that side of the House. However, as long as he is in charge, I am sure that he will keep the matter in mind. With those serious remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 167, in page 18, line 28, at end insert—
    '(5A) In subsection (11) (not more than half of a lottery's proceeds may be appropriated for the provision of prizes) for "one half" there shall be substituted "50 per cent.".'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 168, 169, 172 and 191.
    Mr. Lloyd: Government amendment No. 169 is the cornerstone of this group of amendments. It would enable the Secretary of State to vary the percentages specified in section 11 of the 1976 Act. The other four amendments make consequential drafting charges.
    We have received many representations from football clubs, rugby clubs and others—probably even from rugby league clubs—about lottery expenses. At present, the 1976 Act provides that no more than 25 per cent. of the proceeds of a lottery may be appropriated on account of expenses. This will be of particular interest to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). It has been argued that that limit is unreasonably low. Although many promoters of society lotteries are able to operate comfortably within the 25 per cent. limit, we accept that many others—especially those promoting smaller lotteries—find it difficult to do so. In response to representations, we amended the Bill in Committee to raise the expense limit to 30 per cent.
    The Lotteries Council, of which the right hon. Member for Salford, East is president, suggested that even that higher figure is insufficient, and the council has argued for a 35 per cent. limit. I am not convinced that a limit above 30 per cent. is necessary or desirable as it would whittle away the amount of a lottery's proceeds which went to good causes. I now repeat what I have said when speaking to a number of other amendments because we are moving into uncharted territory. We believe that it would be sensible to be in a position to alter the 30 per cent. limit without recourse to primary legislation if there was a strong case for a further increase in future.
    The amendment would also make it possible to vary by order the percentage limit on the size of the top prize in a lottery and on the amount of the proceeds of a lottery which may be used for the provision of prizes. I stress that

    1101
    we have no plans at present to vary any of the percentages, but the amendment would ensure that we could act reasonably quickly if circumstances changed or if experience suggested that we had not judged one of the limits correctly.
    The changes do not mean that we have got it wrong. Experience may suggest that the limits should be altered, and I think that all hon. Members want us to get it right as soon as possible, so it is sensible to have powers available so that we can move by regulation instead of having to find time for primary legislation, which it is often difficult to do.
    Mr. Orme: The issue of donated expenses still remains a problem for small organisations. Many such organisations share offices with their lottery companies, and often have overlapping duties, making it difficult for them to determine exactly what constitutes a beneficiary donating expense. That point has been made to me and to many hon. Members by small organisations that fear that the provision could be their Achilles heel.
    The Minister has already said that he is prepared to consider the matter again. Will he have one more look at it before the measure goes to the Lords, where it may be discussed further? I have other representations to put to him, and all I ask is that he keeps an open mind for the moment.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: It may be helpful if I say a couple of sentences in response. I do not expect to change the rules because I think that they are adequate and will not be onerous. Expenses incurred solely or primarily to enable the lottery to function, such as the costs of printing tickets and of advertising, must, of course, be counted as the expenses of the lottery, but the definition will not include the use of office space belonging to the club or society if it has not been acquired especially to house the lottery team. That is the kind of principle on which the Gaming Board will work.
    I understand, however, that there is considerable worry about the exact side of the balance sheet on which certain expenses will appear, so I have asked the Gaming Board to give societies guidance so that they will know what position they will be in before they make the decisions that might bring them one side, rather than the other, of the 30 per cent. limit.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 48

    POWERS OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO VARY MONETARY LIMITS AND TO PRESCRIBE OR VARY FEES
    Amendments made: No. 168, in page 19, line 24, leave out 'monetary limit' and insert 'sum specified'.
    No. 169, in page 19, leave out line 25 and insert—
    `(3) For subsection (1)(b) there shall be substituted—
    "(b) vary any sum or percentage specified in section 11 above;".'.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move amendment No. 170, in page 19, line 26, after 'for"' insert 'under'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 171.
    Mr. Lloyd: The amendments ensure that smaller lotteries, probably those that operate a series of single
    1102
    lotteries with a turnover of less than £10,000, that are registered with the Gaming Board may pay an annual fee rather than a fee per lottery, as happens now. That will help to keep down the size of the total fees that they pay. I hope that, in conjunction with my acceptance of amendment No. 97, the amendments will meet with the approval of those who have the interests of small lotteries at heart, because it will improve the position of the organisations that run them.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 171, in page 19, line 27, after `substituted"' insert `, or provide that no fees are payable, under'.
    No. 172, in page 19, line 31, leave out 'monetary limit' and insert 'sum specified'.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

  Clause 50

    REMOVAL OF PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF PREMISES FOR THE DELIVERY OF FOOTBALL POOLS COUPONS AND STAKES
    Mr. Pendry: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 20, line 32, leave out from first 'competition' to end of line 36 and insert
    `, in relation to a registered pool promoter, means a competition which is of the same kind as or is broadly similar to a competition held by him before the passing of this Act.'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 173 and 174.
    Mr. Pendry: It would be churlish of me not to recognise that the Government have come a long way in accommodating the concerns about the sale of pools coupons in shops. Although we fully support the spirit of clause 50 as amended in Committee, we have several concerns about its definition of a qualifying competition, especially the definition in new subsection (4D) (a) of section 1 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963:
    "a competition for prizes for making forecasts as to association football games played on a Saturday".
    We realise that the Government's new amendments Nos. 173 and 174 make that definition a little broader, so that instead of being limited to football matches played on a Saturday, it will include games played on Sundays and bank holidays. That is a good step forward, but in our view it does not go far enough. Amendments Nos. 173 and 174 do not solve the problem of pools competitions based on events other than football matches, such as major horse races and cricket matches, which now commonly appear on coupons.
    It is important that the pools companies are permitted to run their businesses as efficiently as possible, with the minimum of bureaucratic restraints and obstacles. I am sure that the Government would tell us that that is in line with Government policy. It is absurd, therefore, that the companies will be allowed to sell in shops only coupons that use only football matches, whereas on coupons that are sold door-to-door, they will be allowed to use a number of different sports. The ludicrous position would be created whereby the pools companies were forced to issue two types of coupon. The first would be for sale in shops and would relate only to football matches and the second would cover the rest of their business.
    My hon. Friends and I can see no reason why the Government would wish to introduce such a petty and

    1103
    needless restriction. It is already established practice to run pools competitions on sporting events other than football. The Minister surely cannot argue that the use of other sports on coupons from shops would be socially damaging or would lead to unnecessary stimulation in gambling. Perhaps he could enlighten us about the reasoning behind this curious measure.
    The amendment is a simple method by which to maintain the status quo and to avoid all the problems implied by the needlessly restrictive new subsection (4D). It uses wording similar to that contained in the British Telecommunications Act 1981 when it was necessary to ensure the legality of the collection service in the context of the Post Office letters monopoly. I hope that the Minister has taken that point on board and that he will give me a constructive reply.
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) raised several points. The speediest way in which I can deal with them is, before responding to the amendment, to say something about Government amendments Nos. 173 and 174 which deal with several of the points he raised. The Government amendments make modest changes to the definition of a qualifying competition in clause 50. Clause 50, which was added to the Bill in the Committee, allows pools coupons and stakes to be collected in retail outlets. The clause is carefully drafted to confine the concession to the present weekly, long-odds football pools competition. The definition of a "qualifying competition" seeks to encapsulate the key features of such competitions.
    The reason for restricting the concession is simple. It is to preserve the existing framework whereby only socially harmless forms of low-stake, long-odds gambling, such as the football pools and lotteries, are available in ordinary retail outlets while harder forms of gambling continue to be confined to dedicated, licensed premises, such as betting offices, where they can be better supervised.
    In Committee, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) pointed out that the definition of a qualifying competition would cause pools companies one or two difficulties. The definition refers to a
    "competition for prizes for making forecasts as to association football games played on a Saturday".
    It was put to us that the pools companies were finding it increasingly difficult to obtain 58 first-class fixtures played on a Saturday and were having to resort to using minor league matches. We are told that including such matches on the pools coupon has a depressing effect on turnover. A further difficulty with the definition is that it would prevent coupons from being collected in shops during the Christmas week when the matches contained on the coupons were, in years where Christmas fell on a Saturday, played on a bank holiday Monday or Tuesday.
    A final problem arises in relation to the reference to games played. It is not uncommon for matches to be postponed, perhaps because of bad weather—a point made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde—and for the results to be determined by the pools panel. I accept those points and would accommodate the first two by including football games played on a Sunday or bank holiday and the third by referring to games to be played.
    In Committee, the hon. Member for Erdington raised a more fundamental objection to the definition of a qualifying competition. With the amendment, the hon.
    1104
    Member for Stalybridge and Hyde returns to the fray on the issue. Occasionally the pools companies run competitions on other sports. The Littlewoods coupons for 3 April included a pools competition on the Grand National. I do not know whether there was a box for the false starts. I understand that Littlewoods, Vernons and Zetters also run occasional pools on other horse races, and on cricket and snooker matches.
    The entry form for those other pools competitions is printed on the reverse side of the weekly football pools coupon. Under the provisions of clause 50, such coupons could not be collected in retail outlets. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde argues that that would be unreasonable. Although superficially I can see why he says that, I do not agree with him. The retail outlet concession is deliberately confined to football pools because of their special character. To allow pool betting on other sports to take place in newsagents and other shops could potentially turn them into unlicensed unregulated betting offices. A whole range of other pool competitions could be brought in by a whole range of other promoters. Some hon. Members may be very relaxed about that, but I believe that many others remain to be persuaded that the system of dedicated licensed premises for betting has had its day.
    1 am
    Our debate in Committee has affected the proposal made by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, who has sought to narrow the effect of the measure. I see exactly what he seeks to do, and if I could find a way of achieving his objective, I would be tempted to do so. I fear, however, that in attempting to solve one problem, he has created another in its place—as I think one always must if one seeks to draft a narrow amendment in this area.
    Although the amendment would allow Littlewoods, Vernons and Zetters to market their existing cricket, snooker and horse-racing competitions, which form a small part of their activities, it would also create a closed market. Anyone setting up as a pool promoter following the enactment of the Bill would not benefit from clause 50 and so could not engage shops to collect his pools coupons.
    I have no doubt that the existing pools companies would welcome such statutory protection from competition, and the Opposition may feel comfortable putting their names to such an amendment, but it is too anti-competition and too weighted against any newcomer for the Government to be able to commend it to the House. I hope that the House will not adopt the
    Mr. George Howarth: The Minister appears to accept the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) sought to make on behalf of the pools companies about this narrow aspect of business, in respect of which forms are often included on the reverse side of existing coupons.
    The Minister may be right to say that the amendment has a wider compass than my hon. Friend intended. But the hon. Gentleman said that if he thought that he could achieve the original intention of the amendment, he would be willing to do so. Would he be willing, before the Bill goes to the other place, to look again to see whether he can draft a provision that would achieve what my hon. Friend suggested, rather than having the wider implications which he says the amendment has?
    Mr. Lloyd: I have examined the matter carefully since the Committee stage. I do not think that it is possible to amend the Bill in this way without opening up the possibility of large-scale pool betting on all sorts of activities from all sorts of promoters in unlicensed outlets. I shall certainly think again, and if the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) can come up with a foolproof form of words, I shall be interested to see it and shall think seriously about suggesting to my colleagues that it should be introduced in the other place.
    Mr. Pendry: Let me reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North has said. We have heard a lot about the fact that there will be a year to think things through. I shall not go as far as my hon. Friend in suggesting that something could be done before the Bill goes to the other place, but perhaps during that year a few heads could be knocked together so that words that would be acceptable to the Government can be formulated. With those words of wisdom, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: No. 173, in page 20, line 34, after `games' insert `to be'.
    No. 174, in Page 20, line 34, after `Saturday' insert
    ', a Sunday or a day that is a bank holiday in England and Wales or in Scotland under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971'.—[Mr. Key.]

  Schedule 1
    LEGALITY ETC. OF LOTTERIES FORMING PART OF THE NATIONAL LOTTERY
    Amendment made: No. 72, in page 23, leave out lines 22 to 26.—[Mr. Key.]
  Schedule 4

    AMENDMENT OF THE NATIONAL HERITAGE ACT 1980
    Amendments made: No. 73, in page 27, line 19, at end insert—
    '"(2ZA) Notwithstanding that an object such as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above or a collection or group of objects such as is mentioned in subsection (1)(c) above is not itself of importance to the national heritage, the Trustees may make a grant or loan under subsection (1) above for the purpose of assisting in its acquisition if—

    (a) they are satisfied that after its acquisition it will form part of a collection or group of objects such as is mentioned in subsection (1)(c) above, and

    (b) after obtaining such expert advice as appears to them to be appropriate, they are of opinion that that collection or group is of importance to the national heritage.'.

    No. 106, in page 27, line 43, at end insert—
    '(g) to preserve or maintain any building or land in respect of which a grant has been or is to be made under any of paragraphs (a) to (f) above.'.
    No. 107, in page 28, line 2, leave out from beginning to `unless' in line 3.
    No. 108, in page 28, line 6, after `subsection,' insert
    'or a grant under paragraph (g) of that subsection where a grant under paragraph (a), (b) or (c) has been or is to be made,'.
    No. 109, in page 28, line 10, after 'subsection,' insert
    'or a grant under paragraph (g) of that subsection where a grant under paragraph (d), (e) or (f) has been or is to be made,'.
    No. 110, in page 28, line 14, leave out 'under subsection (2A) (a), (b) or (c)' and insert
    'such as is mentioned in subsection (2B) (a)'.
    No. 111, in page 28, line 15, leave out `under subsection (2A) (d), (e) or (f)' and insert
    'such as is mentioned in subsection (2B) (b)'.
    No. 112, in page 28, line 18, leave out `under subsection (2A), (a), (b) or (c)' and insert
    `such as is mentioned in subsection (2B) (a)'.
    No. 113, in page 28, line 19, leave out `under subsection (2A) (d), (e) or (f)' and insert
    'such as is mentioned in subsection (2B) (b)'.
    No. 74, in page 28, line 31, at end insert—
    ', In section 4(2) (application of section 3(2) and (3) in relation to other expenditure out of National Heritage Memorial Fund) after "(2)" there shall be inserted ", (2ZA)".—[Mr. Key.]

  Schedule 5

    THE NATIONAL LOTTERY CHARITIES BOARD
    Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move amendement No. 114, in page 29, line 22, after `chairman' insert
    `and the chairman of any committee of theirs'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 115 to 117.
    Mr. Lloyd: In Committee I undertook to consider whether it should be possible for the chairmem of the board's committees to be paid. Having considered the matter, we believe that that should be a possibility, and the amendments make that so.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 115, in page 29, line 27, after first `Board' insert
    `or chairman of a committee of the Charities Board'.
    No. 116, in page 29, line 34, after first `Board' insert 'or of a committee of the Charities Board.'
    No. 117, in page 31, line 14, at end insert
    'and any chairman of a committee of that Board.'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

  Schedule 6

    THE MILLENNIUM COMMISSION
    Mr. Alton: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 31, line 28, at end insert
    'and—

    (c) one shall be nominated after consultation with the leaders of the minority parties other than Her Majesty's Opposition.'.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 7, in page 31, line 37, after `Opposition', insert
    'or of any other minority party.'.
    Mr. Alton: These two amendments were moved in Committee. The Minister will recall that we were unable to have a Division on the issue of the representation of minority parties in the House on the Millennium Commission.
    Despite discussions that have been held in the intermim with Ministers and the Secretary of State, I understand that it has been impossible to make any progress on the question of representation and I give notice that, if we are unable to extract anything from the Minister when he replies as to whether the issue will receive further consideration, I intend to press the amendment to a Division as we were unable to have a Division in Committee.

    1107
    I am grateful to the official Opposition and to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) who, in contrast, has been extremely helpful on the matter and who was good enough to say earlier that the official Opposition support the principle that the minority parties in the House should be represented on the Millennium Commission.
    About 20 per cent. of the funds raised by the national lottery will be dispensed by the Millennium Commission. If there is to be political representation—whether there should be political representation at all is open to question and is a matter that the House may wish to consider—and given that the Government have decided to write on to the face of the Bill the fact that two Ministers and one representative of the official Opposition will be appointed to serve on the commission, it seems extraordinary that no representatives of the 43 Members of the House who serve in seven minority parties should be members of that commission.
    There are plenty of examples of the minority parties taking collective decisions—for example, through the Committee of Selection. I recall that when I was my party's Chief Whip, on many occasions, I made joint nominations on behalf of the minority parties to serve on Committees in the House. The principle should be no different in respect of the amendment.
    There are nine places available on the commission. I cannot understand why the Government decided to take two places and to give one to the official Opposition and none to the minority parties.
    The geographical composition is also worth considering for a moment. It will not have escaped the attention of hon. Members that among the signatories to the amendment are spokesmen for the Democratic Unionist party and the Official Unionist party in Northern Ireland and the Social Democratic and Labour party of Northern Ireland.
    Neither the official Opposition nor the Government are represented in Northern Ireland, and it would be scandalous if no one from Ulster were represented on the Millennium Commission. I hope that, at the very least, the Minister will promise Northern Ireland Members that one of the nine places will be allotted to someone from Northern Ireland.
    The amendment is supported not only by representatives of the three Northern Ireland parties that I have mentioned, but by members of the Scottish National and Welsh National parties. I think that the breadth of opinion represented should in itself commend the amendment to the House. If there is to be a separate fund with its separate bureaucracy—the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde talked about that earlier—and if it is to have political representatives, surely minority parties should be represented. It is an elementary question of fairness.
    The Minister rightly took great pains to point out that there was an extraordinary atmosphere of good will in Committee, although many of us held diametrically opposed views on the issue of the lottery iself—often because of constituency, moral or ethical considerations. At the conclusion of the Committee stage, the Minister himself said that all parties had played a constructive and positive role.
    1108
    The Committee stage was marked by a very non-adversarial quality: there was great co-operation and partnership between hon. Members on both sides of the Committee as they considered the best way in which to make the lottery work. Although many had deep reservations about whether it should be established at all, we did not allow ideological questions to prevent us from proceeding. Surely, hon. Members should adopt the same spirit when considering who should serve on the Millennium Commission.
    Another issue should worry hon. Members. Inevitably, people will be concerned about the nature of the money that is being dispensed by the commission. I believe that those who will monitor the operation of the commission would feel far happier if they knew that it contained a breadth of opinion representing all parties in the House and every part of the United Kingdom. That would leave the commission open to far fewer suggestions that it is the result of a carve-up, or is being manipulated or cynically abused.
    The Government should consider the amendments carefully, in the interests of fairness. If they do not feel able to accept them tonight, they should at least give us an assurance that they will consider them in another place, thereby avoiding the need for an otherwise necessary Division.
    Mr. Key: When we established the Millennium Commission, we recognised that we were establishing a far-reaching and visionary body that would be of interest to the whole nation. We therefore thought that the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition ought to be able to nominate one member of the Commission; we did not think that the right of nomination should be spread further. In Committee, we amended our proposals to reduce the number of our nominations to three; we considered that sensible. There is no doubt that politicians will be a minority on the commission.
    I find it extraordinary that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) should suggest that we have engaged in discussions or negotiations between the end of the Committee stage and tonight's debate. I have engaged in no discussions whatever. The hon. Gentleman's comments are, perhaps, predictable, but I cannot accept them. I shall oppose the amendments.
    Mr. Alton rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Rev. Ian Paisley.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) put his points very fairly. Let me point out to the Government that small parties are represented in the House. Do the Government feel that they should have the largest slice of the cake? Are they saying to the official Opposition, "You can have one representative; all the other, smaller parties should be forgotten"? I do not think that that bears out what the Government have continually told us about the objectives of the Bill.
    The attention of the House has been drawn to the fact that the three small parties from Northern Ireland will not be represented. They do not always see eye to eye. We are always told that we should see eye to eye, but immediately we do, people want nothing to do with us.
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage has read deeply in theology. He will know that the millennium is a

    1109
    wonderful thing. It is 1,000 years of peace and prosperity and the reign of Christ. He will also know that before it there comes a great tribulation. It seems that he would like to throw the smaller parties into the great tribulation rather than bring them into the millennium.
    If the Government cannot accede to what has been requested in the amendment, can they give an assurance that Northern Ireland will not go without representation?
    1.15 am
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Social Democratic and Labour party will get the seat.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: That is all right. It can get the seat. I am not interested in who gets the seat, but there should be some representation from Northern Ireland. This should not be a party political matter, it should be a matter for the House. The Government would not say to the Opposition that the representative cannot come from one wing of the Opposition, whether it be left, right or centre. That should not come into the matter. That is the way in which I look at this matter.
    Everyone knows my views on the national lottery. I have made them clear in the House. But the Minister should give the Northern Ireland people at least some sort of recognition and representation.
    Mr. Pendry: We sympathise with the arguments that have been made. I thought that it was discourteous of the Minister not to answer the point that was about to be made to him by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill on whether representations had been made since the Committee. It would have been helpful to the House if the Minister had given the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to make his case.
    I wish to make two points. First, if this is a national lottery, it should be seen to be truly so. Representatives from the House should be on the commission and should be from as wide a spread of parties as possible. Secondly, many people would like to see Parliament get closer to the national lottery to provide accountability. Therefore, there is a lot to commend the amendment and we support it.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 27, Noes 128.

    Division No. 252]

    [1.17 am

    AYES

    Alton, David

    McMaster, Gordon

    Barnes, Harry

    Mahon, Alice

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Miller, Andrew

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Cryer, Bob

    Pendry, Tom

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Salmond, Alex

    Davidson, Ian

    Skinner, Dennis

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

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Dixon, Don

    Wallace, James

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Hall, Mike

    Tellers for the Ayues:

    Hinchliffe, David

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Ms Liz Lynne.

    Loyden, Eddie

    Maclennan, Robert

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Ashby, David

    Alexander, Richard

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Amess, David

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Ancram, Michael

    Baldry, Tony

    Arbuthnot, James

    Bates, Michael

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    1110

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Boswell, Tim

    Legg, Barry

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Brazier, Julian

    Lidington, David

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Brown, M.(Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Lord, Michael

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Luff, Peter

    Butler, Peter

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Butterfill, John

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Carrington, Matthew

    Malone, Gerald

    Carttiss, Michael

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Chapman, Sydney

    Merchant, Piers

    Clappison, James

    Milligan, Stephen

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Colvin, Michael

    Moss, Malcolm

    Congdon, David

    Nelson, Anthony

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Cran, James

    Pickles, Eric

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Ronton, Rt Hon Tim

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Richards, Rod

    Duncan, Alan

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Elletson, Harold

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Faber, David

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Fabricant, Michael

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Forman, Nigel

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Spring, Richard

    Freeman, Roger

    Sproat, Iain

    Gallic Phil

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Gill, Christopher

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Steen, Anthony

    Gorst, John

    Streeter, Gary

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Hague, William

    Sykes, John

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Harris, David

    Thomason, Roy

    Hawkins, Nick

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Thurnham, Peter

    Heald, Oliver

    Townsend, Cyril D.(Bexl'yh'th)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Tracey, Richard

    Hendry, Charles

    Trend, Michael

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

    Viggers, Peter

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Walden, George

    Hunter, Andrew

    Waller, Gary

    Jack, Michael

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Whittingdale, John

    Jessel, Toby

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Willetts, David

    Key, Robert

    Wilshire, David

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Wood, Timothy

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Mr. Andrew Mackay and Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Amendment made: No. 75, in page 33, line 37, at end insert—
    `. In Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 (definition of public records), the following entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place in Part II of the Table at the end of paragraph 3—
    "Millennium Commission.—.[Mr. Brooke.]

  Schedule 7

    REGISTRATION OF SOCIETIES
    Amendments made: No. 175, in page 34, line 23, after `person' insert—
    'who is or will be a person'.
    No. 176, in page 34, line 36, leave out is'.
    No. 177, in page 34, line 37, leave out 'if he' and insert 'is a person who'.
    No. 76, in page 35, line 22, leave out 'and' and insert 'including'.
    No. 77, in page 35, line 23, leave out 'documentary form' and insert 'writing'.
    No. 178, in page 36, line 19, leave out 'or'.
    No. 179, in page 36, line 21, at end insert '; or
    (g) that an act or omission of a person who is or will be a person connected with a lottery promoted or proposed to be promoted on behalf of the society was a cause—

    (i) of the registration of another society being refused or revoked on the ground specified in paragraph (b) or (f) above or under sub-paragraph (3) below;

    (ii) of the registration of a scheme being refused or revoked on a ground specified in paragraph 3(1)(e) or 4(2)(c) of Schedule 2 below; or

    (iii) of a relevant lottery, in the promotion of which the person was involved, not being properly conducted.

    () In considering whether sub-paragraph (2)(g) above applies, the Board shall disregard any act or omission that occurred more than five years previously.
    () For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(g) above—

    (a) a person connected with a lottery is a person who is or has been—

    (i) involved in the promotion of the lottery; or

    (ii) employed for reward in connection with the promotion of any other lottery on behalf of the same society; and

    (b) "relevant lottery", in relation to a society and a person, means a lottery promoted—

    (i) on behalf of another society that at the time of the person's involvement with the promotion of the lottery was registered with the Board; or

    (ii) under a scheme that at the time of the person's involvement with the promotion of the lottery was registered with the Board.'.

    No. 78, in page 37, line 37, leave out 'and' and insert `including'.
    No. 79, in page 37, line 38, leave out 'documentary form' and insert 'writing'.
    No. 80, in page 38, line 2, leave out 'and' and insert 'including'.
    No. 81, in page 38, line 3, leave out 'documentary form' and insert 'writing'.
    No. 180, in page 38, line 14, after '£100,000' insert `and any of those lotteries is a lottery to which section 5(3B), (3C) or (3D) above applies'.—[Mr. Brooke.]

  Schedule 8

    REGISTRATION OF SCHEMES: AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE 2 TO THE 1976 ACT
    Amendments made: No. 181, in page 39, line 30, after substituted " ' insert 'a person'.
    No. 182, in page 39, line 39, at end insert '; or

    (f) except where the Secretary of State otherwise directs, it appears to the Board that an act or omission of a person who will be a person connected with a lottery under the scheme was a cause—

    (i) of the registration of another scheme being refused or revoked on a ground specified in paragraph (e) above or paragraph 4(2)(c) below;

    (ii) of the registration of a society being refused or revoked on the ground specified in paragraph 3(2)(b) or (f) of Schedule 1A above or under paragraph 3(3) of that Schedule; or

    1112

    (iii) of a relevant lottery, in the promotion of which that person was involved, not being properly conducted.'.

    No. 183, in page 39, line 40, at end insert—
    '"() In considering whether sub-paragraph (1)(f) above applies, the Board shall disregard any act or omission that occurred more than five years previously.'.
    No. 184, in page 40, line 7, leave out first 'is'.
    No. 185, in page 40, line 7, leave out 'if he is' and insert
    'is a person who is or has been'.
    No. 186, in page 40, line 10, at end insert '; and
    () "relevant lottery", in relation to a scheme and a person, means a lottery promoted—

    (i) under another scheme that at the time of the person's involvement with the promotion of the lottery was registered with the Board; or

    (ii) on behalf of a society that at the time of the person's involvement with the promotion of the lottery was registered with the Board.'.

    No. 187, in page 40, line 18, leave out 'or has been' and insert 'a person'.
    No. 188, in page 40, line 19, leave out '; or'.
    No. 189, in page 40, line 22, at end insert '; or
    (d) if it appears to them that an act or omission of a person who is or will be a person connected with a lottery under the scheme was a cause—

    (i) of the registration of another scheme being refused or revoked on a ground specified in paragraph 3(1)(e) or paragraph (c) above;

    (ii) of the registration of a society being refused or revoked on the ground specified in paragraph 3(2)(b) or (f) of Schedule 1A above or under paragraph 3(3) of that Schedule; or

    (iii) of a relevant lottery, in the promotion of which that person was involved, not being properly conducted.

    (3) In considering whether sub-paragraph (2)(d) above applies, the Board shall disregard any act or omission that occurred more than five years previously.'.
    No. 82, in page 41, line 15, leave out 'and' and insert 'including'.
    No. 83, in page 41, line 16, leave out 'documentary form' and insert 'writing'.
    No. 84, in page 41, line 30, leave out 'and' and insert 'including'.
    No. 85, in page 41, line 31, leave out 'documentary form' and insert `writing'.—[Mr. Brooke.]

  Schedule 9

    SCHEDULE TO BE INSERTED IN THE 1976 ACT AFTER SCHEDULE 2
    Amendments made: No. 86, in page 45, line 3, leave out 'and' and insert 'including'.
    No. 87, in page 45, line 4, leave out 'documentary form' and insert 'writing'.
    No. 88, in page 45, line 18, leave out 'and' and insert `including'.
    No. 89, in page 45, line 19, leave out 'documentary form' and insert 'writing'.
    No. 190, in page 46, leave out lines 39 to 42.
    No. 191, in page 47, line 2, leave out from '18(1)' to 'at' in line 4.—[Mr. Brooke.]

    Title
    Amendment made: No. 192, Title, line 6, after 'to', insert 'private lotteries and'.—[Mr. Brooke.]
    Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
    1.28 am
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    It is a late hour, but there are courtesies to be observed, however briefly. The Bill has been the subject of much interest, both inside and outside the House. It has been subject to a thorough scrutiny by the Standing Committee and by the House tonight, and it has emerged from the Committee and from this evening's debate a better 13ill. I therefore pay tribute to all those who served in the Committee for their work on the Bill which, as has often been remarked, is almost unique in its combination of measures—establishing the lottery, making arrangements for the distribution of the net proceeds and taking the opportunity to help small lotteries.
    It has fired the imagination and commanded, the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I congratulate all those involved and I think that we have a piece of legislation worthy of its task, one which I am sure will be looked at enviously by other lottery operators all over the world, and will produce a United Kingdom national lottery which is the best in the world.
    In particular, I think that the whole House should be grateful for the sterling efforts of the chairman of the Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), and to the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) who were called upon to step into the breach when the chairman was sadly taken ill early in the Committee's proceedings.
    They formed an admirable triumvirate, supported by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Coote), who was ready to assist but never called. We owe them our thanks. The same appreciation goes to those who in the chair in the House have presided over the Report stage with such benign authority that controversy melted away.
    We also owe thanks to the Opposition spokesmen, the hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), for their wise contributions in Committee, via probing amendments and through the fruits of their wide experience in the arts, sport and the heritage. They were joined tonight by the hon. Member for Cymn Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and throughout by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). They and all other members of the Committee were assisted by the excellent Clerk.
    I also pay tribute to the skilful and tireless efforts of my hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State, whose diligence, constructiveness and good humour were greatly appreciated by the Committee. I also pay tribute to the massive work, done by our officials and advisers, which went on behind the scenes to sustain my hon. Friends.
    1.30 am
    I thank hon. Members who have helped to refine the Bill and speed it on, its way. At the risk of being quoted when the lottery becomes operative, I echo the dodo in "Alice": all have won and all shall have prizes. Through all its stages the Bill has been open to sensible amendment and hon. Members who participated have felt that the Bill has been further improved. It is not a lottery of excess; it is a lottery of access.
    1114
    Finally, we owe a debt of gratitude to Parliamentary Counsel for the superb elegance of the drafting of the Bill, which presented many difficult and unusual challenges that the Bill solves with creativity and aplomb. The Bill is a model of modern legislation, to be admired for the skill, grace and economy of its structure.
    I could say a great deal about the substance of the Bill which would reinforce this categorical eulogy. I propose to resist that temptation and hope that my abstinence will cause others to join me in the good wishes that I have expressed for the Bill as it is poised to leave us now for another place. I commend in particular the work of the Whip in assisting our progress.
    1.31 am
    Mr. Pendry: I will not thank all those whom the Secretary of State thanked by name, but I echo much of what he said.
    On Second Reading I said that it was consistent to be committed to the idea of a national lottery but to retain some deeply held objections to parts of it. We thought that the Bill was flawed in many fundamental respects and we urged the Committee to vote for our amendments and to reject the Bill as it stood.
    We said that, unless the Bill emerged on Report in better shape, we reserved our position. Since the Committee stage, there has been some hard bargaining. Following persuasive arguments advanced by my hon. Friends and some free spirits on the Conservative Benches, Ministers did listen to the genuine concerns expressed. To their eternal credit, they promised to reflect on the many points that we had to put to them. That promise was kept.
    Since then, there have been a number of meetings with Ministers and some important changes, to the benefit of the charitable sector, the pools industry, and the small lottery operators affiliated to the lotteries council. The House would, I am sure, want me to praise my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), the president of the council, who has done so much to highlight the problems of the small lotteries and to bring about acceptable changes.
    I had intended to make a number of points in the Government's favour, but I judge that Ministers do not want me to at this stage. I will therefore spare their blushes and content myself with pointing out that the Government have made some important concessions. The Bill is still not as perfect as we would like it to be. As it travels to another place I am sure that it will be further improved.
    The pools companies, for instance, would like more freedom to advertise on television and radio. In Committee the Minister said that he would consider that, but nothing has been translated into legislative form. We hope that the Secretary of State will fight his corner with the Treasury, because the 12 per cent. tax yield to the Treasury is far too high. I hope that at the end of the first year of operation that percentage will go down and not up.
    I trust that the Bill will be improved in the other place because we wish to see a better lottery. The Opposition have always said that decisions on the Bill should be taken by a free vote. People who have fundamental objections to a lottery of any kind should be allowed to express them in the Lobby. However, if there is a Division, we on this Bench, who fought hard to improve the Bill, will vote for Third Reading. We recognise the strength of feeling of those who feel that they still cannot support the Bill and,

    1115
    as they know, they are free to vote against it. I wish the Bill well as it goes to the other place. I hope that it leaves there an even better Bill than it is now.
    1.35 am
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I was taken by the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who said that we have a free vote. I like to think that Opposition Members are a little more democratic than Conservative Members.
    I listened carefully to most of the debate, although not all of it, and four points convinced me that I should still vote against Third Reading. I have argued consistently against the Bill within my party, in Committee and on Second Reading. My opposition goes back about 16 months to the time of the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). What I have heard today does not dissuade me one iota from my view. Conservative Members will be pleased to know that I shall be brief.
    The right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) intervened during the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and there was an exchange about "this great heritage" of Georgian and Victorian England and about the achievements brought about by lotteries and charities at that time. I remind the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex that after the Napoleonic wars there was a long and involved debate which in 1823 led to the abolition of the lotteries that existed at that time. He will know that the last lottery was held in 1826 because it was felt that lotteries were not in the interests of the people of this land. The Bill breaks a 300-year-old tradition of not seeking to expand and encourage gambling in this country.
    My second point is of special interest to the people of Merseyside because of the Bill's effect on the pools, but it also affects the many groups that lobbied Opposition and Government Members during the progress of the Bill. It is the vexed question of additionality. The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), was honest in his reply to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland when he said that he could give no guarantee about what any future Secretary of State or Government would do.
    Experience in countries that have introduced lotteries shows that the principle of additionality goes out the window. As I said in Committee, whatever party the appropriate Secretary of State or Chancellor of the Exchequer belongs to, as sure as night follows day the principle of additionality will disappear and the lottery proceeds will be used as substitute finances, to the detriment of many of the good causes that are supposed to benefit from the Bill.
    The Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage was also honest enough during the debate on, I think, new clause 4 about the siting of the national lottery headquarters to say that a guarantee could not be given on jobs. I accept that in the sense in which the Minister intended it. Jobs are of paramount importance to people who represent constituencies such as mine and those of other Merseyside Members of Parliament. We have hammered the point throughout the debate, and the Minister knows that we are sincere. In my part of the
    1116
    world, 4,630 jobs are at risk. I shall not go over the arguments again, but he knows how committed we are to protecting those jobs, and the livelihoods of the people concerned.
    It would be naive in the extreme to believe that the tax take will remain at 12 per cent. What has happened in other countries shows that it is an unrealistic tax regime. I noted carefully what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, although this may not be the appropriate Bill on which to have a debate on the matter. However, it is germane to what the Bill is about. The Chancellor emphasised that the take would be 12 per cent. in the first year. If it came to the crunch and he has to decide between putting VAT on children's clothes and shoes, or raising the tax take out of the national lottery, there would be no contest. The tax regime on the lottery would go up, and that would have a detrimental effect on the charities and other good causes that expect to make money out of this ill-thought-out, ill-conceived proposal.
    For those genuine reasons, which are shared by a number of Opposition Members, and notwithstanding the fine efforts of those on the Front Bench to amend the Bill —they have improved it in many ways—we, in conscience, have to vote against Third Reading.
    1.41 am
    Mr. Maclennan: I must freely admit that no amendments to the Bill would have satisfied me that it merited a Third Reading. Although I acknowledge the work done in Committee, notably by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossly Hill (Mr. Alton), and by the Opposition spokesman and many others to improve the Bill, and slightly to ameliorate the directly adverse effect that it will have on charitable organisations, it remains unacceptable.
    This is the first time in modern times that the state has deliberately taken it upon itself to promote gambling. I regard gambling as a social evil, and one that will no doubt lead to an increase in crime, particularly among the young. It is not being a spoilsport to deplore that tendency. The Bill is a regressive measure that will hit hardest the least well-off. In a society where the gap between rich and poor is growing wider, the Government are doing more, deliberately, in the Bill to accentuate it. I find it morally repugnant, and I have no hesitation in saying so. I cannot, in the course of the Third Reading debate, confine myself to courtesies, although no doubt they are due.
    I deeply regret that Parliament has descended to the depths of the Bill. Many have clutched at it, knowing that the Treasury was to tighten the noose on expenditure on arts and the sports, a process that has already begun, alas, under a Secretary of State for whom I had high hopes—[Laughter.] I believe that the Secretary of State has the interests of both sports and the arts very much at heart, but he did not devise the Bill. It was dreamed up by others.
    The right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) was the first of several Arts Ministers who clutched at the rather vain hope that, for this declining nation, over which the Conservative Government have presided for 12 years, and this economy, which has failed to sustain the arts and sports in any other way, gambling would be the way out. The concept was promoted by a private Member's Bill, and in moving his own amendments tonight, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), in a very belated conversion, found occasion to draw attention to

    1117
    some of the dangers—[Laughter.] He must bear some of the blame when the consequences of the Bill are felt by charities.
    The principle was supported by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley as some kind of bread and circuses to be thrown before the electorate at the general election.
    Mr. Cryer: He was the author of the poll tax as well.
    Mr. Maclennan: And now he has sunk without trace. Those who embraced his policies may find that they will follow a similar route.
    This has been a regrettable episode. Many people who have clutched at the hope of salvation for the arts will live to rue the day, as they see the Treasury using the lottery as an excuse for cutting expenditure raised by taxation on the arts and sport. I shall have no hesitation in voting against the Bill.
    1.45 am
    Mr. George Howarth: As the Bill was extensively debated on Second Reading, in Committee, and on Report tonight, I shall not detain the House long. I have two main points—one is a form of concession, and the other is an objection to the Bill receiving a Third Reading.
    As a result of amendments made in Committee and others telegraphed, if not passed, tonight, the Bill is better than it was, and to that extent I congratulate those of my hon. Friends involved on the success of their arguments, and the Government on having the generosity of spirit to accept them.
    However, a number of serious questions have not been answered, and for that reason I find it impossible to vote in favour of a Third Reading.
    The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) made a serious point—which was greeted with some hilarity by Conservative Members for some reason that escapes me—about genuine moral objections to state-sponsored gambling. Whatever gloss the Government put on the lottery, there are many well-considered arguments against state-sponsored gambling and a form of taxation—for it is that—that is regressive.
    I and many of my hon. Friends are old-fashioned enough to think that the whole point of taxation is to redistribute wealth from one section of the community to another. The Bill will take from certain artistic and cultural events that are less well-off and give to the better-off. In due course, that inevitable consequence will be proved by the way in which the lottery, and the events that it sponsors, work out.
    As the Government are unlikely to accept that argument, I will make other points concerning my constituents on Merseyside. At the beginning, I and many of my hon. Friends took the view that any development that would mean more job losses for a region already ravaged by recession and unemployment was unacceptable. It was estimated—this figure has not been disproved by any empirical evidence produced by Ministers or Conservative Members—that job losses across the country were likely to number 5,000 to 6,000 with 4,000 of them on Merseyside. Some of the amendments to the Bill—the levelling, to some extent, of the playing field—mean that job losses are likely to amount now to only 1,300 to 1,500, but those job losses are unacceptable to me and my hon. Friends.
    1118
    For those two reasons—the moral objections, which still have not been answered, and the job losses that will inevitably result from the passing of the Bill on to the statute book—I have no hesitation whatsoever in recommending my hon. Friends and any Conservative Members who feel so inclined to vote against Third Reading.
    1.52 am
    Mr. Alton: Before we proceed to a Division, I intend to put on record my objections to Third Reading. At every other stage I have voted against the Bill, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) have already given. Any hon. Member who represents pools workers will have no choice but to consider these reasons before deciding how to vote on Third Reading. There are serious job implications. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) knows that when he introduced his private Member's Bill, many of us put forward similar arguments. They still remain.
    I am particularly grateful to the Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), who has been present throughout most of the proceedings on the Bill, for trying to meet many of the industry's concerns. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), and others from the Department of National Heritage, who recognise that there are implications for pools workers. None the less, there remain concerns within the industry that once the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, Zetters in London, Vernons in Liverpool and part of the Littlewoods operation will have to make people redundant. That will cause great hardship in areas where there is already high unemployment.
    For the past 21 years I have represented many people —first as a councillor and then as a Member of Parliament for the past 14 years—who are employed by Littlewoods in Edge Lane, an inner city area of Liverpool. I am familiar with many of the families who rely upon the wages that they receive from that work for their livelihood.[Interruption.]
    Although it is true that some of those jobs will undoubtedly disappear—the point which I think the hon. and learned Member for Burton is making from a sedentary position—because of the technology that is being introduced, I think he will be the first to agree that the number of jobs that will be involved in the creation of the national lottery, wherever its headquarters is situated, will be tiny, compared with the high level of labour-intensive work that is available through the football pools at present.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence indicated dissent.
    Mr. Alton: We should not gamble with people's jobs and livelihoods, particularly at a time of very high unemployment.
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I am pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I support him entirely. Does he also agree that the majority of the workers who will be affected are women and that in many cases these women are the sole earner in the family, on account of the high level of male unemployment on Merseyside? Those families depend upon the woman going out to work; many of them are lone parents.
    Mr. Alton: Indeed. I specifically made that point earlier today in the debate on where the national lottery headquarters should be situated. If any area can prove —as I believe Merseyside will be able to prove—that it has lost jobs as a direct consequence of the introduction of the national lottery, we should ensure that its national headquarters is situated in that area, so that some of the women to whom the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) referred will have the possibility of finding employment there.
    My second objection is the moral argument about regressive taxation. Is it right that people, who inevitably come from the poorest sections of society, should be encouraged to gamble through the state lottery and thereby subsidise to the greatest extent many of our great national institutions? There is nothing wrong with the Royal Opera House and Covent Garden, but why should people who are the least likely to use those facilities and who come from the poorest sections of society be the ones who most disproportionately will have to pay for those facilities?
    Can it be right for the House actively to encourage more state-inspired gambling? More per head is spent on gambling in this country—about £4·50—than in any other country in Europe. Do we want to encourage more gambling and more of a chance society, in which people are encouraged to think that the only way out of poverty and the only way to succeed is by wagering a stake? Surely there are better ways of helping to succeed.
    I conclude by recalling the words of William Wilberforce to his friend Henry Thornton in the aftermath of the abolition of slavery. He turned to Henry Thornton and asked, "What shall we abolish next?" The reply was, "The national lottery, I think." In those days, the period to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) referred, the national lottery was so full of corruption, abuses and the fear of syndicates, which has also been expressed today, that there was a national crusade to abolish it. I hope that there will not have to be a national crusade to undo what we are doing today.
    1.55 am
    Mr. Renton: I understand the concerns that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has expressed so well. I shall be brief because it is late, but I must say that I think that he and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) are wrong. The national lottery will be a great step forward and will do much for good causes in this country.
    During my time as Minister for the Arts, I used all my influence to get the notion approved. I was delighted that it was in our election manifesto, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd), and the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of National Heritage on the way that they have argued for the concept today.
    There were two good reasons why I was convinced about the idea. The first was that, when talking to other Ministers for the Arts—they are usually called Ministers of Culture in other parts of Europe—I was always struck by their telling me that they had been able to use the proceeds of their national lotteries so successfully. I remember Maire Geoghegan-Quinn in Dublin telling me of the refurbishment and restoration of the Irish national gallery, which was the result of the national lottery. I asked Mrs.
    1120
    Psarouda-Benaki, the Greek Minister of Culture, how she was doing for money. That was the usual question between Ministers for the Arts or for Culture. She said that she was saved by the national lottery.
    Secondly, although my predecessor, Sir Richard Luce, and I were successful in getting increased grants from the Treasury for the current expenses of arts organisations, it was clear that there was not sufficient money available to build great buildings or for restoration and refurbishment. It was obvious to me that the large sums needed would come only from a national lottery. I believe that the national lottery will be a great success and that the concerns expressed are not valid.
    I hope that when Oflot comes into being, and when the organisation that is to run the lottery has been chosen, they will concentrate on using small shops such as tobacconists' shops and sub-post offices as retail outlets. If anyone visits Wexford in Ireland, they will find three small shops in the high street, all displaying the lotto sign. That brings new customers into corner shops, and we all want to encourage the small shop rather than the supermarket. The lottery could be helpful in that respect.
    I was disappointed by the gloomy view that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) took of the millennium fund. It is a most exciting and imaginative project, which will contribute to the construction of great buildings by which the next generation will remember us.
    After the great exhibition, spare money was used to buy the land in south Kensington on which now stand the Victoria and Albert museum, the natural history museum and the science museum.
    Over the next six or seven years we can do something comparable, and I believe that it will be for that that the next generation will remember us. We should all be proud to be associated with the project, and I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will carry it forward with great vigour and determination.
    2 am
    Mr. Frank Field: Although I respect the hon. Members who have taken a principled stand about the idea of the state organising gambling, I have to say that I do not care a stuff for that argument. I believe that in the country as a whole most people will fail to draw any significant distinction between gambling run privately and gambling run by the state. People may be able to make the case that they oppose all gambling, but it is a subsidiary matter whether the state or private organisations run it. Therefore, I have no wish to make more of that issue.
    First, I thank the Secretary of State and his junior Minister for the changes that they have made to the Bill. I understand that the pools lobby is now much more satisfied with it. If the pools lobby consisted of Vernons alone I should be content with its response, for I have respected for some time Vernons' stance on the whole issue. However, Littlewoods' attitude over the long term has left everything to be desired in terms of how the company should have responded so as to shape the debate that culminates tonight.
    I shall spend two minutes on the subject of jobs. We have had two good monthly returns for the unemployment figures, but two good months do not make an economic boom. Even if they did, we know from the past four or so booms that at the high point of each boom there are more

    1121
    people unemployed than there were at the equivalent stage of the previous cycle. Therefore, the issue of jobs is of immense importance.
    Like many Merseyside Members, I represent a constituency in which one in four people are unemployed. Generally there are two reactions to unemployment in my constituency. One is for people to drive themselves demented as they search for that elusive job, and for their loved ones to watch them become demented and to go mad with them, believing that round the next corner, on the next card that they read in the jobcentre or in the next newspaper advert that they read, there will be the sign of a job, and they will be successful.
    The other response, which I find even more alarming, and which is becoming more common, is that the only way in which people can survive with that level of unemployment is to wipe the idea of paid work out of their lives. That is the only way to organise and to keep sane. That is an extremely worrying long-term trend for the House to have to debate.
    It is therefore immensely serious that at a time of near record post-war unemployment we are debating a Bill that will deny some of my constituents work. Some of those people will be bringing the only wage packet into their households and without those jobs they will join either the group of demented constituents who search vainly for work, or that growing group that can survive only by pretending that working is not an important part of our activities as responsible adults.
    I therefore make a plea to the House. While we have that level of unemployment and while that curse is laid on so many of our constituents, although in other circumstances a national lottery would be welcome, and there can be no real worry about the fact that the state rather than private individuals is organising it, the effect on unemployment is a sticking point, so I hope that the House will refuse the Bill a Third Reading.
    2.3 am
    Rev. Ian Paisley: The House will be aware that I have a strong moral conviction concerning the subject matter of the Bill; I have expressed it in the House before. I have been in pastoral work for 46 years, and the description by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) of the frustration of the unemployed is very real to me. It is far more real to me that the unemployed, in that state of frustration, turn to gambling and think that by the cast of the dice they will remedy their position. It is deplorable that the Government and Parliament now take it on themselves to lead the nation in the gambling menace. It is a menace to society. It is sad that the only way in which the Government can preserve our heritage is by inviting people to gamble. That is not the way to preserve the heritage.
    I sympathise with hon. Members whose constituencies have a high percentage of unemployment, as we have in Northern Ireland. The jobs lost will not be found easily, as all hon. Members know. That is bound to cause concern to anyone who has a heart and who feels for the unemployed. Nothing devastates a family more than unemployment, and nothing devastates the moral life of people more than unemployment. Despite all the hilarity in parts of our debate, we are not going down a road that will help the nation. That is my personal conviction, so I must say that.
    2.5 am
    Mr. Cryer: There are a number of objections to the Bill. Although there have been some improvements, they will not provide the safeguards needed by the small lotteries. Ironically, the legislation that allowed small lotteries was introduced by Graham Page, the former Member for Crosby. I do not suppose that he envisaged that the idea would be taken up and converted into a national scheme by a future Conservative Government.
    The Bill is intrusive and it will affect many reasonably well-established lotteries which are used for a variety of purposes. I received representations from Bradford Northern rugby league football club, which plays at Odsal stadium in my constituency. Its concerns are not satisfied. The national lottery will have an adverse affect.
    The lottery will not be terribly efficient. Barely 25 per cent. of the revenue will got to the so-called "good causes". Some 50 per cent. will go on prizes, 12 per cent. will go on tax because the Government will use the revenue from the lottery for their own purposes, and 13 per cent. or more will go on administration. That leaves barely 25 per cent. —minority—of the total revenue to go to the good causes. The lottery is not a very effective way in which to raise money.
    Some 20 per cent. will go on the dotty scheme on the millennium which will not have any clear benefit to the nation except that in the year 2000 there will be some junketing which is not clearly defined. A quango will set up the scheme and spend the money on it. There are better uses for the money. The reservation that I and many of my hon. Friends have is that the revenue will not supplement Government expenditure, but will supplant it. It will be used as a source of revenue to pay for things that could and should come from general taxation. That is the real fear.
    There is also good and genuine tradition—Methodist, puritanical or whatever—among Labour Members. We have gambling because footbal pools are a form of gambling. That far and no further should we go. We should not expand it into a national lottery running alongside the football pools which would expand a society that is concerned with consumerism, with status and with a way out through the easy pickings of prizes in a national lottery. They are not easy pickings. Everybody contributes to the prizes. The vast majority will be losers. A tiny proportion will be winners, and the rest will be left with dashed hopes, illusions and the cynicism of a decrepit and corrupt society. Goods and services are out of reach for the vast majority because they have low incomes or no jobs in a society that has an economy that cannot provide for them.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Close the stock exchange.
    Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend talks about the stock exchange. That represents another form of gambling to which I am opposed. I do not see why we should expand gambling to consume the whole nation, with the posh gamblers in the City of London and the ordinary gamblers consumed in the pursuit of false hope. It is not by gambling but by organising together to secure a political victory and to elect a Government with the right priorities that we shall change and improve society. For those reasons, I shall vote against Third Reading.
    2.10 am
    Mr. Davidson: I oppose the Bill for many of the reasons that have already been given. I disagree with the assertion that it makes no difference whatever if gambling is organised by the state or by private individuals. If the state is seen not only to be condoning gambling by allowing it but actually to be promoting it, a different message is conveyed about the type of society that we want to see.
    Ultimately, the money from the national lottery will be used not in addition to but instead of money spent by local authorities or the state. That money will be raised from those who can afford it least to be spent on those who can afford it most. I can imagine unemployed people living in damp houses in my constituency paying money in desperation towards a national lottery in an attempt to escape from their predicament, only to see their money spent on pleasures that are predominantly enjoyed by those who are much better off than they are.
    The Bill is a redistributive measure: it will redistribute wealth away from those who have least and in the direction of those who have most. That is why I do not believe that it is morally just or morally sustainable, and I do not propose to vote for it.
    I recognise that a great deal of work has been done by those on both Front Benches to make this a less bad Bill than it was, and I pay tribute to them for that work, but I still believe that charitable giving will suffer as a result of the lottery.
    The Government have assured us that that will not happen. What do they propose to do if, several months or a year down the road, it is clearly shown that charities are suffering as a result of the introduction of the national lottery, and that local voluntary effort is being diminished as a result of money being bled away from that sector and into the lottery, which will be offering larger prizes? Will they be prepared to accept that something needs to be done to redress the balance?
    What will the Government do if it becomes clear that the national lottery cash is being used as substitute for money from elsewhere rather than being additional to it? No doubt the assurances that we have heard have been given in good faith, but it would be much more reassuring to us to have a clear commitment from the Government that they would be prepared to redress any imbalance that developed.
    I am worried that the lottery will result in the exploitation of misery by those who wish to reduce taxation and are looking for ways of funding what should be public works. The arts and sports lobbies are clutching at the national lottery in desperation because they see no other source of public revenue. In my view, that is the explanation for their enthusiasm.
    On the question of jobs, I echo the anxieties and fears expressed by many of my hon. Friends. As I said earlier, in many families in my constituency, the woman working for Littlewoods pools is the sole breadwinner and she will have no alternative opportunity for employment if she loses her job. That has not been adequately dealt with in the proposals before us. For all those reasons—moral as well as economic—I find myself with no alternative but to oppose the Bill.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 39.

    Division No. 253]

    [2.15 am

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Key, Robert

    Alexander, Richard

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Amess, David

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Ancram, Michael

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Ashby, David

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Legg, Barry

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Baldry, Tony

    Lidington, David

    Bates, Michael

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Lord, Michael

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Luff, Peter

    Boswell, Tim

    MacKay, Andrew

    Brandreth, Gyles

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Brazier, Julian

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Malone, Gerald

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Merchant, Piers

    Butler, Peter

    Milligan, Stephen

    Butterfill, John

    Moss, Malcolm

    Carrington, Matthew

    Nelson, Anthony

    Clappison, James

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Clitton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Patnick, Irvine

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Pendry, Tom

    Colvin, Michael

    Pickles, Eric

    Congdon, David

    Ronton, Rt Hon Tim

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Richards, Rod

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Cran, James

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Dover, Den

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Duncan, Alan

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Elletson, Harold

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Spring, Richard

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Sproat, Iain

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Faber, David

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Fabricant, Michael

    Steen, Anthony

    Forman, Nigel

    Streeter, Gary

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Freeman, Roger

    Sykes, John

    Gallie, Phil

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Gill, Christopher

    Thomason, Roy

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Gorst, John

    Thurnham, Peter

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

    Hague, William

    Tracey, Richard

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Trend, Michael

    Harris, David

    Viggers, Peter

    Hawkins, Nick

    Walden, George

    Hawksley, Warren

    Waller, Gary

    Heald, Oliver

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Whittingdale, John

    Hendry, Charles

    Widdecombe, Ann

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

    Willetts, David

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Wilshire, David

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Wood, Timothy

    Hunter, Andrew

    Jack, Michael

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Mr. Andrew Mitchell and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

    Jessel, Toby

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Davidson, Ian

    Alton, David

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

    Barnes, Harry

    Dixon, Don

    Benton, Joe

    Etherington, Bill

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Coffey, Ann

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Hall, Mike

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hinchliffe, David

    1125

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Salmond, Alex

    Loyden, Eddie

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Wallace, James

    McCartney, Ian

    Wareing, Robert N

    Maclennan, Robert

    McMaster, Gordon

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Mahon, Alice

    Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Miller, Andrew

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    Youth Training (Norwich)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
    2.24 am
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: The timing and date of an Adjournment debate is certainly a lottery, but even at this early hour of 25 minutes past two in the morning, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of youth training in Norwich, to refer to the difficulties that must be faced, and to make positive suggestions about how to tackle them.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment for being present on the Front Bench at this late hour. I look forward to his response to the debate tonight. I also welcome my hon. Friends the Members for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) and for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown). I am grateful to them for their support. In my last Adjournment debate I forgot to welcome the Whip. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) is here to listen to the debate.
    It is clear that there are problems in youth training. There certainly have been problems in Norwich, although considerable strides have been made in recent years. I wish to place on record my thanks to Sarah Prettejohn of the university of East Anglia for the research that she has done, on which I was able to draw in preparation for the debate. I am also grateful to many trainees, firms and other organisations in Norwich who have provided a wealth of information which has been helpful for the debate.
    I believe that too little is known locally and nationally about the positive work of the Department of Employment, the training and enterprise councils and the careers service in tackling youth employment and meeting young people's training needs. Too little value is still placed on technical and vocational training. Employers and young people often have limited understanding of the importance and relevance of national vocational qualifications. You will have noted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I spelt that out in full. I have become fed up during my 10 years as a Member of Parliament of everything being referred to in acronyms such as NVQ. It is right that we should spell out what we mean: national vocational qualification. It is important that we press for a better understanding of such qualifications.
    Some of our young people are difficult to motivate, partly because of the failure of many of our schools to produce completely literate and numerate youngsters and partly because the training that they are offered is not of high quality. Employers cannot expect to attract and retain high-quality staff unless they contribute more. Higher quality training costs money. Our record in training is still not comparable to that of many other advanced countries. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address those issues in his reply.
    A major publicity drive to raise public awareness of our training programmes and vocational qualifications should be mounted as a matter of urgency or at least as soon as practicably possible. I hope that my hon. Friend will respond to that point. Such a publicity drive would help to change attitudes and make sure that opportunities were not missed.

    1127
    I should like to be assured by my hon. Friend the Minister that closer links will be forged with the careers service and schools and that earlier and better advice will be given to children well before they reach school-leaving age. The time for education-business compacts has arrived. As a member of the Education Select Committee before the last general election, I visited Germany. It was clear that there was a stronger link than in Britain between industry and the schools. We have a long way to go.
    If, as is likely, some schools in Norwich opt for grant-maintained status, links between education and business can be further encouraged. The Confederation of British Industry has recently suggested that the best way of reducing the false distinction between academic and vocational qualifications would be to integrate them within one overall system. I am not sure that that is the right approach. It is important that national vocational qualifications and vocational training generally should have better recognition.
    It is not clear whether everyone should gain national vocational qualifications, as some of the training and enterprise councils appear to believe. It is important that quality in training should not be sacrificed in the search for universal qualifications. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister would agree that we must secure the higher quality training, with greater employer commitment, which will enable us to compete effectively with our foreign rivals in the decades ahead.
    Almost 10 years ago, in my maiden speech in the House, I praised the Government's youth training initiatives. I have kept my interest in the youth training scheme and in matters concerned with education and training ever since. I have visited many training providers in Norwich. Even this week, I had discussions with the Norfolk and Waveney training and enterprise council. At one time I was also involved with Norwich engineering project, which was founded to increase young people's interest in engineering and related skills in my constituency.
    The research that Sarah Prettejohn and I have conducted in the past weeks in Norwich has shown up clearly some of the problems under which the present system operates. In recent months, the Norfolk and Waveney training and enterprise council has been subject to some criticism and a lack of co-ordination with the careers service has been evident.
    Although training generally has held up during the recession, the nature and structure of the local economy, which has few large national companies based in the city, has imposed constraints on the opportunities available. The recent decision by Norwich Union to stop taking on school leavers had an immediate impact throughout the area. Matching potential trainees to suitable places became more difficult if youngsters were expected to travel long distances across, or out of, the city.
    Employers have, quite naturally, been uncertain about their ability to offer places to young people under the youth training programme because of its two-year life span. If a company is making its adult employees redundant and cannot judge what its markets will be like in three months' time, its reluctance to take on 16 or 17-year-olds is understandable. It has been all too easy to cut training budgets and to fail to offer financial incentives
    1128
    and wider differentials to acquire training qualifications. All that has been left has been seen by youngsters as training in quantity rather than in quality for the future.
    It has been said, too, that there has been a problem with the attitude of a small number of youngsters seeking training. One Norwich company told us that its trainees left a lot to be desired. It said that those young people did not understand the need to be at work on time and lacked the motivation to get the most out of their training. The company regarded that as the fault of the schools, which had tolerated those attitudes and downgraded vocational skills. I am sorry to say that there is more than a degree of truth in those charges.
    It is not entirely clear how many young people have been training locally, which is due to a difference in the criteria used by the careers service and the Norfolk and Waveney training and enterprise council. The careers service has considered that its figures might be an underestimate while the training and enterprise council thought that they were probably an overestimate and included those who had gone back to school or college. In the training and enterprise council's view, those who did go back for an extra year found it more difficult to get training places once they left school.
    An extremely important development has been the creation by the Norfolk and Waveney training and enterprise council of foundation training specifically designed to help youngsters who had experienced problems in finding a training place. By offering preparatory counselling on suitable careers, by involving youngsters directly in training to improve motivation, social and interview skills and by helping them to appreciate the importance of team work, that programme is offering those youngsters the chance to achieve their objectives rather than to fall and to fail at the first hurdle. Training providers will be able to recruit motivated people who want to gain national vocational qualifications and pursue a career with realistic prospects.
    We have found that the results of the training and enterprise council's efforts are already beginning to show through. Eight month's ago, there were 1,408 youngsters eligible for youth training, of whom 353 had waited for a start date for more than eight weeks. This month, there were 692 eligible youngsters, with only 11 who had waited more than eight weeks; some of them had either just moved into the area or were long-term sick. I suspect that the recent visit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to the training and enterprise council has had a salutary effect to improve the situation. I welcome the recent improvement, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to confirm the figures that I have quoted.
    Every young person seeking youth training at the beginning of January has now been offered a place, and everyone accepting the offer has actually started on his or her course or placement with an employer. Overall, some 4,200 young men and women are undertaking training under the Norfolk and Waveney training and enterprise council's auspices. I also understand that the careers service and the training and enterprise council are now working more closely together to tackle the employment and training needs of young people, and will go on doing so.
    So progress is being made in Norwich. It must be consolidated, locally and nationally. As the economy recovers, employers, particularly in the manufacturing and

    1129
    engineering sectors, will need encouragement to take on trainees and to meet the additional costs of training in their skills. This point has been discussed constructively between representatives of the Engineering Employers Federation and the training and enterprise council. More apprentices will be sponsored this year in spite of a reduced employers' contribution. Better links with teachers are being built. Similarly, a major publicity drive is under way to attract young people into engineering, as the engineering stand at the recent Job Scene East careers exhibition at the Norwich sports village showed.
    I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the recovery in the economy will be abortive if we suffer a skills shortage. I can recall some years ago being called to meetings by employers in Norwich because they were desperately worried about a skills shortage. We have heard less of that recently as the economy has gone through a more difficult period, but I suspect that it will not be long before we start hearing about a skills shortage again. That is why I am emphasising the point now.
    I am particularly grateful to have had this opportunity to raise the subject of youth training in Norwich. It is a matter of great importance to young people in Norwich and throughout the country, including young people in the constituencies of my hon. Friends who have supported me tonight, the hon. Members for Great Yarmouth and for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. We must get the right sort of training for our young people who are leaving education and entering the world of work for the first time. It is in their interests and in ours that they acquire skills that will be useful for the rest of their lives.
    I believe that these objectives are accepted inside and outside the House, even if there are differing views on how to achieve them. I believe, therefore, that a campaign to stimulate interest in training and enthusiasm for vacational qualifications will have widespread support, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and their colleagues will be able to take a lead in this. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to respond positively to the points that I have discovered in my research on youth training in Norwich and to the suggestions that I have made in opening this debate.
    2.37 am
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) for raising this important topic tonight. I know how strongly he feels about the need to ensure that every young person has the opportunity to enter a quality youth training place. I share his concern. I particularly pay tribute to the way in which he has championed and fought for the rights of young people in his constituency. Let me, therefore, first of all make it clear just how important youth training is to the Government.
    Our record on providing training for young people shows what progress we have made in the past 10 years. There were only 7,000 young people in Great Britain on training programmes under the last Labour Government in 1979. The numbers now entering youth training and training credits exceed 200,000 each year. This is an outstanding performance at a time when our economy has been under considerable pressure.
    1130
    Before this Government came to power there was no such thing as today's youth training. Very few people then understood how important it was to provide well-structured routes for all young people, helping them with the transition between schooldays and working life. Thanks to this Government, the picture is now vastly different.
    My hon. Friend has stressed both the need to raise the profile and status of vocational qualifications and employers' commitment to training. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear her intention to have a promotional drive to underline the importance of employers meeting the Investors in People standard and the importance of national vocational qualifications for business and individuals alike. My hon. Friend's point about the need to promote NVQs more vigorously is not lost on the Secretary of State.
    The Department has been holding detailed consultations with TECs, industrial training organisations, the National Council for Vocational Qualifications and others on how best to deliver such a campaign. My right hon. Friend will be making an announcement shortly.
    We have made available £844 million this year to fund youth training. This is despite the continued reduction in the number of young people joining the labour market immediately after school leaving age—partly because more stay on and partly due to the falling number nationally in the age group. I repeat, as I have so often in the past, that the Government remain fully committed to the youth training guarantee and that no training and enterprise council will be prevented by lack of resources from meeting it.
    Through the training and enterprise councils, we have given leadership in delivering training programmes to key players in the local business community. This approach has tapped in to the commitment and ideas that people on the spot have to offer and means that local programmes are tailored to the needs of the local community and overseen by business-led bodies: the TEC boards. To allow TEC boards to exercise their business acumen, we make it their responsibility to contract with local providers to secure the training which the Gvoernment fund.
    On the Government side, the contracts are managed by the Employment Department's regional offices. It is the responsibility of the regional office to liaise with the TEC, to monitor performance and try to resolve any emerging local difficulties. This, of course, includes any difficulty the TEC may have in meeting the YT guarantee in a particular area.
    TECs work with the careers service locally to ensure that the contracted provision fits the needs of all school leavers wanting to go into youth training, and that no young person misses out on the opportunities available.
    My hon. Friend highlighted the importance of links between the careers service and schools. I am pleased to say that the Employment Department has undertaken a number of initiatives in this area, such as careers libraries to enhance the quality of careers information available in schools; the teacher placement scheme; and education-business partnerships. These are designed to bring schools, TECs and careers services closer together, improve the links between schools and the world of work, and put young people's career choices on a much firmer basis.
    In addition, as my hon. Friend will be aware, the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, currently in another place, proposes major changes for the careers

    1131
    service. It will be the duty of the Secretaries of State for Employment, for Wales and for Scotland to ensure that careers advice is provided to the statutory client group who are at or have recently left schools and colleges. This is a fundamental change which reflects the importance that the Government attach to good careers guidance.
    I would now like to turn to my hon. Friend's constituency. Youth training in Norwich is delivered under contract with Norfolk and Waveney TEC, which also serves the Secretary of State's constituency. It contracts with 12 providers making youth training places available to young people in Norwich. These include organisations such as Norfolk county council, the training workshop and Broadland district council.
    I would like to put on record some of the major achievements of Norfolk and Waveney TEC in helping young people. Since its creation in November 1990, many young people have benefited from the youth training courses that it has run. We must not forget that at a time when, nationally, number, in this age group are in marked decline, East Anglia is unusual in that the reduction there is much smaller than in other regions. The numbers of entrants into the TEC's youth training courses in 1991–92 was 3,776; in 1992–93 it was 3,636. These figures put into better context some of the numbers that critics have bandied about—of young people without suitable offers of a youth training place.
    Much concern has been expressed about the YT guarantee. As I have explained, we regard this as of crucial importance, and all TECs, working with careers services, are in no doubt about the priority that the Government attach to it. That said, if there are continuing difficulties in Norwich, they need to be addressed by the processes that I have outlined.
    We have said throughout that no TEC would be prevented by lack of resources from implementing the guarantee. We have agreed a budget with Norfolk and Waveney TEC, earmarked for youth training, of more than £10 million for 1993–94. These negotiations have only just been completed, and while we have been negotiating with the TEC, it has been negotiating with its many providers. Inevitably, while negotiations are in train and different positions are being argued, there will be temptations to overdramatise how harshly a new pricing framework will bear on one or other of the parties to the negotiations.
    I accept that Norfolk has faced far greater difficulties this year than previously in dealing with the demand for youth training. There has been local media comment on the number of young people still seeking places and a gathering recognition that something more is needed to be done. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to discuss the issues with Mr. John Lineker, the TEC chairman, and his chief executive, Mr. John Wooddissee, on 25 January.
    Following this, the TEC, in discussion with senior officials from my Department, was able to formulate an action plan which committed the TEC to ensuring that all eligible young people were offered a place and started
    1132
    training by early March. As a direct result, the number of young people awaiting the offer of a suitable YT place for more than eight weeks has plummeted. In the TEC's area, in November, 375 young people, on the careers service count, had been waiting for over eight weeks. I am happy to say that the comparative figure for the April count is only 31. Within the Norwich careers service area, the equivalent figures show a fall from 82 to just four.
    I emphasise the success of youth training. Some 3·5 million young people have been trained since its predecessor, the youth training scheme, was introduced in 1983. There are currently some 250,000 in training, including youth credits, in Great Britain: 76 per cent. of those who complete their planned training go into jobs or further training or education; and 53 per cent. of those who complete their planned training gain a qualification. All young people under 18 who are not in full-time education or employment are guaranteed the offer of a suitable training place.
    That is the picture for the whole of Great Britain. Youth training is just as important for Norwich as it is for the country as a whole. Youth training is a success story built on the success of YTS, but it is more flexible and with a stronger focus on qualifications. The normal minimum attainment level built into training plans is NVQ level 2. Youth training is now the accepted route into work in many occupational areas, a part of the infrastructure of working life.
    Not least, youth training, alongside the national curriculum and other new education innovations introduced by the Government, is one of the key routes by which we will raise standards and meet the national education and training targets.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the particular issues that concern him about Norfolk and Waveney TEC's approach to securing the right provision in Norwich. I have explained how our contractual relationship works and the onus that my Department places on TECs to ensure delivery.
    We shall continue to monitor the situation very closely to ensure that the TEC continues to address the need to provide for Norwich's young people quality training opportunities and that it discharges its responsibilities for meeting the YT guarantee. In like fashion, the Department will continue to press upon the careers service the need to work co-operatively with the TEC to diagnose the needs of the city's young people in good time to allow the right provision to be brought on stream, and after that to ensure that each young person leaving school in Norwich is helped to find the right opportunity.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, which has given me the opportunity to place on record the great importance that the Government attach to the youth training guarantee. The debate has also enabled me to underline our message to training and enterprise councils throughout the country and not just in Norfolk and Waveney. It is vital for the youth training guarantee to be met.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Three o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what provision is made for legal aid to be granted to enable a patient to attend a hearing at an appeals unit of a regional health authority when a doctor appeals against a decision by the family health services authority in favour of the patient.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Legal advice and assistance is available under the green form scheme on almost any point of English law. A financially eligible person may seek advice on such a point prior to the hearing.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the key performance targets for Her Majesty's Land Registry and the Public Record Office executive agencies for 1993–94.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The following tables set out the key performance targets that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has set for Her Majesty's Land Registry and for the Public Record Office for 1993–94.

  Her Majesty's Land Registry Executive Agency Key performance targets 1993–94

  Indicator

  Target

  1. Financial

  Return on average capital employed

  6 per cent.

  2. Efficiency

  Progressive reduction in unit costs in real terms

  To achieve or better a 13 per cent, improvement over the five year period 1993–94 to 1997–98 of which an improvement of at least 2 per cent, is required in 1993–94.

  3. Productivity

  Progressive increase in output per post

  4. Speed of service

  Percentage of pre-completion applications handled in 3 days

  96 per cent.

  Average handling time for post-completion applications (weeks)

  5

  5. Quality of service

  Percentage of pre-completion applications handled free of error

  99·7 per cent.

  Percentage of post-completion applications handled free of error

  97·65

  6. Development of Land Registration

  Number of computerised registers

  8·30 million

  394
  Notes:

  Fuller details of the Office's performance targets are given in its Business Plan, which is available from Her Majesty's Land Registry.

  Public Record Office Executive Agency Key performance targets 1993–94

  Indicator

  Target

  1. Efficiency:

  Indicator: Cost of selecting and accessioning records:

  To decrease the cost of selecting and accessioning records by 7 per cent.

  Indicator: Unit costs of providing record storage space, document productions and reader services:

  To reduce the cost of providing records storage space per linear foot by 6 per cent.

  To decrease the cost per document produced to readers by 9 per cent.

  To decrease the total reader service costs per reader visit (Census microfilms) by 5 per cent.

  To decrease the total reader service costs per reader visit (other records) by 4 per cent.

  Backlog of records awaiting review:

  To identify and quantify the backlog.

  To reduce the known backlog of records over 30 years old which have not been processed, by 1,500 feet (current backlog 5,500 feet).

  Storage of records:

  81 per cent, of records to be stored to an acceptable standard.

  Reader satisfaction:

  85 per cent, of reader satisfaction survey forms returned to have a better overall assessment of good, or better.

  Management efficiency in running services and projects

  The overall rate of achievement for target levels set for management services.

  2. Quality of service

  Hours during which the Office is open to the public:

  It is planned to extend opening hours at Kew on weekdays.

  Notes:

  1. Fuller details of the Office's performance targets are given in its Business Plan, which is available from available from the public Record Office.

  2. Following the introduction of accruals accounting, the basis on which the unit costs are calculated will be revised during 1993–94.

  Incest
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the sentencing guidelines on incest, particularly those referring to mitigating factors; and what training is given to the judiciary to encourage greater insight into the nature of sexual offences.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Sentencing guidelines are issued by the Lord Chief Justice in consultation with any other judges as he thinks fit and any review is entirely in his hands. The Judicial Studies Board distributes the guidelines to all judges, recorders and assistant recorders who sit in the Crown court, the most recent issue being in July 1992. One of those guidelines deals with "Incest and Indecent Assault". Lectures and discussions on the nature of sexual offences are included in training courses for judges who sit in the criminal and the civil and family jurisdictions. Medical consultants, child psychiatrists and other professionals lead these training sessions.

TRANSPORT

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the last five years the duration, value and nature of contracts awarded by his Department to Arthur Andersen, Kleinwort Benson, Denton, Hall, Begrie and Warren.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  In the last five years the contracts awarded are as follows:—

  Arthur Andersen

  No awards

  Kleinworth Benson

  One award, for the period September 1990 to April 1991

  Contract related to Advice to DOT (Ports Division) for privatisation of Trust Ports

  Value £30,000.

  Denton, Hall, Burgin and Warren

  No awards

  A1-M1 Link
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the timetable for the completion of the A1-M1 link; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The public inquiry into the draft orders for the M1-A1 link between the M1 south of Leeds and the A1 north-east of Garforth closed on 25 February and the indpendent inspector is now writing his report. Future progress depends on when the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport receive the report and are able to issue their decision. In view of this, and the statutory framework within which these actions take place, it would be inappropriate for me now to anticipate a timetable for the completion of this scheme.

  Road Maintenance
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what comparisons he has made between road maintenance expenditure in the United Kingdom and in other European countries.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Very little comparative information is readily available. I am at present considering the case for a study to obtain more.

  Third Harbour Crossing, Lowestoft
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to Waveney district council's submission for a third harbour crossing at Lowestoft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We expect to announce a preferred route for the Pakefield to Kessingland section of the proposed A 12 Lowestoft relief road later this year. Progress beyond that stage on the Lowestoft relief road, which includes a further harbour crossing, will depend on the availability of resources.

  In the meantime the Department has accepted in principle that a 100 per cent. grant should be made to Suffolk county council for its eastern relief road scheme to relieve congestion in the urban area of Lowestoft. This scheme should be carried out in the current financial year.

  Jubilee Line
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be able to give final approval for work to commence on the Jubilee line tube extension into Docklands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Once the administrators and the parties involved in the financing of Canary Wharf have concluded with LT a satisfactory funding agreement covering the basis of their contribution to the Jubilee line extension, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be able to authorise the start of construction.

  A43 (Roundabouts)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward proposals for the provision of roundabouts on the A43 at Stanyon and Corby; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Investigations into these junction arrangements are in hand.

  Motor Cyclists
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the safety implications for motor cyclists of current motorway central reservation barrier designs.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The current safety fences and safety barriers have been designed and tested to contain and safely redirect an errent 1·5 tonne vehicle—that is, a medium to large car—travelling at 113 km/h and impacting at an angle of up to 20 deg. They have been successfully deployed in the central reserves and verges of motorways and other roads.

  No specific impact testing has been carried out with motor cycles, but over the past 25 years there has been no evidence to suggest that the steel safety fencing or concrete safety barrier is particularly hazardous to this class of vehicle and road user.

  Clearly, there are inherent dangers should a motor cyclist hit a safety fence and its support posts, but accident records show that it is not very common for motor cyclists to collide with motorway central reserve safety fencing.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how he expects Worcester rail services, other than those provided by InterCity, to be grouped for the purpose of inviting franchise bids; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he expects to invite bids for the franchise to operate services, other than those provided by InterCity, between London and Worcester; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Following the announcement of the first franchises on 2 February, we hope to make a further announcement later this year about how and when the rest of the network will be prepared for franchising.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when formal applications to bid for the franchise to operate Great Western main line InterCity services will be sought; and when he expects to award the franchise.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is too early to say.

  American Vehicles
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning regulations affecting the use of American automobiles in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department has received many letters from owners of cars manufactured for use in America.

  The scope of checks on lighting equipment in the MOT test was extended with effect from 1 January 1993, increasing the level of enforcement of certain existing requirements of the lighting regulations. These new checks have highlighted the fact that most American cars do not comply with the requirement, in existence since 1 September 1965 for all vehicles manufactured after that date, that indicators should be amber.

  Severn Crossing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 8 March,Official Report, column 407, what provision he will make for an on site resident engineer to inspect, monitor and certify the quality of constructional steel fabricated by Construzione Cimolai Armando at its factory in Pordenone for use as part of the second Severn crossing in line with the system of inspection, monitoring and certification for constructional steel for United Kingdom highway structure fabricated within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 27 April 1993]: The second Severn crossing is being financed and constructed under the terms of a concession agreement between the Government and a concession company, Severn River Crossing plc.

  To ensure that SRC and its contractor, the Laing-GTM joint venture, satisfy their responsibilities under the concession agreement, an independent firm of consulting engineers has been appointed as the Government's agent. The agent is responsible for the monitoring of design and construction of the works to see that they comply fully with laid down British or equivalent standards and specifications. SRC's quality assurance system will be audited and monitored.

  In carrying out these duties, the Government agent has access to all locations where materials are being manufactured for the works, for the purposes of general inspection and of amending any test or investigations being carried out.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Bank Closures
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the closure of the Mount Banking Corporation Ltd.

  Mr. Nelson
  On 19 October 1992 the directors of Mount Bank petitioned for and obtained an administration order under the Insolvency Act 1986.
  398
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the closure of the Al Baraka bank.

  Mr. Nelson
  Albaraka International Bank Ltd. announced on 31 March that after extensive discussions with the Bank of England about possible changes in its ownership structure, it had decided to discontinue providing deposit facilities within the United Kingdom and to repay all depositors starting on 1 April 1993. The announcement said that the intended surrender of the bank's authorisation had arisen as a result of the new Basle supervisory requirements and not as a result of financial deficiency or its existence as an Islamic bank.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the banks that have had their licences revoked by the Bank of England since 9 April; and if he will give the reasons for each of the closures.

  Mr. Nelson
  Under section 17(2) of the Banking Act 1987 the Bank of England makes available monthly a list of the institutions authorised under part I of that Act. The bank's lists conventionally record separately those institutions which have ceased to be authorised during the intervening period. There are, however, a number of ways in which an institution may cease to be authorised and information concerning the reasons for the cessation of any particular authorisation is covered by the restrictions on disclosure in part V of the Act.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the closure of the Roxburghe Bank.

  Mr. Nelson
  On 8 April 1993 the directors of Roxburghe bank petitioned for and obtained an administration order under the Insolvency Act 1986.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions(a) he and (b) his officials have had with the Bank of England about the closure of (i) the Mount Banking Corporation Ltd; (ii) the Roxburghe bank and (iii) the Al Baraka bank.

  Mr. Nelson
  Meetings are held from time to time between the Governor and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and between Bank and Treasury officials, at which banking supervision issues are discussed. It is not the practice to make public whether or not a particular institution is mentioned at these meetings.

  Incomes
  Mr. Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average value in 1979 and 1990, at 1990 prices, of(a) NHS benefits in kind, (b) other benefits in kind and (c) all benefits in kind, received only by households with children by quintile groups of households, ranked within all households ranked by equivalised disposable income.

  Mr. Nelson
  The figures are available only at current prices. They are as follows:
  399

  NHS benefit and other benefits in kind for household with children by quintile groups of all households ranked by equivalised disposable income

  Bottom

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  Top

  All

  1979

  NHS

  430

  449

  451

  410

  434

  436

  Other

  1,454

  1,165

  976

  883

  748

  1,028

  Total

  1,883

  1,614

  1,426

  1,293

  1,182

  1,464

  1990

  NHS

  1,338

  1,315

  1,217

  1,337

  1,300

  1,296

  Other

  3,029

  2,577

  2,405

  2,155

  1,762

  2,413

  Total

  4,367

  3,892

  3,622

  3,492

  3,061

  3,709

  Note: These estimates are based on data collected in the Family Expenditure Survey (FES). They are not strictly comparable over time as the FES changes from year to year.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average equivalised disposable income, and the average disposable income per equivalent adult, by(a) quintile and (b) decile groups of households, at 1990 prices, for 1979 and 1990.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information is not available in the precise form requested because the equivalence scale used is based on households rather than adults. In addition, the figures are available only at current prices. The figures are given in the table:

  Equivalised disposable income by decile groups of all households ranked by equivalised disposable income.

  Bottom

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  5th

  6th

  7th

  8th

  9th

  Top

  All

  Using the McClements equivalence scale with a household of a married couple =1

  1979

  1,689

  2,179

  2,534

  2,964

  3,416

  3,897

  4,438

  5,129

  6,043

  8,664

  4,095

  1990

  3,596

  5,161

  6,120

  7,435

  9,081

  10,884

  13,012

  15,580

  19,598

  34,467

  12,494

  Using the McClements equivalence scale re-scaled so that a household of one adult = 1

  1979

  1,030

  1,329

  1,545

  1,808

  2,084

  2,377

  2,707

  3,128

  3,686

  5,285

  2,498

  1990

  2,194

  3,148

  3,733

  4,535

  5,540

  6,639

  7,937

  9,504

  11,955

  21,025

  7,621

  These figures are not strictly comparable over time because of changes in classification of both income and taxation and because of changes in the Family Expenditure Survey.

  North Sea Drilling
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to the number of drilling projects in the North sea which have been cancelled since his Budget statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We do not have access to any unpublished information on this matter.

  Government Contracts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to monitor the compliance of contractors on Government contracts with clauses requiring payments of subcontractors within 30 days; and how he will report the results of this monitoring to Parliament.

  Mr. Portillo
  Where a prime contractor for a Government Department fails to comply with the provision for making prompt payment in his sub-contract, the sub-contractor will have a remedy through the courts in the normal way. Where there is evidence of poor performance by a prime contractor, which may include the
  400

  Equivalised disposable income by quintile groups of all households ranked by equivalised disposable income

  Using the McClements equivalence scale with a household of a married couple = 1

  Bottom

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  Top

  All

  1979

  1,934

  2,749

  3,656

  4,783

  7,354

  4,095

  1990

  4,378

  6,777

  9,983

  14,297

  27,038

  12,494

  Using the McClements equivalence scale with a household of a married couple = 1

  Bottom

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  Top

  All

  1979

  1,180

  1,677

  2,230

  2,918

  4,486

  2,498

  1990

  2,671

  4,134

  6,089

  8,721

  16,493

  7,621

  late payment of bills to a sub-contractor, that will be taken into account by the Department in awarding subsequent contracts.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to ensure that all Government contracts contain a clause requiring payment of subcontractors within 30 days.

  Mr. Portillo
  Guidance containing a model clause for inclusion in Government contracts was issued to Departments on 14 April 1992. Government Departments have confirmed that they have introduced clauses in all their contracts, where special circumstances do not apply, which require the supplier or contractor to pay its suppliers or sub-contractors promptly, normally within 30 days.

  Commercial Revaluations
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the next revaluation of commercial premises to be completed; and on what date the rental values will be based.
  401
  Mr. Nelson
  The next revaluation of commercial premises will be completed to enable new rating lists to be compiled on 1 April 1995. Rental values will be based on a valuation date of 1 April 1993.

  Premium Bonds
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current premium bond prize-fund rate; and how many readjustments in the prize-fund rate have been made since 1963.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 27 April 1993]: The current prize fund rate is 5 per cent. per annum. The rate when the scheme began in 1956 was 4 per cent. There have been 12 changes since then.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the total net receipts to the Treasury arising from the sale of premium bonds since their introduction; and how much is currently held in unclaimed prize money.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 27 April 1993]: The balance outstanding at the end of March 1993 was £2·659 billion. The value of unclaimed prizes is £10·8 million.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Testing
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on the release of information on his Department's study of alternative technologies for testing nuclear warheads.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) on 2 November 1992,Official Report, column 53. Release of information on alternative technologies must have regard to the requirements of national security, and our non-proliferation obligations and concerns.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's personnel are currently involved in studying alternative technologies for testing nuclear warheads.

  Mr. Aitken
  It has not been the policy of this or previous Governments to reveal details of the staffing levels required for nuclear warhead research programmes.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 23 October 1992, to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid),Official Report, column 403, how much expenditure was incurred in 1992–93 on studying alternative technologies for testing nuclear warheads.

  Mr. Aitken
  It has not been the policy of this or previous Governments to reveal costs associated with the nuclear warhead research programmes.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has had with(a) his United States and (b) his French counterparts relating to the development of alternative technologies for testing nuclear warheads; and if he will make a statement.
  402
  Mr. Aitken
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has recently had meetings with both Secretary Aspin and Mr. Leotard, at which a range of subjects of mutual interest was discussed. We are in close touch with the United States and French authorities on nuclear testing and associated issues.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to utilise the facilities used by the search and rescue service at RAF Leuchars when the service at the base is closed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Search and rescue flying from RAF Leuchars ceased on 1 April. The Aberdeen, Dundee and St. Andrews University Air Squadron will use the facilities vacated by the SAR flight.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates he has of the cost reductions or increases that will be made with the reorganisation of the RAF search and rescue service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The changes in the deployment of the RAF search and rescue force will reduce operating costs by approximately £6·5 million per annum at today's prices.

  University Air Squadron
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the locations where students of the University air squadron are entitled to have training and flying lessons free of charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Training and flying lessons take place at the following locations: RAF Leuchars; RAF Cosford; Colerne; Cambridge; RAF Turnhouse; RAF Newton; Glasgow International; RAF Woodvale; RAF Leeming; RAF Benson; Belfast City; RAF Boscombe Down; RAF St. Athan; RAF Finningley and the Royal Military College, Shrivenham. My Department does not raise charges against members of the University air squadron, but individual universities may do.

  Outdoor Pursuits
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have been seconded to organisations concerned with outdoor pursuits and adventure travelling, including Operation Raleigh, in each of the last five years; and if he will list the organisations concerned; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None has been seconded. A number of personnel from the three services have, however, participated in expeditions organised by Operation Raleigh, now Raleigh International, and the British Schools Exploring Society. Their participation was authorised as adventurous training and they were regarded as being on duty. According to our records, the number of service personnel involved was as follows:
  403

  Number of service personel

  Year

  Raleigh International

  British Schools Exploring Society

  1992–93

  68

  18

  1991–92

  77

  8

  1990–91

  35

  11

  1989–90

  68

  7

  1988–89

  62

  11

  Total

  310

  55

  Land Sales
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give(a) the amount of land sold by his Ministry and(b) the amount raised from the sale, in each of the last five years in each region of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  British Aerospace
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 April,Official Report, column 508, which organisation paid the salaries of the RAF personnel seconded to British Aerospace; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  British Aerospace.

  Humanitarian Flights
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flights have been made since January 1992 by aircraft of the Royal Air Force in pursuance of humanitarian purposes; and how many aircrew have been involved in this activity.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since 1 January 1992, the RAF has flown over 770 sorties to provide humanitarian aid in Bosnia, Somalia, the Bahamas and Guatemala. In addition, four sorties were flown to evacuate British and other nationals from Angola and Palestinian deportees from Israel; and 10 sorties were mounted to assist with fire fighting in the Lebanon. Also, the RAF has so far mounted over 3,000 sorties in support of the air exclusion zones in northern and southern Iraq and over 500 sorties in support of the various military operations in the former Republic of Yugoslavia. These operations have involved a significant number of aircrew, but precise details are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Abbey Wood, Bristol
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of the new office development planned at Abbey Wood in north Bristol.

  Mr. Aitken
  The estimated major works cost of the new procurement executive headquarters at Abbey Wood, North Bristol, inclusive of site acquisition, construction, fitting out, professional works management and VAT is £255·4 million at 1993–94 prices.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crimes (Racial Motivations)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Attorney-General what monitoring is undertaken of the number of cases where racial motivations have been raised by the Crown prosecution service during court proceedings.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown prosecution service is monitoring both the number of cases identified by the police as containing an element or allegation of racial motivation and the decisions taken by Crown prosecutors resulting from their review of those cases.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Producer Groups
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what sources of funding the Government have made available to develop the marketing potential of producer groups; what is the forecast value of expenditure on producer marketing grants by 1992 and for each of the next three years; and by what means producer groups qualify for funding.

  Mr. Gummer
  The current scheme for developing the marketing potential of producer groups is the group marketing grant introduced in April 1992. Expenditure is continuing under the closed agricultural and horticultural co-operation scheme and EC regulation 1035/72 aid to producer groups.

  Awards under the group marketing grant worth £552,000 were made during the first financial year, 1992–93, of the scheme. Expenditure in 1992–93 and provision for the following three years are as follows:

  £'000

  Financial year

  Group marketing grant

  Expenditure under closed schemes

  1992–93 expenditure

  21

  1,232

  1993–94

  provision

  1,720

  859

  1994–95

  2,938

  280

  1995–96

  3,544

  179

  The conditions attached to the group marketing grant are set out in the brochure, copies of which are in the Library.

  Agri-Environment Regulation
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what are his plans for implementing the EC Agri-Environment Regulation (2078/92); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  [pursuant to his reply, Official Report, 26 March 1993, columns 729–30]: I am today issuing for public consultation proposals for the introduction of up to 30 new nitrate sensitive areas forming the seventh and final element of my proposals for implementing the EC Agri-Environment Regulation in England.

  The new scheme will build upon and extend the NSA approach introduced by the pilot nitrate scheme in 1990. It will encourage changes in farming practices which are

  405
  designed to reduce nitrate leaching losses. The scheme will be targeted on areas around boreholes where such changes will help protect groundwater sources affected by rising nitrate levels.

  The areas have been selected on the basis of advice from the National Rivers Authority taking a wide range of criteria into account. My officials will be consulting locally later this year on the boundaries of each of the proposed new NSAs.

  Detailed arrangements for the new scheme will be finalised after the results of the consultation have been analysed. It is envisaged, however, that it will open for applications in the first half of 1994.

  I am making copies of the consultation document available in the Library of the House.

  EC Animals Directive
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which EC member states have taken the necessary legal steps to implement the EC directive on the protection of animals during transport (91/628/EEC).

  Mr. Gummer
  Monitoring the implementation of EC directives by the member states is carried out by the Commission. It has not yet indicated what action has been taken on directive 91/628.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Luxemburg on 26 and 27 April.

  Mr. Gummer
  The meeting of the Agriculture Council of 26 and 27 April, at which I represented the United Kingdom, again considered the Commission's proposals for farm prices and related measures for 1993–94 but reached no conclusion and will resume its discussions at its May meeting. I stressed the overriding need for the Council's decisions to keep within the tight constraints on Community expenditure.

  During the discussion I urged the Commission to come forward as soon as possible with a proposal for non-rotational set-aside of arable land and it undertook to do so in time for the Council's next meeting.

  The Council formally adopted a decision, agreed in principle at its March meeting, to end the milk co-responsibility levy from 1 April 1993.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice his Ministry gives to farmers and landowners about the maintenance of rights of way over land which is subject to the different types of set-aside payments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The fact that land has been set aside does not affect the farmer's responsibilities as regards rights of way over that land. These are explained in the general guidance on the Rights of Way Act 1990, which has been sent to all farmers.

  SIC (1980)1

  1987

  1991

  Thousands Change

  Manufacturing

  Div 2–4

  62·3

  57·4

  -4·9

  Mining

  AH 1113& 1114

  11·6

  3·4

  -8·2

  All services2

  Div 6–9

  92·0

  101·9

  +9·8

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Foundation for Sport and the Arts
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the total amount of financial support given to angling(a) by his Department and (b) by the Foundation for Sport and the Arts in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 26 April 1993]: Most of my Department's funding for sport is made through the Sports Council. In 1991–92 it paid grant of £71,749 to angling's governing bodies, including £20,660 to the National Angling Council, which was disbanded at the end of that year. In 1992–93 grant paid by the Sports Council to angling's remaining governing bodies was £46,800.

  The Foundation for Sport and the Arts is independent of Government and its grants are made at the absolute discretion of the trustees. I understand that the trustees do not consider angling to be eligible for support on the ground that it is not an athletic sport.

WALES

  Leyland-DAF
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will permit those organisations and agencies answerable to him to draw up plans to assist small companies owed money by Leyland-DAF; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A wide range of services exists in Wales to assist all companies to enhance their business. The WDA and other agencies stand ready to offer whatever help is possible if approached by any of the companies affected by the Leyland-DAF situation.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the unemployment figures, in each county, at April in each year since 1989.

  Mr. David Hunt
  All available unemployment figures can be accessed on line by House of Commons Library staff.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of jobs lost(a) in manufacturing, (b) in mining, (c) in private services and (d) in the public sector in the areas covered by the valleys initiative during the last five years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  While comprehensive information on total jobs lost is not available, the numbers of employees employed in the valleys initiative area are given in the following table:
  407
  Source: Censuses of Employment.

  1 Standard Industrial Classification (Revised) 1980.

  2Information is not available separately for private and public sector employment.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral statement of 1 April,Official Report, column 513, whether he will list the companies and projects which have created the 24,000 jobs in the areas covered by the valleys initiative during the last five years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Urban Programmes
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amounts were received by the local authorities within the area covered by the valleys initiative through urban development programmes, and an urban investment grant in 1992–93; and what will be those amounts for each of the next five years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In 1992–93 nearly £20·6 million was approved from the urban programme. This includes supplementary approvals made throughout the year. In 1993–94 a total of £17 million has so far been approved for areas covered by the valleys programme. It is not possible to forecast the corresponding figures for the next four years.

  In 1992–93 urban investment grant awards to the valleys totalled £1·5 million. The amounts in future years will depend on the take-up of the scheme, but provision for 1993–94 has been increased by 40 per cent. Urban investment grant is specifically aimed at supporting private sector development and is not available to local authorities.

  Communication Skills
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he has made for the Further Education Funding Council to provide funding for the teaching of communication skills to adults with severe learning difficulties.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 lists the courses of further education which the Further Education Funding Council for Wales is expected to secure. This includes courses to teach independent living and communication skills to persons having learning difficulties and which prepare them for entry to further courses of study within schedule 2.

  In his letter of guidance to the chairman of the funding council, my right hon. Friend drew attention to the council's specific duty to have regard to the requirements of students with all types of disability. The council should aim to ensure, so far as is consistent with its duties under the Act, that learning difficulties are no bar to access to further education.

  In allocating resources to further education providers, the council has drawn specific attention to the requirement to have regard to the interests of adults who have basic educational needs.

  Valleys Initiative
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his statement on 1 April,Official Report, column 513, whether he will break down the £1,000 million announced for the valleys initiative into appropriate public expenditure categories for each of the next five years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Total public expenditure under the programme for the valleys over the next five years will be well over £1 billion. I will publish shortly details of the breakdown of programme expenditure for 1993–94.

  B. Dixon-Bate Ltd
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit the company headquarters of B. Dixon-Bate Ltd. in Clwyd.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have no present plans to do so.

  EC Funding
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 20 October 1992,Official Report, columns 283–84, what progress he has made in allocating the £2·8 million under the European regional development fund; how much of the expenditure has already been announced and for what purposes; and on what the residual amount will be spent.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I made it clear in my answer on 20 October 1992,Official Report, columns 283–84, that the £2·8 million to which the hon. Gentleman refers represents resources additional to the very substantial allocations already available from the European regional development fund under the industrial South Wales and RECHAR structural funds programmes. £1·61 million ERDF has already been committed to projects in the Betws and Taff Merthyr areas and the monitoring committees responsible for implementing these programmes will be asked to approve further projects to take up the whole of the available resources by the end of this year.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales: what plans he has to introduce paramedics to rural and urban ambulance services in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The ambulance services in Wales are to provide at least one fully trained paramedic on each front-line ambulance no later than the end of 1996. This target applies equally to all the ambulance service classifications—that is, urban, rural and sparsely populated—across Wales. The provision of paramedics is currently ahead of schedule, and the Welsh Office will continue to financially support this training.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average age of each ambulance fleet in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not available centrally.

  Doctors' Working Hours
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the number of junior hospital doctors in Welsh health authorities and trust hospitals working over the prescribed 83 hours per week maximum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Health authorities and NHS trusts have confirmed that no junior doctor in Wales is contracted to work more than a maximum average of 83 hours per week with effect from 1 April 1993.

  Cadw
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what targets he has set for Cadw, Welsh Historic Monuments executive agency for 1993–94.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Cadw has been set the following key targets for 1993–94:

  (i) To complete 90 per cent. of the approved conservation maintenance programme.

  (ii) To promote the preservation of historic buildings and ancient monuments by completing 20 resurvey lists and 90 scheduling actions, of which at least 60 per cent. involve additional protection.

  (iii) To resolve 75 per cent. of statutory cases within the target periods (28 days for listed building consent cases, 90 days for scheduled monument consent cases and 120 days for ad hoc listings).

  (iv) To resolve 80 per cent. of grant applications within the target periods (17 weeks for Historic Buildings Council cases, six weeks for Ancient Monuments cases and 10 weeks for Civic Initiatives (Heritage) Grant Scheme cases); and to pay 90 per cent. of properly presented claims within five weeks of receipt.

  (v) To maintain Cadw's market share of the number of visitors to the top twenty heritage sites in Wales at 63 per cent.

  (vi) To increase the average spend per visitor to 188 pence.

  (vii) To operate within allocated programme and running cost budgets.

  (viii) To achieve an efficiency saving of 2–0 per cent. on gross running costs.

  Full details of Cadw's performance against its targets for 1992–93 will be published in the agency's annual report.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Queensferry Post Office
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will visit Queensferry post office sorting office.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have no plans at present to visit Queensferry post office sorting office.

  Loan Guarantee Schemes
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much money has been guaranteed to cover loan guarantee schemes during the last two years.

  Mr Leigh
  Gross expenditure on the loan guarantee scheme in the past two years has been:

  £ million

  1991–92

  31·6

  1992–93

  22·4

  410
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many loan guarantee schemes have been started within the last two years.

  Mr. Leigh
  The number of loans guaranteed under the loan guarantee scheme in the past two years has been:

  Number

  1991–92

  2,936

  1992–93

  2,335

  Telephone Lines (Installation Costs)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will bring forward proposals for an ombudsman to oversee the cost of the installation of telephone lines by telephone companies.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have no plans to do so.

  Textiles
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications he has received under the Retex programme; when he expects to make a decision on these applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Sixty-seven applications have been received. The projects will be considered by the Retex programme monitoring committee after the United Kingdom programme is agreed with the Commission.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the review of the funding and fee charging policy of the insolvency service has been completed.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on 16 February,Official Report, column 136.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many copies of the booklet, "The Prospects for Coal: Summary of the Coal Review White Paper", have been produced; how many have been sent to correspon-dents by post; and at what total cost.

  Mr. Eggar
  A total of 115,000 copies of the booklet have been produced and, so far, approximately 109,500 copies have been distributed. The total cost of production and distribution is approximately £40,000.

  Insolvency Law
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to review insolvency law.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Officials in the insolvency service continue to monitor the operation of insolvency law, but I have no plans for a general review.

  Company Failures
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the letter sent by his Department to the Public Relations Consultants Association on 1 March about the collapse of Corporate Communications plc.
  411
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  No.

  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to prevent individuals who have presided over the collapse of their companies, of which they have been directors, from setting up similar new businesses with similar customers having failed to honour the debts of their former companies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The insolvency legislation already provides that directors whose conduct shows that they are unfit to manage companies may be disqualified from holding office. I have no plans to change the legislation in this regard.

  Steel
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the volume of steel production in the first quarter of 1991, 1992 and 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information is as follows:

  1991 Q1 4·1 million tones

  1992 Q1 4·2 million tonnes

  1993 Q1 4·2 million toness (provisional)

  Source: British Iron and Steel Producers' Association.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made as to the reliability of the volume of steel production as an indicator of economic vitality.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The output of one industry cannot by itself be an adequate indicator of the state of the whole economy.

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Internal Market Council meeting held in Luxembourg on 5 April.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I attended the second Internal Market Council of the Danish Presidency in Luxembourg on 5 April. The Council had a relatively substantial agenda. We managed to make progress on, and defend, a number of significant United Kingdom interests.

  The Council adopted directives covering explosives, doctors' diplomas and motorcyle brakes. We succeeded in postponing a decision on a proposal to establish a 100 bhp maximum power limit for motor cycles until at least the June Council. We do not consider that the limit is justified on safety grounds.

  Common positions were reached on directives covering public supply contracts, unauthorised use and statutory markings of motor cycles, and cable and satellite broadcasting. This last measure together with discussion of a proposed directive on the harmonisation on the term of copyright protection, allowed us to reach agreement on a text on film authorship which protects United Kingdom interests, notably those of film producers.

  I emphasised our opposition to important elements of the European company statutory proposal. We continue to oppose the proposed worker participation directive; the legal base of the measures; and certain important technical aspects of the regulation.

  Unfortunately, most other member states wish to continue work on the proposals.
  412
  There was a wide-ranging televised open debate on the subject of the single market after 1992. The United Kingdom, in line with all other member states emphasised the importance of making the single market work effectively. No operational conclusions were drawn.

  The Commission reported that the overall rate of implementation of white single market measures has now risen to 83 per cent. The United Kingdom is in third position, with an 88 per cent. implementation record.

  Political agreement to extend the transitional period to mid-1995 for the entry into force of the personal protective equipment directive will assist industry by giving it more time to meets its requirements. Motorcycle helmets are now expected to be excluded from the scope of the directive, with the Commission due to provide specific separate proposals within the next six months. Political agreement on the CE conformity marking for industrial products is subject to parliamentary scrutiny reserves.

  The next formal meeting of the Council will take place on Monday 14 June.

  Small Firms
  Ms Quin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the rate of small firm formation by standard planning region for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 22 April 1993]:The best indicator of regional trends in small business start-ups is given by figures on VAT registrations. Registration rates for the three most recent years are given in the table.

  Registration rates1 (per cent.)

  Region

  1989

  1990

  1991

  South East

  17

  16

  13

  East Anglia

  14

  12

  11

  South West

  14

  12

  11

  West Midlands

  15

  13

  11

  East Midlands

  15

  13

  12

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  15

  13

  12

  North West

  16

  15

  13

  North

  15

  13

  11

  Wales

  13

  12

  10

  Scotland

  14

  14

  12

  Northern Ireland

  8

  8

  7

  United Kingdom

  15

  14

  12

  1 New registrations as a percentage of the stock of VAT registered businesses at the start of the year.

  Other estimates of regional start-ups are produced by Barclays Bank.

  Their regions do not correspond to standard planning regions.

  Estimates of business start-ups produced by Barclays Bank plc

  Region1

  Starts in 1991

  Starts in 1992

  Greater London

  101,000

  98,000

  Rest of South East

  95,000

  91,000

  East Anglia

  25,000

  23,000

  Midlands

  63,000

  58,000

  South West

  39,000

  32,000

  North and Yorkshire

  43,000

  44,000

  North West

  54,000

  51,000

  Wales

  31,000

  28,000

  Scotland

  34,000

  30,000

  Total

  482,000

  456,000

  1 Regions do not correspond to standard planning regions.

EDUCATION

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many parents rang the grant-maintained schools' helpline during its pilot period; and whether it is to be established on a permanent basis.

  Mr. Forth
  The grant-maintained helpline received 2,650 calls during the six week pilot period, of which 2,040 were from parents. The Department is currently

  LEA

  School

  Approval date

  Avon

  Beechen Cliff school

  15 September 1989

  Barnet

  Hendon school

  11 April 1989

  Bedfordshire

  Queensbury school

  11 April 1989

  Berkshire

  Southlands school

  6 December 1989

  Bolton

  St. James' CE school

  28 February 1989

  Brent

  Copland community school

  2 December 1991

  Calderdale

  The North Halifax high school

  21 May 1990

  The Crossley Heath school

  21 May 1990

  Cambridgeshire

  Gamlingay GM Village college

  21 November 1991

  Cheshire

  Bankfield high school (GM)

  2 June 1989

  Kettleshulme primary school

  23 January 1992

  Cumbria

  Queen Elizabeth grammar school

  14 October 1991

  Trinity school, Carlisle

  18 February 1992

  St. Aidan's county high school

  24 February 1992

  Derbyshire

  Netherthorpe school

  30 June 1989

  Ealing

  Greenford high school

  28 January 1992

  Brentside high school

  28 January 1992

  Drayton Manor high school

  4 February 1992

  Wood End first school

  25 September 1992

  Ellen Wilkinson school for girls

  4 February 1992

  Wood End middle school

  25 September 1992

  Northolt high school

  4 February 1992

  Gloucestershire

  Ribston Hall high school

  15 September 1989

  Hampshire

  Calmore GM middle school

  28 January 1993

  Testwood school

  9 November 1992

  Abbotswood GM middle school

  19 November 1992

  Hertfordshire

  Francis Bacon school

  21 May 1990

  Kensington

  Cardinal Vaughan memorial school

  30 November 1989

  Kent

  Oakwood Park grammar school

  20 February 1992

  Wilmington grammar school for boys

  28 January 1991

  Grammar school for girls, Wilmington

  20 April 1989

  Thamesview school

  5 July 1991

  Leicestershire

  Long Field GM high school

  25 August 1989

  Newham

  Stratford school

  21 May 1990

  Northamptonshire

  Southfield school for girls

  24 November 1989

  Nottinghamshire

  Ravensdale middle school

  14 February 1992

  Sandwell

  Manor high school, Sandwell

  30 May 1991

  Sheffield

  Clifford CE GM school

  24 April 1992

  Southwark

  London Nautical school

  30 June 1989

  414
  evaluating the performance of the helpline. Decisions on whether to establish the service permanently have not yet been made.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list by local education authority those schools which were subject to reorganisation proposals which he subsequently approved for grant-maintained status and the dates on which such approvals were given.

  Mr. Forth
  A list of schools which were subject to closure or reorganisation proposals under section 12 or 13 of the Education Act 1980 when they applied for self-governing (GM) status is as follows:
  415

  LEA

  School

  Approval date

  Surrey

  Hawkedale first school

  9 March 1992

  Send C of E first school (GM)

  9 March 1992

  The Manor County first school

  9 March 1992

  de Stafford school

  10 March 1992

  Heathside secondary school

  10 March 1992

  Tameside

  Audenshaw high school

  22 February 1989

  Warwickshire

  The Avon Valley GM school

  28 March 1991

  School Places
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many surplus school places were removed from the education system in each school year from 1984–85.

  Mr. Forth
  The number of surplus school places that have been removed since 1984–85 are as follows:

  '000s

  1984–85

  135

  1985–86

  128

  1986–87

  106

  1987–88

  109

  1988–89

  118

  1989–90

  93

  1990–91

  99

  1991–92

  n/a

  In view of the new national survey of the capacity of schools carried out in 1991 separate figures have not been collected on the number of places removed from the education system in the school year 1991–92 onwards.

  Special Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the local education authorities which have applied since the beginning of the year for lap-top computers for children with special learning difficulties; and what response was made to such applications.

  Mr. Forth
  I announced in January a major pilot study to assess the educational impact of using portable computers in schools. The following local education authorities (LEAs) have submitted project bids in respect of children with special learning difficulties:

  LEAs

  Manchester

  Camden

  Salford

  Greenwich

  Stockport

  Hackney

  Barnsley

  Islington

  Rotherham

  Lambeth

  Sheffield

  Lewisham

  Leeds

  Barking

  Avon

  Barnet

  Berkshire

  Brent

  Cleveland

  Bromley

  Derbyshire

  Croydon

  East Sussex

  Haringey

  Hertfordshire

  Hounslow

  Humberside

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  Lancashire

  Merton

  Leicestershire

  Birmingham

  Norfolk

  Coventry

  Somerset

  Liverpool

  Suffolk

  Sefton

  Surrev

  All project bids are currently being assessed and evaluated; decisions will be announced shortly.
  416
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children with special learning difficulties have been statemented during the past 12 months; what funding is made available for such children in state, voluntary sector and grant-maintained schools; and what steps he takes to ensure quality control and adequate provision for statemented children.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on the number of children for whom statements of special educational needs were made for the first time in the last 12 months is not yet available. The latest collated information indicates that statements were made in respect of 30,699 children for the first time during the calendar year 1991.

  Any additional funding for the provision specified in a pupil's statement is the responsibility of the local education authority which maintains the statement, irrespective of the type of school the pupil attends.

  Quality control and ensuring that adequate provision is made for children with statements are similarly matters for local education authorities. Paragraph 5 of part III of schedule 1 to the Education Act 1981 requires authorities to review statements at least annually.

  The Education Bill currently before Parliament makes similar provision—at clause 162—for statements to be reviewed at least annually and provides, for the first time, for the necessary regulations governing the manner in which those reviews are to be conducted. I anticipate that the new code of practice to be made under clause 149 of the Bill will offer guidance on the contents of statements and the manner of their review.

  Music Teaching
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to investigate the political impartiality of music teaching in Sheffield; and what actions are open to parents in this matter.

  Mr. Forth
  Certain conditions must be met before my right hon. Friend can take action on a complaint of a breach of the law relating to the school curriculum.

  Section 44 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 requires local education authorities, head teachers and school governing bodies to forbid the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject. Section 45 of the Act requires them to do as much as they reasonably can to see that any presentation of political issues to pupils is balanced and takes account of opposing views.

  Parents who wish to complain about any apparent breach of curriculum law can do so under the arrangements established by all local education authorities under section 23 of the Education Reform Act 1988 for dealing with curriculum complaints. Schools must make details of these arrangements available on request. The Secretary of State cannot consider a curriculum complaint

  417
  until it has been disposed of locally by the governors, the local education authority, or both, as appropriate. He has received no complaint about music teaching in Sheffield.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Employment Tribunals
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff are employed by the offices of the industrial tribunals and the fair employment tribunals; and how many are(a) Protestants and (b) Roman Catholics.

  Mr. Mates
  The Office of Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal is staffed by 26 civil servants.

  Disclosure of information on the religious affiliation of Northern Ireland civil service staff is governed by a code of practice which stipulates that no statistical summaries will be produced which fall outside the categories of analyses agreed with staff representatives. The most recent analyses were published in the "Fourth Report of the Northern Ireland Civil Service Equal Opportunities Unit", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Fish Pass, Toome
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the new fish pass at Toome to be fully in operation.

  Mr. Hanley
  The new fish pass at Toome has been substantially complete since December. However, operation has been delayed pending the completion of some additional features requested by fisheries interests. Completion of these works is dependent on low downstream levels in the River Bann, but it is intended that the fish pass will be fully operational by early June.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the manufacturing output or productivity in Northern Ireland for each year since 1989.

  Mr. Atkins
  Northern Ireland indices of production and productivity for the years in question are as follows:

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Index of Production1

  111

  114

  112

  114

  Index of Productivity1

  112

  114

  116

  123

  1 1985 =100

  Students
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many full-time mature students within the meaning of the grants regulations were in attendance at the University of Ulster and Queen's university, Belfast, each year since 1988.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  Academic year

  University of Ulster

  University Belfast

  1988–89

  320

  283

  1980–90

  332

  315

  1990–91

  360

  308

  418

  Academic year

  University of Ulster

  Queens' University Belfast

  1991–92

  391

  371

  1992–93

  371

  411

  Figures were supplied by the universities and relate to full-time undergraduate students who had attained the age 26 before entry to the university.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the latest level of unemployment in the Belfast travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Atkins
  At 11 March 1993, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 52,773 unemployed claimants in the Belfast travel-to-work area, representing 12·8 per cent. of the work force in this area.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were unemployed in the Province(a) at the latest date for which figures are available; and (b) in May 1990; and what is (b) as a percentage of (a).

  Mr. Atkins
  At 11 March 1993 there were 106,016 unemployed claimants in Northern Ireland. The number of unemployed claimants in May 1990 was 96,064, which represents 90·6 per cent. of the March 1993 figure.

  Criminal Damage and Injury
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was paid in compensation for criminal damage and injury to(a) property and (b) individuals in each year since 1990–91.

  Mr. Mates
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Compensation Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. Robinson. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. Robinson to Mr. Peter Robinson, dated 27 April 1993:

  I refer to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the amount of criminal injury and damage compensation paid since 1990–91. The Secretary of State has asked me to respond.

  The table below details the amounts of compensation paid including costs and fees.

  Criminal injury

  Criminal damage

  £m

  £m

  1990–91

  19·5

  22·7

  1991–92

  25·0

  33·1

  1992–93 (forecast)

  26·6

  75·9

  The figures for 1992–93 cannot be confirmed until the Appropriation Account is finalised.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the forecast number of school leavers in the Province after the 1993 summer term.
  419
  Mr. Hanley
  It is anticipated that there will be approximately 23,000 school leavers in 1993.

  Public Service Employment
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the working population in Northern Ireland is employed directly by the Government or in organisations and industries owned wholly or in part by the state; and if he will give the figures for 1990.

  Mr. Atkins
  At June 1992, the latest date for which figures are available, the public sector in Northern Ireland accounted for 32·7 per cent. of civil employment. The corresponding figure for June 1990 was 33·2 per cent.

  Cardiac Patients
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) when patients will need to wait less than 12 months for their first appointment with a cardiac surgeon;

  (2) what plans he has to reduce the length of time patients wait for their first appointment with a cardiac surgeon.

  Mr. Hanley
  The majority of patients wait between three and 12 months for their first appointment with a cardiac surgeon. It is the Department's aim, in keeping with the patients charter, to ensure as soon as possible that all patients are seen within three months of the date of their referral to a surgeon.

  In his recent report on cardiac surgery services, the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health and Social Services pointed to the inadequacy of the present arrangements for the management of the cardiac surgery outpatient waiting list at the Royal Group of Hospitals Trust. As a result the Department has asked the trust to review the handling of out-patients.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the effect on patients' rights under the patients charter of refusal to go outside Northern Ireland for treatment.

  Mr. Hanley
  In the speciality of cardiac surgery a number of patients have declined the offer of treatment outside Northern Ireland. It may not be possible in these cases to offer treatment in the Province within the guarantee period set down in the patients charter. However, these patients will not lose their place on the cardiac surgery waiting list. Those requiring urgent treatment will continue to receive it as quickly as possible.

  It is not expected that this situation will arise for any other treatments.

  Health Care Centres
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what are the quality ratings of each health care centre under the criteria used for the assessment of the quality of clinical care;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the quality of care available in (a) the Royal Victoria hospital and (b) other health care;

  (3) which health care centres will not be used again following assessment by his Department.
  420
  Mr. Hanley
  I assume that the hon. Gentleman is inquiring about medical audit. As I stated in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on 19 April,Official Report, column 19, reports on medical audit are prepared on an annual basis by a regional audit advisory committee and area audit advisory committees in each board. These are then presented to my noble Friend Lord Arran. They are not published, nor are there any plans to do so. The reports are, however, available to boards, trusts and other provider units; specialties within units; and to GPs where they are subject to medical audit.

  It is not intended that the findings of medical audit should be used in making a case for the closure of a health care facility. The purpose of medical audit is to ensure that the services being provided meet the agreed standards for those services and that any shortcomings identified are corrected as soon as possible.

  Independent Commission for Police Complaints
  Sir James Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will lay before Parliament the annual report of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The report, which is the fifth annual report to be produced by the commission since its establishment in 1988, has been laid before Parliament today. It provides a detailed account of the commission's oversight of police conduct, including the supervision of complaints against the police and the commission's role in disciplinary proceedings once a complaint has been investigated.

  It is essential that the community has confidence in the integrity of the police and the commission has a vital role in ensuring that complaints are fairly and properly investigated and that appropriate action is taken. Throughout the report, by providing detailed explanations of its work in investigating actual complaints, the commission demonstrates the high standards and dedication which it applies to its task.

  I am grateful to the commission for all its work. I have no doubt that it will continue to contribute significantly to the enhancement of public confidence in the RUC. In this it has my full support.

SCOTLAND

  Family Mediation Service
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received the final report on a national family mediation service from the Planning, Industrial and Economic Development Advisers, and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has received the final report on the feasibility of a national family mediation service from PIEDA plc. He is considering the report's recommendations.

  Agriculture
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will extend the completion date for integrated administration and control systems forms.
  421
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 22 April 1993]:Council regulation (EEC) 3508/92 which establishes the integrated administration and control system throughout the EC, requires that the main IACS area aid application form be submitted in 1993 not later than 15 May. Ministers have no discretion to alter this clear legal requirement.

  Paramedics
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 31 March,Official Report, columns 311–12, if he will (a) list the references which show that rapid response by skilled staff to a seriously ill patient enhances recovery and survival, (b) say when he expects to be able to publish the outcome of patients managed by Scottish ambulance paramedics, (c) compare outcomes of patients managed before and after the introduction of paramedics and (d) give the name of Scottish ambulance service's consultant medical director.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 26 April 1993]: The information requires detailed and lengthy explanations and my noble Friend the Minister of State is writing today to the hon. Member on this. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the number of houses sold under the right-to-buy scheme.

  Sir George Young
  Since its introduction in 1980, almost 1·5 million tenants in Great Britain have bought their homes under the right to buy. This amply demonstrates the popularity and success of the policy.

  Dioxins (Derbyshire)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what investigations were undertaken by his Department into dioxin levels and their potential sources in Staveley, Derbyshire between the samples taken from near Hall lane, Staveley, early in 1992 and samples taken from several areas on 23 February 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  Samples were taken by HMIP in connection with dioxins in the Staveley area of Derbyshire on 18 February 1992, 3 September 1992, 4 February 1993 and 23 February 1993.

  The samples taken were of herbage and soil and from deposits in a scrap metal melting plant at a local foundry. HMIP and MAFF are continuing their investigations into dioxin levels in this area.

  Housing Market
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what effect the housing market package announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement has had on the housing market; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe).

  Water Companies (Capital Expenditure)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about Ofwat's monitoring activities relating to capital expenditure of the water companies.

  Mr. Howard
  The Director General of Water Services monitors the performance of the industry and publishes summary information for the industry annually. Investment is running at twice the level previously activated this century.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's latest information about the level of average household council tax bills.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I have just given to the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes).

  Mr. Dickens
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average level of band C council tax charged by Labour-controlled local authorities.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) on 23 March 1993 to my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls).

  National Parks
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on the recommendations of the Edwards committee on the future of national parks.

  Mr. Howard
  Our policy statement on the national parks, published in January 1992, welcomed the general thrust of the report of the Edwards panel and the recommendations for the future of the national parks subsequently put to us by the Countryside Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales. The statement also promised legislation to restate national park purposes and to establish independent authorities for the eight national parks currently run as county council committees. We fully recognise the importance of this legislation and I have made it clear that it will be introduced at the earliest opportunity.

  Public Bodies (Appointments)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for how many appointments to public bodies he is responsible.

  Mr. Howard
  I am responsible for 988 appointments to 56 public bodies.

  Caravan Sites Act 1968
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action his Department is taking to reform the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) on 31 March 1993,Official Report, column 291.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to amend the formula for the calculation of standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We are currently reviewing standard spending assessments in consultation with local authority representatives to incorporate detailed information from the 1991 census into the SSA formulae.

  We are taking this opportunity to reconsider more widely the current range of social factors used within SSAs and the weight placed upon them, the basis of the area cost adjustment, measures of population density and sparsity and the inclusion of day visitors. We are also prepared to consider representations about other aspects of SSAs.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken to reduce the release of red list substances into rivers.

  Mr. Howard
  The National Rivers Authority and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution are required, under the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 respectively, to regulate such discharges to rivers, which are subject to appropriate environmental quality standards.

  Urban Policies
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the effect of his urban policies.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham).

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will extend the range of local services put out to compulsory competitive tendering.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Yes. I refer to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) on 19 April,Official Report, c. 42.

  Local Authority Housebuilding
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest annual figures for local authority house building; and what was the comparable figure for June 1979.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is estimated that local authorities completed 2,900 new dwellings in England during 1992. They completed 72,500 new dwellings during the 12 months to May 1979.

  Housing associations are now the main providers of new social housing and the Housing Corporation estimates that an extra 80,000 homes will have been made available to new tenants during 1992–93.

  Local Authorities (Recycling)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made with local authority recycling plans.
  424
  Mr. Howard
  A total of 366 waste collection authorities have submitted recycling plans to my Department. Of those, 335 have been cleared by the Department as complying with the necessary statutory requirements.

  Local Government Funding
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make official visits to shire counties in the next month to discuss local government funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no plans to visit any shire county councils during May. I will be meeting representatives of the shire counties at the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on two occasions later this year.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to increase energy efficiency in the housing of people on low income.

  Mr. Baldry
  The home energy efficiency scheme provides grants to low-income households to undertake basic energy efficiency improvements and some £37·5 million is available for grants in 1993–94.

  We also provide substantial assistance for those on low income through local authorities' mainstream council housing repair and improvement programmes, as well as through the estate action and green house programmes. Authorities in England spent over £200 million in 1991–92 on energy efficiency improvements under these programmes.

  The Energy Saving Trust has recently been formed as a private sector company to propose, develop and manage new programmes to promote the efficient use of energy in the domestic and small business sector. The trust will be taking an interest in the problems of low-income households.

  Prestwich Hospital Site
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in relation to the planning inquiry at the Prestwich hospital site in Greater Manchester; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Between the close of the inquiry and the issue, on 5 April, of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's decision on this planning appeal, seven letters were received from local residents confirming their opposition to the proposed development. Two of these were forwarded by the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg). No representations have been received since the issue of the decision.

  Rented Accommodation
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations have been made over the supply of affordable rented accommodation.

  Sir George Young
  The Department regularly receives a number of representations on the supply of rented accommodation, including in recent months a campaign by the Churches National Housing Coalition.

  Local Authority Debt
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have no outstanding debt.

  Mr. Redwood
  On the latest available information, 18 local authorities in England were debt free for capital control purposes at 31 December 1992.

  Water Supply (Disconnections)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes have had their water supply disconnected in the current year, 1992 and 1991.

  Mr. Howard
  Water companies are obliged to report numbers of disconnections every six months to OFWAT's customer service committees. This information is collated and published by the Director General of Water Services in a press release twice a year. Figures for the six months to 31 March 1993 are not yet available, but in the six month period from 1 April to 30 September 1992 there were a total of 8,284 domestic disconnections. Domestic disconnections for the whole of 1991–92 and 1990–91 totalled 21,282 and 7,673 respectively.

  River Wear (Pollution)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the National Rivers Authority and British Coal regarding the potential pollution of the River Wear likely to be caused by the cessation of pumping after the closure of Easington and Vane Tempest collieries.

  Mr. Howard
  I have not discussed this specific matter with the National Rivers Authority or British Coal. It is for British Coal in consultation with the NRA to assess any environmental effects of pit closures and what measures might need to be taken to avoid pollution.I understand that arrangements have been made between British Coal and the NRA for effective liaison over any proposed closures.

  Empty Dwellings
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of dwellings his Department's estate are empty; and what proportion of local authority dwellings are empty and available for letting.

  Mr. Baldry
  At 1 April 1992 17,500 local authority properties which were empty as a result of management factors, 0·45 per cent. This compares to just seven empty properties, 7·4 per cent., as a result of management factors in my Department's estate at 1 April this year.

  Council Tenants (Services)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to improve the quality of service council tenants receive from their councils.

  Mr. Baldry
  The extension of compulsory competitive tendering to housing management will improve the quality of service for council tenants and value for money.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list the 10 local authorities with the highest level of debt.

  Mr. Redwood
  The 10 local authorities with the highest external debt at the end of 1991–92 were:

  Birmingham

  Southwark

  Manchester

  Camden

  Lambeth

  Leeds

  Islington

  Hackney

  Liverpool

  Sheffield

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) MOD and (b) other Government Department's properties have been purchased by housing associations, through private treaty sales, under the Government's housing market package; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  According to provisional outturn figures from the Housing Corporation, housing associations in England have purchased 78 properties from the Ministry of Defence and none from any other Government Department under the housing market package announced by the Chancellor in his autumn statement.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many housing association units have been purchased by housing associations under the housing market package announced in November 1992 in each local authority in Northamptonshire.

  Mr. Baldry
  According to provisional outturn figures from the Housing Corporation, housing association purchases in each of the local authority areas in Northamptonshire were as shown in the table.

  Local Authority Area

  Number of units purchased

  Corby

  24

  Daventry

  45

  East Northamptonshire

  36

  Kettering

  78

  Northampton

  60

  South Northamptonshire

  17

  Wellingborough

  25

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to reply to the letter, sent to him by the hon. Member for Linlithgow, on Monday 12 April, concerning local Government reform.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. and learned Friend replied to the letter from the hon. Member today.

  Fire Brigades
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provision has been made in local authority standard spending assessments for 1993–94 in respect of fire brigades' pay; and if he will make a statement.
  427
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government expect the national joint council for local authorities' fire brigades to comply with Government policy on public sector pay in settling any pay increase for firefighters in 1993. The provision we have made within standard spending assessments for 1993–94 reflects this expectation.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what performance targets have been set for the Ordnance Survey executive agency in the year 1993–94.

  Mr. Baldry
  The following performance targets have been set for Ordnance Survey in 1993–94:

  1. Recover at least 71 per cent. of the total costs incurred by the Agency.

  2. Survey and map at the basic scales 780,000 units of change.

  3. Increase by 39,000 the number of basic scale maps available in digital form.

  4. Complete the implementation of the network of Ordnance Survey Superplan agents by 1 September 1993.

  5. Despatch within six working days (including the day the order is received) 90 per cent. of orders for small scale maps.

  6. Operate a telephone helpline service for customers between 8.30 am and 5.00 pm on working days, within 10 second response time within these hours and a telephone answering service at all other times.

  These are challenging targets which build upon the good performance of previous years and reflect Ordnance Survey's commitment to providing quality service to customers.

  Footpath Closures
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many public footpaths in the United Kingdom were closed under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in(a) 1991 and (b) 1992; how many proposals to extinguish a public footpath under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

  Section 118

  l1983

  l1984

  l1985

  l1986

  l1987

  l1988

  l1989

  l1990

  l1991

  l1992

  l1993

  Confirmed by Authority

  66

  72

  103

  91

  79

  85

  72

  85

  79

  60

  1

  Confirmed by Secretary of State

  21

  25

  25

  22

  26

  23

  17

  33

  6

  0

  0

  Not confirmed by Secretary of State

  7

  10

  13

  8

  15

  8

  4

  10

  3

  0

  0

  Outcome as yet unknown2

  30

  5

  26

  13

  49

  34

  20

  46

  47

  85

  43

  1 This information relates to the closure of both footpaths and bridleways.

  2 These Orders have yet to be decided, or have been deferred or abandoned.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the annual discharge of radioactivity from Sellafield since 1979 in terms of(a) solids, (b) aqueous and (c) airborne releases; and if he will make a statement on the cumulative total of radioactivity currently stored in site at Sellafield.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on discharges of radioactivity from Sellafield can be found in BNFL's "Annual Reports on Radioactive Discharges and Monitoring of the Environment", copies of which are in the Library of the House.
  428
  in each year were referred to his Department for arbitration following protests from members of the public; and how many of these resulted in (i) the footpath being closed and (ii) the footpath remaining open.

  Mr. Maclean
  Details of the number of public path extinguishment orders made and confirmed under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are set out in the table. The information relates only to England and Wales as the provisions of the 1990 Act do not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland.

  11991

  11992

  Confirmed by Authority

  42

  35

  Confirmed by Secretary of State

  4

  1

  Not confirmed by Secretary of State

  1

  0

  Outcome as yet unknown2

  37

  69

  1 This information relates to the closure of both footpaths and bridleways.

  2 These Orders have yet to be decided, or have been deferred or abandoned.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many public footpaths in the United Kingdom were closed under paragraph 2A of schedule 6 to the Highways Act 1980 in each year since 1982; how many proposals to close public footpaths in the United Kingdom under paragraph 2A of schedule 6 to the Highways Act 1980 were referred to his Department for arbitration following protests from members of the public in each year since 1982; and how many of these resulted in (i) the footpath being closed and (ii) the footpath remaining open.

  Mr. Maclean
  Details of the number of public path extinguishment orders made and confirmed under section 118 of the Highways Act 1980 are set out in the table. The information relates only to England and Wales as the provisions of the 1980 Act do not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland.

  The storage of radioactive waste on site is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

  EC Waters Directives
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made in implementing(a) the EC bathing waters directive, (b) the EC urban waste waters directive and (c) the EC shellfish waters directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  With respect to the bathing waters directive, I refer the honourable Member to the answer I gave the honourable Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on 18 November 1992,Official Report, c 208. I recently announced the publication of draft implementing

  429
  regulations and an accompanying guidance note for the EC urban waste water treatment directive. Copies of these, and of another consultation paper about the methodology for identifying sensitive areas under the directive, which was issued on 26 March, have been placed in the Library of the House. Twenty-nine waters have been designated under the shellfish waters directive in the United Kingdom. The National Rivers Authority monitors these waters in accordance with the directive's requirements.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans the Government have to contribute towards the costs of implementing(a) the EC bathing waters directive, (b) the EC urban waste waters directive and (c) the shellfish waters directive, in the South West Water services area.

  Mr. Maclean
  The cost of these obligations falls to the privatised water companies, using the funds available to them.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to seek EC permission to delay implementation of(a) the EC bathing waters directive, (b) the EC urban waste waters directive and (c) the EC shellfish waters directive.

  Mr. Maclean
  The time allowed for application to the European Commission for permission to delay implementation of the provisions of the bathing waters directive has expired. My Department will be drawing up an implementation programme for the urban waste water treatment directive, in accordance with its requirements, by the end of this year. There is no provision in the shellfish waters directive allowing member states to seek permission to delay implementation.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment the Government have made of the impact of the introduction of the uniform business rate on bankruptcy levels in the south-west.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We have made no such assessment. Bankruptcy may be caused by a variety of factors.

  The business rate transitional arrangements helped those businesses most seriously affected by the 1990 reforms. Many businesses in the south-west benefited from the arrangements. These have already been improved by some £1,250 million as a result of the Non-Domestic Rating Act 1992, with a proposed further £560 million of assistance in this year's Budget.

  Local authority

  Dwellings

  Management functions

  Managing agent

  LB Camden

  Scattered temporary properties for use of homeless

  Rent collection, repairs

  STL Ltd

  LB Camden

  Scattered temporary properties for use of homeless

  Rent collection, repairs

  Paddington Churches HA

  LB Camden

  Scattered temporary properties for use of homeless

  Rent collection, repairs

  West Hampstead HA

  LB Camden

  Scattered temporary properties for use of homeless

  Rent collection, repairs

  Notting Hill HA

  Nottingham

  Bilborough Frail Elderly Unit

  Repairs, nominations, arrears, rent collection

  Anchor HA

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now arrange a meeting with his American counterpart to co-ordinate implementation of the priority elements of the biodiversity convention.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend discussed the biodiversity convention with Vice President Gore and the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on his visit to the United States last month.

  We were very pleased to hear that the United States now intends to sign the convention and we will continue to work with them to resolve our various concerns about the interpretation of some of its provisions with a view to achieving the objective of establishing the basis for ratification of the convention by the end of this year.

  Housing and Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what regulations are laid down for local authorities in respect of capital for the calculation of housing/council tax benefit; and what is the rationale underlying the level of the implied return on capital.

  Mr. Burt
  I have been asked to reply.

  Regulations provide that no account is taken of £3,000 or less and that there is no entitlement to housing/council tax benefit where capital exceeds £16,000.

  Where capital exceeds £3,000 but is not more than £16,000 an income of £1 a week is assumed for each £250 or part of £250 above £3,000. The formula assumes no particular return on capital invested. It ensures that help is targeted on those who need it most, including those with modest amounts of capital.

  Housing Management
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the management agreements to which he has, since 1 January 1992, given his consent under section 27 of the Housing Act 1985, which are not agreements with tenant management organisations, in each case giving the name of the local authority involved, the name of the estate or a description of the dwellings to which the agreement relates, the main management functions delegated and the identity of the managing agent.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 27 April 1993]: Since 1 January 1992 I have given my consent to 15 management agreements made with organisations other than tenant management organisations under the provisions of section 27 of the Housing Act 1985, as amended by section 10 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986. The details of these agreements is as follows:
  431

  Local authority

  Dwellings

  Management functions

  Managing agent

  Leicester

  Goscote House for student accommodation

  Rent collection, repairs, nominations

  Leicester University

  Newcastle

  The Pines and The Beeches, Cruddas Park for student accommodation

  Arrears, rent collection

  Newcastle College

  LB Wandsworth

  Temporary properties for use of homeless: five dwellings

  Repairs, enforcement of tenancy conditions, granting non-secure tenancies

  Threshold HA

  LB Wandsworth

  Five dwellings

  Repairs, enforcement of tenancy conditions, granting non-secure tenancies

  Threshold HA

  LB Wandsworth

  Four dwellings

  Repairs, enforcement of tenancy conditions, granting non-secure tenancies

  Threshold HA

  LB Wandsworth

  Four dwellings

  Repairs, enforcement of tenancy conditions, granting non-secure tenancies

  Threshold HA

  LB Wandsworth

  Three dwellings

  Repairs, enforcement of tenancy conditions, granting non-secure tenancies

  Threshold HA

  LB Wandsworth

  Two dwellings

  Repairs, enforcement of tenancy conditions, granting non-secure tenancies

  Threshold HA

  LB Wandsworth

  Three dwellings

  Repairs, enforcement of tenancy conditions, granting non-secure tenancies

  Threshold HA

  LB Wandsworth

  Nine dwellings

  Repairs, enforcement of tenancy conditions, granting non-secure tenancies

  Threshold HA

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with other United Nations Security Council members about an appropriate response to Croat aggression against Muslim civilians in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are concerned at reports, some confirmed by British troops in Bosnia, of atrocities committed against Muslim civilians, allegedly by Bosnian Croats. The United Nations Security Council discussed the problem of Croat-Muslim fighting in the wake of the recent outbreaks of hostilities between these parties and adopted a statement on 21 April calling on both sides to desist. The EC presidency delivered a protest to President Tudjman on 23 April, and the situation in central Bosnia was most recently discussed at the EC Foreign Ministers' meeting at Hindsgavl on 25 April.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Croatia about the attacks by HVO forces on Muslim civilians in and around Vitez, on 21 April.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We deplore the recent violence and support the efforts to halt it, notably by British forces and the EC monitoring mission on the ground, and Lord Owen in discussion with Croat and Muslim leaders. The EC presidency on behalf of the EC and member states delivered a strongly worded dêmarche to President Tudjman on 23 April about the renewed fighting between Croats and Muslims in central Bosnia, calling on the President to use his influence to bring about an end to the hostilities.
  432
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to ensure British forces in Bosnia and Croatia as part of the United Nations peacekeeping forces are given copies of the Blue Book handbook on peaceful settlement of disputes between states, provided by the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs last year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A copy of this publication has been passed to the Ministry of Defence for onward transmission to the British forces serving with the United Nations protection force in former Yugoslavia.

  Nuclear Accident, Siberia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has sought from his Russian counterpart on the recent accident at the Tomsk-7 nuclear reprocessing plant in Siberia in regard to dispersal of radioactivity to the atmosphere; and what response he has received.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since the incident at Tomsk-7 Her Majesty's embassy in Moscow has remained in close touch with the appropriate Russian authorities who have been providing information in a timely manner. The Russian authorities have confirmed that action is being taken to decontaminate areas affected by the incident.

  Cambodia
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United Nations concerning an increase in funding to UN operations in Cambodia to enable an effective peace settlement, the clearance of land mines and the implementation of infrastructure reforms.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The costs of the UN operation in Cambodia were estimated to be $1·69 billion. This should be sufficient to enable the UN transitional authority in
  433
  Cambodia to continue to operate until its mandate expires three months after the elections due to be held from 23 to 27 May. The international community has also pledged some $880 million for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Cambodia, much of which will be provided through UN agencies working in the country.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the principal concerns of the Government about human rights in Sudan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have many concerns. These include reports of extra-judicial killings, arbitrary detentions and instances of torture, and the plight of displaced persons. We are also concerned at the lack of progress towards a genuinely accountable form of government acceptable to all sections of Sudan, and at interference with fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of religion and expression.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by the Christian churches operating in Sudan to the British Government about the conditions under which they operate in Sudan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have had written and oral representations from the Anglican Church and other churches active in Sudan, both Protestant and Catholic, expressing concern at official harassment of Christian communities throughout the country. We are naturally concerned. We will keep in touch with the churches about ways of maintaining pressure on the Sudanese Government.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment the Government have made about the safety of the Nuba people in Sudan; and if the Government will make special representations to the United Nations that an international team should be sent to the Nuba mountains to find out what has been happening to the Nuba people.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are deeply concerned by the accounts which have reached us over recent months of human rights abuses in the Nuba Hills. We trust that the Government of Sudan will give unhindered access to the special rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights so that he can investigate these reports.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what pressure he is putting on the combatants in the Sudanese civil war to reach a peaceful settlement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have urged all parties to the civil war to resolve Sudan's problems through negotiation. We welcome the Nigerian Government's success in reconvening peace talks between delegations of the Government of Sudan and the Sudan Peoples' Liberation Army.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when it is expected that the special rapporteur to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights will start his work on Sudan.
  434
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The special rapporteur will start his work as soon as possible after his appointment has been confirmed by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. We shall work for this decision to be made as soon as possible. Preliminary work has already begun at the centre of human rights in Geneva.

  United Nations Peacekeeping Department
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to make a one-off additional donation to the United Nations peacekeeping department.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no plans to make an additional cash donation to the United Nations department of peacekeeping operations. We are, however, providing 4 Army majors to the secretariat to assist with military aspects of planning and conducting peacekeeping operations, at no cost to the United Nations.

  Iraq
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United Nations and the Government of Iraq concerning the treatment and well-being of the marsh Arabs of southern Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We fully support United Nations Security Council resolution 688 which condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population throughout Iraq and demands an immediate end to this repression. We are concerned at Iraq's failure to comply with United Nations SCR 688 and take every opportunity to call on Iraq to do so. Most recently our permanent representative at the United Nations reminded the United Nations Security Council sanctions review meeting on 29 March that the"repression of the civilian population continues in many parts of Iraq, notably the south, where the draining of the marshes threatens an environmental as well as a human tragedy".

  We have consistently called on Iraq to allow human rights monitors into the whole of the country, especially the south, to report on the situation there in accordance with the request of the United Nations special rapporteur on Iraq but to date Iraq has failed to comply with this request.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's assessment of the latest situation in Kashmir in respect of human rights.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The state of human rights in Kashmir gives grounds for concern. During his recent visit to India, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised with the Indian Prime Minister the situation in Kashmir. Mr. Narasimha Rao reiterated his commitment to respect for human rights. He confirmed that he would be introducing legislation soon to set up an independent human rights commission, which he was determined would be effective. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister encouraged him to allow independent international human rights organisations and others to visit Kashmir.

  Korea
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken by the United Nations against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in response to Korea's withdrawal from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 8 April, the President of the United Nations Security Council issued a statement on North Korea which expressed concern at the situation, reaffirmed the importance of the non-proliferation treaty and of parties adhering to it, and encouraged the International Atomic Energy Agency to continue consultations with North Korea. The Security Council remains seized of the matter and discussions continue on how to resolve the situation.

  Turkey
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent of evidence of aerial bombing of Kurdish areas of Turkey and of the enforced evacuation of Kurdish villages, in Turkey.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Kurdish Workers' party's (PKK) nine-year terrorist campaign in south-east Turkey constitutes a serious threat to security in the region.436
  During that period there have been 6,000 deaths. The Turkish authorities have made no secret of the aerial bombardment of suspected positions of PKK terrorists. We are aware of allegations, which the Turkish Government deny, of forced evacuation of villages in south-east Turkey. We frequently make clear to the Turkish Government the importance we attach to combating terrorism within a legal framework and with full respect for human rights.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Turkish authorities in relation to rights of the Kurdish ethnic minority and progress towards a political solution on the issue.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We regularly raise with the Turkish authorities the human rights situation throughout Turkey, including the south-east of the country.

  We welcome the recently improved security situation in south-east Turkey and the reported indefinite extension of the Kurdish Workers' party (PKK) ceasefire. We also welcome Mr. Demirel's statement that the state of emergency in the south-east will not be extended beyond its expiry on 19 July provided the present calm situation continues, and the announcement of steps aimed at increasing both investment in that part of the country and recognition of the Kurdish cultural identity.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Fire Brigades
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the fire brigade pay formula agreement will be honoured in 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) on 22 April, at column 182.

  Pet Animals Act 1951
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the Pet Animals Act 1951.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There are no plans at present to amend the Pet Animals Act 1951, as amended in 1983.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what involvement officials of his Department will have in the sub-committee established by Interpol at its special meeting in Lyons in January to draw up common reporting and recording standards of sensitive nuclear materials apprehended by European police forces.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Home Office officials will not be involved.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department had at the meeting of Interpol held in Lyons in January on European police co-operation in combating the illegal imports and exports of nuclear materials to European countries.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No Home Office officials attended the Interpol meeting on illegal trafficking of radioactive substances.

  Crime, Greater Manchester
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men have been convicted of >offences which involved the use of a knife at courts covering the Greater Manchester area for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Jack
  Information available centrally, which is given in the table, relates only to the number of persons found guilty of possession of knives under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 and section 139, of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, for the years 1989 to 1991. It is not possible to distinguish centrally whether knives have been used for other offences, such as wounding. Information for 1992 is not yet available.

  Number of male offenders who were found guilty of offences of possession of knives in the Greater Manchester Police Force Area 1989–1991

  Males

  Offence

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Carrying of offensive weapons without lawful authority or excuse1

  289

  246

  294

  Carrying article with blade or point in public place2

  122

  115

  110

  438
  1 Prevention of Crime Act 1953, section 1. May include a small number of offences involving truncheons, etc.

  2 Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 139.

  Court Documentation
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out in table form the name and purpose of each document or item of paperwork which has to be completed by(a) the arresting officer, (b) the custody officer and (c) any other police officer or police civilian staff in England and Wales as part of the process from arrest to court decision where the accused (i) pleads guilty at a magistrates court to taking and driving away, (ii) pleads guilty at a magistrates court to burglary and (iii) pleads not guilty and is tried at a Crown court for burglary.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is not possible to set out a table of paperwork. The number of documents that are required will vary according to the procedures of the police force concerned and the precise circumstances of the offence arid of the alleged offender.

  Prison Service (Director General)
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when criteria for assessing the performance-related part of the salary of the director general of the prison service will be determined; and if they will be published.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  From 1 April, when the agency came into being, the performance of the director general will he assessed on the basis of both qualitative and quantitative measures. They will reflect the prison service's key targets, as set out in the agency's corporate and business plans, copies of which are in the Library. The details of the arrangements for assessing the performance of the director general will be settled shortly, but they are personal to him and I have no plans to publish them. His salary, including his performance bonus, will, however, be published in October 1994 in the agency's annual accounts, a copy of which will also be placed in the Library.

  Asylum Seekers, Haslar Gaol
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are currently on hunger strike at Haslar gaol; and what steps are being taken to end the strike and their detention.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are currently no detainees in Haslar prison who are refusing food. Persons detained at Haslar under powers contained in the Immigration Act 1971 are held pending resolution of their immigration status or pending removal. Every effort is made to resolve any obstacle to these objectives as soon as possible such as an application for asylum, an extant appeal or application for judicial review, or the need to obtain an appropriate travel document.

  Appeals
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the number of cases and defendants for each year since 1971 where the original verdict of guilt was overturned on subsequent appeal.
  439
  Mr. Jack
  Information on the number of appeals against conviction by result has been published annually in the Command Paper "Criminal Statistics England and Wales". Table 6.7 of the 1980 publication gives requested data back to 1972. Similarly table 6.6 of the 1990 volume gives requested data back to 1981. Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Table 1

  Appeals against conviction1 disposed of, by court and result

  England and Wales

  Number of appellants

  Year

  The Crown Court

  The Court of Appeal

  Total Number of appellants

  Result

  Total Number of appellants

  Result

  Conviction quashed2,3

  Conviction quashed3

  Conviction confirmed or appeal abandoned

  Number

  Percentage of number of appellants

  Conviction confirmed or appeal abandoned

  Number

  Percentage of number of appellants

  1981

  6,202

  4,514

  1,688

  27

  1,418

  1,282

  136

  10

  1982

  6,083

  4,393

  1,690

  27

  1,352

  1,239

  113

  8

  1983

  6,420

  4,532

  1,888

  29

  1,421

  1,287

  134

  9

  1984

  6,769

  5,013

  1,756

  26

  1,735

  1,549

  186

  11

  1985

  7,383

  5,560

  1,823

  25

  1,397

  1,228

  169

  12

  1986

  6,473

  4,737

  1,736

  27

  1,892

  1,730

  162

  9

  1987

  5,893

  4,100

  1,793

  30

  1,129

  995

  134

  12

  1988

  5,527

  3,783

  1,744

  32

  1,267

  1,136

  131

  10

  1989

  6,705

  4,467

  2,238

  33

  1,578

  1,404

  174

  11

  1990

  8,076

  5,368

  2,708

  34

  1,634

  1,436

  198

  12

  41991

  8,537

  5,287

  3,250

  38

  1,711

  1,488

  223

  13

  1 Including appeals against both conviction and sentence (3,663 at the Crown Court and 777 at the Court of Appeal in 1991).

  2 Including cases remitted to magistrates' courts.

  3 Including cases in which a retrial was ordered but excluding cases in which the conviction was quashed on some counts but confirmed on others, or a conviction for a lesser offence was substituted.

  4 Estimated—see note 3.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken by his Department to ensure that all police forces in England and Wales have a common system of recording and classifying crime statistics.

  Mr. Jack
  The police forces already have such a system, governed by detailed Home Office rules and instructions on classifying offences according to statute, counting offences and completing regular statistical returns. However, many of these rules have remained unchanged since 1980 and the large number of definitional and legislative changes that have occurred since then raises the risk of inconsistencies developing. My Department is currently looking at introducing revisions with the aim of eliminating such inconsistencies and thus improving the quality of the crime statistics. As part of this process, each force, as well as representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers, have been consulted. I expect a set of proposals to be submitted for my consideration later this year.

  Prison Services
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used for not disclosing information on the ground of commercial confidentiality for parliamentary questions asked about(a) the prison escort service in the east midlands and Humberside and
  440
  1991 data will be published in the Home Office statistical bulletin "Criminal Appeals England and Wales,1991"—table 1 refers—issue 13/93 on 29 April 1993. A copy of which will also be placed in the Library.

  1992 data will not be available until the autumn of 1993.

  (b) each contracted-out prison; and what plans he has to alter the criteria (i) for questions relating to these contracts and (ii) for questions relating to future contracts.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  For both the court escort service and prison management contracts, the non-disclosure of information on the ground of commercial confidentiality is intended to protect the purchasing authority's position in future tendering exercises by not making known to competitors the details of a winning bid, particularly staffing and fee details in the case of a service contract.

  For the future, there will be full disclosure and reporting of a range of performance data on all prisons, whether directly or privately managed. There will also be disclosure of total staffing levels, occupancy and a breakdown of staffing into main categories. Other information will be provided so long as it does not affect security or the rights of individuals or is not commercially sensitive. This will be in response to specific requests if the information is available or can be obtained at reasonable cost and, if necessary, after discussion with the service provider.

  Lawyers (Offences)
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the number of(a) barristers and (b) solicitors convicted of (a) non-motoring criminal offences and (b) offences relating to the conduct of criminal proceedings in (i) 1971, (ii) 1981 and (iii) 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Side-handled Batons
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for a sample of police forces, including the west Yorkshire police, to conduct trials in the use of side-handled batons by trained police officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There are no plans to conduct such trials.

  Bogus Marriages
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been initiated by the Crown prosecution service during 1992 of persons suspected of being involved in bogus marriages.

  The Attorney-General
  JE have been asked to reply.

  The Crown prosecution service does not maintain records of its cases by reference to categories or type of offence.

  Table 6.2

  Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts for indictable offences by result

  England and Wales

  Number (thousands)

  Percentage

  Result

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Proceedings discontinued

  2·7

  2·2

  2·2

  1·9

  1·9

  3·0

  10·5

  14·9

  17·7

  22·3

  31·1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  Discharged under section 6 of Magistrates Courts Act 19801

  2·4

  2·1

  2·9

  3·1

  3·5

  4·1

  5·9

  6·9

  7·9

  10·0

  10·6

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Charge withdrawn

  16·3

  20·1

  22·9

  26·8

  31·9

  39·3

  45·3

  49·1

  51·5

  56·8

  66·6

  3

  4

  4

  5

  6

  8

  9

  10

  11

  12

  14

  Total discontinued, withdrawn etc.

  21·3

  24·5

  28·0

  31·9

  37·3

  46·4

  61·7

  70·9

  77·1

  89·1

  108·3

  4

  5

  5

  6

  7

  10

  13

  14

  17

  19

  22

  Charge dismissed under section 9 of Magistrates Courts Act 1980

  18·6

  18·5

  18·3

  15·9

  14·5

  14·4

  14·9

  16·3

  15·4

  16·7

  19·0

  4

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  4

  4

  Committed for trial

  81·1

  88·1

  95·7

  98·8

  106·2

  97·5

  111·3

  112·1

  100·1

  100·3

  102·1

  16

  16

  18

  19

  20

  21

  23

  23

  22

  21

  21

  All found guilty at magistrates courts

  401·6

  407·1

  388·1

  374·8

  361·9

  304·7

  600·1

  295·2

  256·5

  262·4

  259·7

  77

  76

  73

  72

  70

  66

  61

  60

  57

  56

  53

  All proceeded against

  522·6

  538·8

  530·1

  521·3

  519·8

  463·0

  488·0

  494·5

  449·1

  468·6

  489·1

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  1 Comparison with Crown Prosecution Service data suggests that these figures are overstated.

  Refugees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are applied to refugees with exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom when assessing whether or not they should be granted United Kingdom travel documents; and what changes have been made to these in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 23 April 1993]: Asylum applicants who are found not to be refugees but who are granted exceptional leave to remain may apply for a Home Office travel document if they are unable to obtain a national passport. All such applications are considered on their individual merits, taking account of factors including the practicability of obtaining a national passport and any reasons the applicant may have for being unwilling to approach his or her national authorities. This policy has not changed during the last 12 months.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will give, in table form, for each magistrates court in England and Wales in 1981 and 1991, the number of defendants(a) who appeared before the court, (b) were found guilty, (c) were involved in proceedings which were discontinued, (d) were discharged under section 6 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, (e) were in cases where the charges were withdrawn, (f) were in cases where the charge was dismissed under section 9 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and (g) were found guilty, as a percentage of those who appeared before the court.

  Mr. Jack
  Information on persons proceeded against at magistrates courts for indictable offences by petty session division and result has been published annually since the 1986 issue in the volumes of supplementary tables to "Criminal statistics, England and Wales"—table 5.6 of volume 5 for 1986 to 1990 and table 4.6 of volume 4 for 1991.

  The provision of information for earlier years or for summary offences would involve disproportionate cost.

HEALTH

  Electromagnetic Fields
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will take steps to inform local authorities and other public bodies of the further studies into the physical interaction of electromagnetic fields and the human head being funded by the Government and to advise them that they should take this into account before allowing further siting of telecommunications equipment on high rise flats and schools.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 23 April at columns 256–57. The study referred to in that reply will relate only to the interaction of the fields generated by hand-held mobile telephones with the human head and will have no direct bearing on the question of the siting of base station transmitters on high rise flats or schools.

  Advice on the health aspects of base station transmitters was given in the National Radiological Protection Board publication GS 11 "Guidance as to restrictions on exposures to time varying electromagnetic fields", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Orthopaedics Units
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has had about the closure of small specialised hospitals for orthopaedics.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information collected centrally does not enable classification of individual hospitals according to predominant specialty. We have, however, received a number of representations about the provision of orthopaedic services.

  MRI Scanners
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the national requirement for MRI scanners; when she expects this requirement will be met; and when she anticipates an MRI scanner will be provided for the Midland centre for neurosurgery and neurology.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We have made no detailed assessment of the national requirement for magnetic resonance imaging—MRI—scanners. We are continuing with a three year programme of capital allocation for medical equipment including whole body scanners. Six MRI scanners were purchased for England in 1992–93 out of these central funds. A further sum of £15 million has been allocated for this financial year for the purchase of medical equipment. It is for provider units, including the Midland centre for neurosurgery and neurology to decide whether they will provide magnetic resonance imaging.

  Psychiatric Services
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes there have been since 1986 in the collection of information on admissions of psychiatric patients into hospital(a) as voluntary patients and (b) detained under the various sections of the Mental Health Acts; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  From April 1987, following the Korner review of health service information, statistics on detained patients admitted to national health service facilities and NHS patients using non-NHS facilities under contractual arrangements have been collected on the aggregate return KH15. This return collects information on admissions by legal status—that is, whether informal or detained under one of the sections of the Mental Health Act—and by mental category, and covers the financial year. Prior to this, statistics on formal admissions, by legal status and diagnostic group, to NHS mental illness and mental handicap hospitals and units were collected by the mental health enquiry—MHE—from all psychiatric hospitals, and were for the calendar year. Similarly, the form KO37 covers admissions to private nursing homes authorised to detain patients, and replaced form SBL631, except that KO37 excludes patients treated under contractual arrangements with the NHS which were included on SBL631. Statistics on changes in legal status after admission were collected for the first time in 1987–88 on form KH16.

  Information on legal status is included in the psychiatric census part of the hospital episodes statistics system. The census includes details on patients formally detained under the Mental Health Acts and on those patients in hospital under the mental illness specialty for a
  444
  year or more. The information collected here includes diagnosis, but the data so far have been deficient and unreliable.

  Dentistry
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies her Department has conducted into the geographical spread of dentist practices which offer new adult patients NHS services.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  National health service dental services are available throughout the country to those who require them. If any patients experience difficulty, they should approach their family health services authority who will be able to help.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the medical facilities and services, including laboratories, in respect of which British Nuclear Fuels plc has acted as agents or provided services for the Northern Health region or any district health authority in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Peter Carr, the chairman of Northern regional health authority, for details.

  Infertility Treatment
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the details of the funding arrangements for women given treatment for infertility under the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health authorities are funded for the purchase of a full range of services for their resident populations rather than for specific treatments or procedures. Decisions about the resources and priority given to any particular service are the responsibility of individual health authorities.

  Bogus Marriages
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many suspected bogus marriages have been drawn to the attention of the Registrar-General during the past year; and if she will publish in tabular form the number of such marriages reported by each superintendent registrar in the Greater London area.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table. During 1992, superintendent registrars reported 189 cases to the Registrar General where they suspected that a proposed marriage had been arranged for the sole purpose of evading statutory immigration controls. Of the 189 cases, 152 were notified by superintendent registrars from the Greater London area.

  Reports received by the registrar general from superintendent registrars in Greater London for the period 1 January 1992 to 31 December 1992

  Number

  Brent

  33

  Bromley

  2

  Ealing

  9

  445

  Number

  Hackney

  2

  Hammersmith

  4

  Hendon

  7

  Hillingdon

  2

  Islington

  5

  Kensington and Chelsea

  4

  Lambeth

  3

  Lewisham

  40

  Merton

  5

  Newham

  2

  Redbridge

  1

  Southwark

  6

  Tower Hamlets

  5

  Waltham Forest

  1

  Wandsworth

  1

  Westminster

  20

  Total number of cases reported by London registration districts

  152

  Total number of cases reported for the whole of England and Wales

  189

  North West Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made by the North West regional health authority to improve health facilities at Brinningham, Stockport.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Health services in Brinnington are the responsibility of Stockport district health authority in conjunction with North Western regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the DHA, Mr. F. Russell, for details.

  Halton and Warrington Hospitals
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what has been the ratio of administration and clerical staff to nursing and midwifery staff in(a) Halton and (b) Warrington general hospitals in each year since 1987;

  (2) what has been the ratio of managers to nursing and midwifery staff in (a) Halton and (b) Warrington general hospitals in each year since 1987.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Donald Hammond, chairman of Halton general hospital national health service trust and Mr. Norman Banner, chairman of Warrington hospital NHS trust, for details.

  Ambulance Response Times
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in improving ambulance response times; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 23 March at column 576.

  Pharmacies
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of pharmacies in England; and how many dispense more than 2,000 prescriptions.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The total number of pharmacies in England in 1991–92 was 9,765. Of these, 6,998 pharmacies dispensed more than 2,000 prescriptions each month on average during that year.

  1901 Census
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will relax the 100-year rule covering the release of the detailed data of the 1901 census.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) on 21 April at columns 127–28.

  The Registrar General for England and Wales does not propose to make any further relaxations in the arrangements for the release of information from the 1901 census records.

  Nurses
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses who achieved their basic qualification in the northern region before 30 September in each year since 1987 were(a) in post in the NHS, (b) undertaking further training in the NHS and (c) not employed in the NHS one year after qualification.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  AIDS
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent in the last 10 years by her Department or via other bodies or organisations of public awareness campaigns and research on (i) AIDS, (ii) leukaemia in children and (iii) spina bifida.

  Mr. Sackville
  For details of expenditure on AIDS public awareness campaigns and research, I refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) on 26 April at columns 280–81.

  Comparable information on the amount spent related to children with leukaemia is not available centrally.

  So far as spina bifida is concerned, an expert advisory group report on "Folic Acid and the Prevention of Neural Tube Defects" was launched in December 1992. This publication cost £21,400 to produce and its distribution to the national health service cost in excess of £50,000. A follow-up public information campaign in the current financial year is being planned. Research into spina bifida is undertaken by the Medical Research Council which receives its grant in aid from the office of my rright hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public money has been spent by her Department or via other bodies or organisations in connection with the AIDS disease since 1986; and how many cases of AIDS have become known since that time.

  Mr. Sackville
  The cumulative total of Government funding for HIV/AIDS for the financial years 1986–87 to 1992–93 is £886,304,000. This includes money made available for medical treatment and care, training of health and social care workers, infection control, surveillance, protection of the blood supply, HIV testing and counselling, funding of voluntary sector projects, local authority support services, research, and public education and prevention campaigns. This figure does not include spending by other Government Departments on HIV and
  447
  AIDS work connected with their own spheres of interest. Information about total expenditure from nongovernmental sources is not available centrally.

  A total of 7,083 cases of AIDS and 16,164 cases of HIV have been reported since 1986.

  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many research programmes examining the HIV/ AIDS virus have been funded either directly or indirectly from public expenditure over the past 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The main agency through which the Government support medical research is the Medical Research Council which receives grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for a directed programme of AIDS research covering vaccine development and to improve our understanding of the natural history of the virus. Between 1986–87 and 1992–93, a total of £66,170,000 was made available to fund the programme.

  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has as to the relative degree of risk to(a) heterosexuals and (b) homosexuals of contracting AIDS.

  Mr. Sackville
  HIV, the virus which causes AIDS, is primarily transmitted by unprotected sexual intercourse between men or between men and women, where one person is infected. The relative risk of acquiring HIV depends on the frequency and type of sexual activity, prevalence of infection and other factors such as the presence of ulcerative genital diseases.

  In general, the individual risk of acquiring infection through unprotected sex between men is at present likely to be far greater than it is for unprotected sex between men and women. This largely reflects the fact that homosexual and bisexual males still account for the greatest number of reports of both HIV and AIDS. However, whilst the numbers of those infected heterosexually are smaller, the fastest rate of growth in HIV reports is now seen in this group.

  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of known AIDS cases have been among homosexuals and drug users; and what percentage of such cases have come from within the heterosexual community over the past 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  A total of 7,331 cases of AIDS had been reported in the United Kingdom up to 31 March 1993.

  AIDS in England and Wales—Reported and projected

  Table 1

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Cox

  800

  1,250

  1,800

  2,350

  2,950

  3,600

  —

  Day

  —

  —

  856

  1,040

  1,280

  1,600

  2,160

  Reported

  624

  819

  907

  998

  1,276

  1,420

  —

  Table 2

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Total AIDS Day

  1,070

  1,300

  1,600

  2,000

  Total AIDS outcome

  1,160

  1,410

  1,530

  1,975

  Heterosexual AIDS Day

  55

  115

  225

  420

  Heterosexual AIDS outcome

  90

  145

  220

  320

  448
  Seventy-five per cent. of cases are attributed to infection transmitted through sex between men; 5 per cent. of cases attributed to infection transmitted through injecting drug misuse; and 2 per cent. of cases have been reported in homosexual or bisexual men who were also drug misusers. Ten per cent. of cases are attributed to infection transmitted through sex between men and women.

  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will provide details of the annual forecasts of the number of people likely to contract AIDS and the actual number of cases notified;

  (2) how accurate the forecast made in 1986 by her Department as to the number of heterosexuals expected to contract AIDS over the next 10 years has so far proved to be; and what assessment has been made of the reasons for divergence of outturn figures from the forecast.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government have consistently sought to minimise the uncertainty surrounding the HIV/AIDS epidemic by providing for high quality HIV surveillance which has informed forecasting work and enabled its accuracy to be monitored.

  Two Official Reports have been published on projections for AIDS cases in England and Wales. The Cox report was published in 1988 on projections from 1987 up to the end of 1992. The projections were not subdivided by exposure categories. The Cox report was superseded, in January 1990, by the Day report which provided projections up to end of 1993. Copies of both reports are available in the Library.

  The reports provide a range of estimates. Table I gives recommended planning estimates from each report for annual total number of AIDS diagnoses, without adjustment for under-reporting, plus the total numbers of AIDS cases reported in each year. However, there is a delay between diagnosis and report so that reporting figures for any one year are not directly comparable to figures for diagnosis. Table 2 gives the Day recommended estimates for total and heterosexual contact AIDS cases, allowing for under-reporting—outcome—plus a projection of the actual numbers of diagnoses allowing for reporting delay.

  The uncertainty of the Cox projections was inevitable because of the lack of relevant data available in the very early stages of any new infectious disease epidemic. The shortfall of AIDS cases compared to Cox's estimates is also attributable to modification of high-risk behaviour among homosexual men in the mid-1980s.

  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the available evidence on the effectiveness of research and awareness campaigns on AIDS; what plans she has to reduce expenditure by her Department on such campaigns; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Results from a range of surveys, including research and evaluation on the Health
  449
  Education Authority's public education campaigns demonstrate significant and sustained levels of public awareness and knowledge about HIV and AIDS.

  Expenditure on such campaigns is subject to careful scrutiny and funding will be made available as necessary to meet the Government's objectives. More information about public education and awareness is set out in the White Paper "The Health of the Nation: A Strategy for Health in England", Cm 1986, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Peto Institute
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further progress has been made on the provision of United Kingdom public funds for an extension of the Peto Institute for Conductive Education.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There has not yet been sufficient progress with construction of the International Peto Institute in Budapest to justify further payments by the United Kingdom Government under our agreement with the Hungarian Government.

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Training
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many youth training places are currently available; and if she will take steps to identify the total number of 16 and 17-year-olds currently eligible for youth training places.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information on the availability of youth training places is not collected. However, we are satisfied that there is sufficient YT provision available to meet demand. There are currently some 300,000 young people on youth training or participating in youth credits in Great Britain.

  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, announced to the. House on 7 July 1992, Official Report, columns 171–72, measures establishing a national system for monitoring the numbers of young people who are registered with the careers service and seeking training.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many youth training places she is providing(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in the Greater Manchester area.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There are currently nearly 300,000 young people on youth training or participating in youth credits in Great Britain and just over 20,000 in Greater Manchester.

  Business Start-up Allowance
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the extra 10,000 entrants to the business start-up allowance announced in the Chancellor's Budget speech will be in addition to the 48,000 entrants for 1993–94 identified in table 10 of her departmental report for the "Government's Expenditure Plans 1993–94 to 1995–96', Cm 2205; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The 10,000 starts will be in addition to the number included in 1993–94 plans submitted by training and enterprise councils in England and Wales and local enterprise companies in Scotland.

  Training Schemes
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what formal rights of appeal exist for a participant in a Government training scheme if he or she has a grievance or feels that they have not received the quality of service they were promised; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Detailed grievance procedures are a matter for training and enterprise councils to devise and to arrange for participants to be informed. A contractual requirement placed on TECs is that alternative provision is offered to any participants who express reasonable dissatisfaction with the delivery of their training.

  Citizens Charter
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what citizens charter provisions apply to the rights of youth training, training for work and learning for work participants; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The programmes cited by the hon. Member are delivered for the Government by the training and enterprise councils. TECs are encouraged to apply charter principles in all of their activities, and many are doing so.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria she has laid down against which training and enterprise councils are expected to assess their providers and award and maintain approved training organisation status; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Relations between training and enterprise councils and the Employment Department are governed by the TEC operating agreement. Under the 1993–94 agreement, TECs are required to contract only with training providers that: obtain and maintain approved training organisation status under criteria published by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, a copy of which is being placed in the Library; or have an alternative system approved by my right hon. Friend, as of equivalent or greater assurance and effectiveness.

  From April 1994, the Employment Department will require TECs to operate new arrangements in the way they contract for, and manage services and products which the Department funds. The new requirements have been approved by my right hon. Friend and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Training
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the condition of 26 weeks unemployment needs to be fulfilled a second time if a person has to leave training for work because of(a) operational difficulties encountered by their provider, including inability to obtain a suitable work placement or (b) illness or an accident before qualifying for another place; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Where a provider is no longer in a position to provide training in accordance with a participants individual participation plan, there is a
  451
  contractual requirement placed on TECs to offer participants the opportunity to transfer to another provider under the terms of a plan substantially similar to the existing plan.

  TECs are required to agree their policy for dealing with periods of injury or illness with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Where an individual is deemed as having left the programme requalification would be necessary. Time spent in receipt of sickness or invalidity benefit would count' towards the 26-week qualifying period.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what effect the reduction of income support on the grounds of refusing suitable employment or for leaving work voluntarily has on the participation allowance paid to a person who then joins training for work or learning for work; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Reductions of income support due to a person being voluntarily unemployed are disregarded once they join either training for work or learning for work. Their participation allowance is based on the same amount as their overall assessment for income support.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in what circumstances time spent on an allowance-supported rehabilitation course counts towards the 26 week qualifying period of training for work; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Periods of attendance on an employment rehabilitation course count towards the qualifying period for training for work.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what provisions exist for training for work participants who were previously receiving their benefit by a Department of Social Security order book to be paid their participation allowance each week by girocheque; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms Clare Short, dated 28 April 1993:
  As the Employment Service (ES) is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Question to her about what provisions exist for Training For Work (TFW) participants who were previously receiving their benefit by a DSS order book to be paid their participation allowance each week by Girocheque. This is something which falls within the responsibilities she has delegated me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Where a client was previously receiving their benefit by order book, they are asked to present their order book at a Pre-entry Interview (PEI) which they should attend before entering TFW. At the PEI, clients are informed to cash their final order for the week ending which falls on, or after their TFW start date. Once the final order has been cashed, the order book must be returned immediately to the local Benefits Agency (BA) office.
  Subsequent payments of participation allowance are then paid at a level equal to the benefit previously in payment but with the addition of £10 Premium. Where the client is in receipt of Income Support (IS), a form is issued by BA to the
  452
  ES local office to confirm the weekly entitlement to IS. However, some order books include other BA benefits which cannot be changed to a TFW participation allowance, for example attendance allowance. In these cases, if a client is still eligible for the other benefit(s), a revised order book (or girocheques) covering these benefits only is issued by BA.
  All clients who transfer from a BA order book are paid their participation allowance weekly and receive their payments on their normal pay day. For example, participants who would normally cash their order on a Monday receive their participation allowance girocheque in time for them to cash it on that day.
  Revised guidance has recently been issued to our local offices to ensure that the people referred to in your question receive their participation allowances promptly.
  I hope this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in what circumstances people can participate on a part-time basis in training for work, learning for work and the community action programme; what participation allowance they are entitled to; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Non-employed participants on training for work who receive an allowance can attend part-time for a minimum of 15 hours per seven-day period, provided the TEC or provider accepts that personal or domestic circumstances are such that they could not reasonably be required to attend full-time. There is no abatement of allowance for part-time attendance. Non-employed participants not in receipt of an allowance just attend for more than 21 hours per seven-day period. For participants who are employed or self employed and who are not in receipt of an allowance, there is no minimum hours of attendance required. Learning for work will only offer support to attend full-time courses of 21 hours a week or more.

  Temporary work on community action will be only part time, although there will, in addition, be structured job search assistance aimed at helping participants into work, training or other programmes. Participants will receive an allowance equivalent to their benefit entitlement plus £10 a week.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if people on disability benefits will be eligible to participate in(a) learning for work and (b) the community action programme; in what way the eligibility rules for these programmes differ from those which apply to training for work; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  People on disability benefits will be eligible for learning for work, as they are for training for work. But they will not be able to join community action, as that will be a programme of actual work and could not, therefore, be offered to those who receive a benefit on the basis of being unfit for work.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if participants on the community action programme and learning for work programme will be covered by her Department's analogous industrial injuries scheme; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I can confirm that participants on both community action and learning for work will be covered by the analogous industrial injuries scheme.
  453
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to make the learning for work and community action programmes available in the financial year 1994–95; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Learning for work will provide opportunities for more than 30,000 unemployed people to take vocational education courses in the 1993–94 academic year which spans the 1993–94 and 1994–95 financial years.

  Community action will provide 60,000 voluntary work opportunities. The majority of these will be in 1994–95.

  Sir Rhodes Boyson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will publish the total amount of support given by her Department to(a) training and enterprise councils and (b) all other initiatives in (i) England, (ii) Greater London and (iii) the south-east, excluding Greater London, for each year from 1982–83 to 1992–93, estimated, distinguishing between current and capital expenditure, though excluding local authority credit approvals and capital allocations.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information on the amount of support provided in England by the Employment Department is published annually in the departmental report, copies of which are available in the Library

  The expenditure on training and enterprise programmes delivered through training and enterprise councils in London and the south east for 1991–92 and 1992–93: is

  London £ million

  South East £ million

  1991–92

  105·1

  167·5

  11992–93

  131·4

  2129·9

  1 Provisional

  2This figure excludes expenditure on Hertfordshire and Essex TECs after 1 October 1992, which have now transferred to TEED Eastern Region.

  Notes:

  1. All figures exclude expenditure on adult trainee allowances and TEC management fees.

  2. These figures exclude expenditure through Departmental Area Offices.

  Barnsley and Doncaster TEC
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the staff employed by Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council are disabled; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It has been the practice of successive Governments to treat information of this kind about individual employers as confidential and not to disclose it without their consent.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the number of staff employed by Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council and the cost for each of the last three years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This is a matter for the TEC. However, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the audited accounts of Barnsley and Doncaster TEC, which are in the Library.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many disabled young people are receiving training by the Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council; and if she will make a statement.
  454
  Mr. McLoughlin
  In 1992–93 a total of 178 young people with disabilities were trained as part of Barnsley and Doncaster TEC's careership—youth training—programme. This figure, which is the most recent available, represented 4·7 per cent. of the total number of young people involved in that programme and compares favourably with the national average for youth training, which is around 3 per cent.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list by sex the number of young people accepted for each of the last three years by the Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Barnsley and Doncaster TEC became operational in January 1991. Information on the number of young people starting youth training since March 1991 is in the table.

  Youth training starts by sex: Barnsley and Doncaster TEC (Numbers and percentage)

  Year

  Starts1 (numbers)

  Male Per cent.

  Female Per cent.

  April 1991 to March 1992

  5,120

  57

  43

  April 1992 to December 1992

  4,680

  60

  40

  1 Figures are provisional.

  Source: Management information Database.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the number of trainees obtaining a qualification through the Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council, by sex, for each of the last three years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Barnsley and Doncaster TEC did not become operational until January 1991, but it is possible to provide some earlier figures for the area covered by the TEC. The table gives proportions of leavers who gained a qualification.

  Proportion of trainees gaining a qualification by sex: Barnsley and Doncaster TEC

  Employment training1

  Youth training2

  Year

  Male Per cent.

  Female Per cent.

  Male Per cent.

  Female Per cent.

  April 1989 to March 1990

  25

  29

  n/a

  n/a

  April 1990 to March 1991

  23

  32

  n/a

  n/a

  April 1991 to March 1992

  26

  34

  23

  25

  1 Full qualification and/or credits towards one.

  2 Full qualification only.

  Source: ET and YT Follow-up Surveys.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when she last had a meeting with the chairman of the Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council to discuss budgetary matters; what was the outcome of the discussions; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met Mr. Peter Wetzel, the chairman of Barnsley and Doncaster TEC, when she visited the TEC on 1 March. She had a wide-ranging and productive discussion. The detail of any discussion with TECs about budgetary matters cannot, however, be disclosed at this stage.

  Assessment and Guidance Credits Initiative
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which TECs are participating in the assessment and guidance credits initiative; what are the objectives of the programme; what will happen to the schemes in 1994–95; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The assessment and guidance credits initiative, now known as skill choice, is starting in 15 training and enterprise councils or local enterprise companies. In England these are:

  AZTEC (Kingston/Merton/Wandsworth)

  Birmingham

  CAMBSTEC (Central and South Cambridgeshire)

  CEWTEC (Chester/Ellesmere Port/Wirral)

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  Dorset

  Greater Nottingham

  Hampshire

  Hertfordshire

  Northumberland

  South and East Cheshire

  Tyneside

  Wiltshire.

  In Wales, the initiative is operating in:

  North West Wales TEC (TARGED)

  and Scotland in:

  Enterprise Ayrshire.

  Skill choice aims to enable individuals, predominantly those in employment, to take greater control of decision making about their future careers by developing effective and comprehensive local information and guidance services, including the assessment and accreditation of prior learning; and putting individual people in the driving seat by offering credits, which they can use to buy the guidance and assessment services of their choice.

  The 15 TECs or LECs are participating in the initiative over the two years 1993–94 and 1994–95. If guidance and assessment credits prove successful and cost effective, the Government intend to make them available across the country.

  Gateway to Learning Schemes
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which TECs are participating in the gateway to learning pilot schemes; what are the objectives of the pilots; what will happen to the pilots in 1994–95; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The gateways to learning initiative aims to improve local adult occupational guidance provision and to increase the take up of quality assured guidance opportunities. This will help individuals take control of their own career development. The gateway to learning projects are also developing guidance voucher schemes for locally specified client groups. Experience with the initiative so far is very encouraging.

  TECs selected for gateways receive part-funding for one year. A list of the 29 TECs chosen to participate in the initiative in 1993–94, together with the 12 TECs which took part in 1992–93 follows.

  At the end of 1993–94, when Employment Department pump priming ceases, it is expected that the TECs involved will continue the provision with their own funds. This was achieved with the 1992–93 pilots.

  TECs participating in gateways to learning:

  1993–94:

  Humberside

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  LAWTEC

  County Durham

  Leicester

  Greater Peterborough

  Merseyside

  456

  NORMID

  Leeds

  Rochdale

  Manchester

  Sandwell

  Milton Keynes

  SOLOTEC

  North West London

  Staffordshire

  Rotherham

  Suffolk

  Sheffield

  Teesside

  South Thames

  West London

  Stockport and High Peak

  Central England

  Surrey

  Gloucestershire

  Walsall

  Heart of England

  Kent

  1992–93:

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  Bedfordshire

  Greater Nottingham/North

  Northumberland

  Nottinghamshire

  South and East Cheshire

  Dudley

  North London

  Dorset

  Hertfordshire

  Wiltshire

  Bolton and Bury

  Birmingham

  Unemployed People (Credits)
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which training and enterprise councils are participating in the open learning credits for unemployed people initiative; what are the objectives of the programme; what will happen to the scheme in 1994–95; and if she would make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The following TECs are piloting open learning credits during the financial year 1993–94: CENTEC; Coventry and Warwickshire TEC; Devon and Cornwall TEC; consortium of Essex TEC and Hertfordshire TEC; consortium of Greater Nottingham TEC and North Nottinghamshire TEC; Hampshire TEC; Humberside TEC; consortium of Manchester TEC, Stockport and High Peak TEC, and South and East Cheshire TEC; NORM ID TEC; consortium of Northumberland TEC and Wearside TEC; Tyneside TEC; South Glamorgan TEC. In addition, two local enterprise companies in Scotland will be running pilots —Scottish Borders and Lochaber.

  The objective of the pilots will be to test our open learning credits as a means of providing additional scope for training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies in Scotland to widen the range of support offered to unemployed people to help themselves back to work by improving their vocational skills and knowledge.

  The pilots will be thoroughly evaluated during the current financial year. Decisions about the future will be taken in the light of this evaluation.

  The pilots demonstrate the Government's commitment to exploring different ways of helping unemployed people help themselves back to work. The response to the initiative so far from training and enterprise councils, local enterprise companies and the open learning industry has been very positive and open learning credits are already being issued to unemployed people in some of the pilot areas.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current rate of unemployment in the Wentworth constituency; what level of economic inactivity in the constituency was revealed by the 1992 census; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 27 April 1993]: Official unemployment rates are not available for parliamentary constituencies. The smallest geographical

  457
  areas for which unemployment rate are officially compiled are travel-to-work areas. The numbers of claimant unemployed in the Wentworth constituency in March 1993 stood at 4,824.

  Figures from the 1991 census show that the number of economically inactive people aged 16-plus in the Wentworth constituency on 21 April 1991 was 28,213.

  Unemployment figures from the census of population cannot be compared with those published by the Employment Department. The former are based on a much looser definition and, in particular, do not include an "actively seeking work" criterion in the definition. The Department's figures are available in the Library.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Sickness and Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people receiving(a) sickness benefit and (b) invalidity benefit in each month since January 1992 previously sought unemployment benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  This information is not available.

  Benefits
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people receiving benefits other than unemployment benefit in each year since 1979 were unemployed and under retirement age.

  Mr. Burt
  The benefits payable to unemployed people under retirement age are income support, housing benefit, council tax benefit, and social fund grants and loans. The table shows the number of income support recipients who are unemployed and not in receipt of unemployment benefit for each year for which figures are available. Income support recipients may also be in receipt of housing benefit, community charge benefit and/or social fund grants or loans.

  The number of unemployed people who were not in receipt of income support or unemployment benefit, but who received housing benefit, community charge benefit or social fund grants or loans is not available.

  Number of recipients of income support not in receipt of unemployment benefit

  (thousands)

  Number

  1979

  486

  1980

  678

  1981

  1,084

  1982

  1,437

  1983

  1,621

  1984

  1,750

  1986

  1,901

  1987

  1,793

  1988

  1,377

  1989

  1,118

  1990

  1,019

  1991

  1,244

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Due to industrial action there was no count in 1985.

  Pensioners' Income
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the percentage of pensioners with an annual income of less than £5,000 for the latest year for which information is available; and if he will give a breakdown by age.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 14 April 1993 at columns 663–64.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State -for Social Security what consideration his Department is giving to the state of disability living allowance administration arising from reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  Mr. Scott
  All reports received from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration are fully and carefully considered by this Department. When an individual case report brings to light procedural weaknesses then appropriate remedial measures are put in hand. The Commissioner's annual report for 1992 refers to a significant number of complaints about the standards of service for disability living allowance which will be the subject of a later report.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disability appeal tribunals have been held in each region on the subject of disability living allowance; and if he will list their outcome.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability appeal tribunals is the responsibility of the president of the independent tribunal service, his honour Judge Thorpe, and the hon. Member may wish to contact his office to obtain this information.

  Claimants Abroad
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the actively seeking employment regulations in relation to claimants who travel to the United States of America.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no plans to do so. Benefits for unemployment are not generally payable abroad except under limited provisions within the European Community social security regulations. Claimants travelling to the United States of America have no entitlement to these benefits.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review payment of benefits to people living abroad.

  Mr. Burt
  We are reviewing procedures to prevent payment to those living abroad who do not qualify for benefit.

  Rent Allowances
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of expenditure on rent allowances for the financial year 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.
  459
  Mr. Burt
  The latest estimate of expenditure on rent allowances for the financial year 1992–93 is £2,903 million.

  Notes: The source of this information is the 1993 Departmental report published in February 1993. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would have been the cost of upgrading unemployment benefit to the same level as invalidity benefit, including increases for adult and child dependents, for each year since 1987; what would be the cost of doing so for the years up to 1995–96; and what would be the cost per year of paying unemployment benefit at such increased rate for the full duration of unemployment.
  460
  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 19 April 1993]: Estimated costs for year prior to 1993–94 are not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The estimated net cost, at 1993–94 prices, of upgrading unemployment benefit to invalidity benefit levels is £740 million in 1993–94 and 1994–95, and £730 million in 1995–96.

  The estimated cost of extending the increased unemployment benefit to cover the full duration of unemployment is an additional £750 million per annum at 1993–94 prices. This estimate is less certain as the characteristics of those people who currently exhaust their entitlement to unemployment benefit are not available and broad assumptions based upon the characteristics of unemployed people not in receipt of unemployment benefit have been used.

  The estimates do not take account of any behavioural changes associated with such upgrading of unemployment benefit.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.
Lord Bruntisfield- Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Earl of Macclesfield- Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Student Support: Domestic Fuel Tax
Baroness White Baroness White asked Her Majesty's Government:
What adjustments are proposed to student grants or loans to meet extra expenditure on heating costs.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government's policy is to review annually the overall level of support available to students through mandatory awards and student loans in the light of forecast cost movements. Any increase is applied only to the loans element and to the supplementary allowances within the award, leaving the basic grant fixed at its present cash level.
Baroness White: My Lords, does the Minister accept—the noble Viscount is not the Minister for Education of course—that when the first and second tranche of domestic fuel tax become operative in 1994 and 1995 respectively it is essential that appropriate adjustments are made in advance at least to the student loan conditions and that those should become effective at the onset of the tax and not deferred to the end of the relevant academic year?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government's system of student support means more money for students. The rates for the 1993–94 academic year will shortly be announced. Grant rates for courses not attracting mandatory awards are for the appropriate award-making bodies to decide. Students' total resources in grant and loans will continue to be reviewed annually with any uprating to reflect rising costs being added to the loan facility.
With regard to VAT, it has been made clear that extra help will be given to the poorer pensioners and to other people on low incomes as soon as the higher fuel bills arise. The Government will be considering the precise way in which to target that help and will announce their conclusions in the autumn.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it not true that in addition to pensioners many students will be affected by the increase in their energy costs? Why is not the Minister prepared to be a little more forthcoming? Assurances have been given that pensioners will not suffer, so why is it not as important that students planning their future should not suffer?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, last year the majority of students—that is, 63 per cent. of the total of about
340
700,000—did not take out the loans to which they were entitled. Of course I accept that occasionally students suffer hardships. However, the Government provide resources for access funds worth £26 million in order to assist precisely such students. The funding councils decide the distribution among the colleges.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the access funds are widely recognised as being insufficient to cope with the problems which students already have? Does he agree that since they are excluded from the whole range of benefits, it is particularly important that consideration should be given to their special needs when we are talking about poor students—and we are talking about poor students, who need to be targeted?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I said earlier, we are considering what the grant rates will be for the next academic year and we shall announce them in the near future.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend remind me, because I am ignorant, what is done about students with different requirements for heat and light? Surely the requirements must differ from student to student according to whether they are living at home, in provided accommodation or in lodgings for which they must pay.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is right. The basic grants for 1992–93 for students living away from their parents' home and studying are, in London, £2,845 and elsewhere in the country, £2,265. Students living at their parents' home receive £1,795. There is also a difference in the maximum loan for students living away from their parents' home. In London that is £830 and elsewhere in the country it is £715. Students living at their parents' home receive £570.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the Minister give a clear undertaking to the House that when grant rates are being considered heating costs will be taken into account?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, all matters which affect the rise in the cost of living are taken into account when deciding what the grant rate will be.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will that include heating costs?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I think that they will be considered.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that students typically do a large proportion of their work at home and often after dark? Therefore, like pensioners, they depend on domestic heating and lighting for a higher proportion of the day than many other people. Therefore, will he agree that it will not improve the quality of university education if students tell us that they cannot complete their essays because their electricity has been disconnected?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are not talking about major rises in the price of electricity. We are talking

341
about a gradual imposition of VAT on electricity prices, and those are extremely small increases. Up-to-date figures will be available as regards student income in the expenditure survey. That survey is in progress at present and the findings will be available later in the year.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, before we become too overwhelmed by the problem of students, will my noble friend advise me whether there is any evidence of a fall in the applications for university places?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there is absolutely none. My noble friend is right. Record numbers of students are investing in their own futures by taking a course of higher education.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Viscount tell us, in addition to that information, what difference there is as regards students coming from different social classes? In the universities we have always been unrepresented by students from social classes C, D and E. Is there any difference in that regard?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is separate from the Question on the Order Paper, which specifically relates to student grants and loans and not to the composition of students in universities.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the noble Viscount tell the House whether accommodation owned and/or managed by educational institutions will be classified as domestic for the purposes of fuel tax and will therefore attract VAT?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether special help will be available for students in the far North and Scotland where it is a notorious fact that heating and lighting costs are much higher than those, for example, in the South of England?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the average expenditure on domestic fuel in Scotland is only marginally higher than that in England and Wales despite the colder climate. That is partly due to the fact that domestic electricity tariffs in Scotland are the lowest in the country, reflecting the success of the Government's privatisation of the Scottish electricity supply industry.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, will the noble Viscount tell us why he believes it to be fair that students will have to pay more for their domestic fuel when the vast majority of full-time students are not eligible for income support, which is index-linked unlike student grants and student loans?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I repeat what I said earlier. The rates for the 1993–94 academic year will be announced shortly.
Lord Elton: My Lords, so that the matter shall not go unremarked, will my noble friend agree that questions in this House are addressed to the
342
Government and not to individual departments? Perhaps he will write to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, with an answer to his question.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that question was specifically for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and it is for him to reply to it.
Baroness White: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recognise that the complexity of the questions is such that it makes it clear that we should have an Unstarred Question on this matter, which I am sure can be arranged through the usual channels?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I hope that I have been able to answer as many of your Lordships' questions as possible on this subject. A number of announcements will be made shortly and I cannot pre-empt them.

Social Fund: SPRU Report
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will respond to the government-sponsored Social Policy Unit's research on the Social Fund.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we are currently considering carefully the operation of the Social Fund in response to the research commissioned from York University's Social Policy Research Unit, along with a number of other reports and our own close monitoring of the fund.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Social Fund targets help on the neediest; but it does not. Does the Minister accept the findings of his own research that the better-off and owner/occupiers receive grants, the poorer-off and overcrowded are more likely to receive loans and the poorest of all get nothing at all because they cannot repay those loans? Does the Minister agree with his own research that:
"the Social Fund is simply not reaching those in the greatest financial distress".
If he does agree with that, what is he doing about it?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Social Fund aims to direct help to the most vulnerable groups. It must be remembered that the Social Fund accounts for only a very small part of the Government's overall expenditure on social security, which is currently £80 billion per year.
Earl Russell: My Lords, did the Minister say that the Social Fund is a small part of the Government's expenditure on social security? If so, how did the Government decide on the size of that part? Is it based on any calculation of need? If so how was it calculated? Was the figure merely plucked out of the air?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, Ministers must look at the full spread of social security expenditure and must consider the relevant priorities of the various calls on the overall social security budget.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the results of the research confirm all that was said in this House about the dangers of the Social Fund and the effect that it would have by producing loans for very poor people who would not be able to repay them? Have the Government not reacted merely because the research was so critical of the Social Fund? Is it not time that they looked at the whole operation of the Social Fund?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the recent report on credit and debt from the Policy Studies Institute did not indicate that loans from the Social Fund are creating debts that people find difficult to clear.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the report of the research the government sponsored through the SPRU tends to agree with the report from the Social Security Consortium which he rubbished, and which the Government have been rubbishing for many years, which has constantly criticised the Government's approach to the Social Fund, especially to people in need, and so on? This latest government sponsored report produced by a large organisation agrees with all those independent research units. The Minister has not mentioned that point. Therefore will he now pay more heed to the latest report and tell us what he will do about the findings?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, some difficulties are to be expected with a radical new provision in a traditionally difficult area, but the fund is far better than previous schemes. There is nothing to justify altering the fund's basic principles. The fund has succeeded in helping larger numbers of people while keeping expenditure under control.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is everything to be expected as a result of change, because the report made it clear that the Social Fund fails to meet the needs of very poor people? That means that they are having to do without beds, ovens, coats and shoes. That is the reality. No matter how understanding and articulate the noble Viscount, no Minister can justify that failure. The discretionary element should be abolished and people should be given the right to have those basic necessities.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Social Fund has achieved a great deal. In the past year alone, nearly 2 million awards, worth well over £300 million, have been made. The discretionary nature of the fund provides flexibility and allows resources to be directed to the most vulnerable groups. Unlike the previous single payment scheme, there are few rigid rules on what can be provided.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister has continued to repeat this afternoon that the Social Fund has been a success in helping the neediest. How, then, will he respond to the National Audit Office, the CAB, the local authorities, the Public Accounts Committee, his own Social Security Advisory Committee, and the report which he has had since January 1992, all of which without exception,
344
have damned the Social Fund as a failure and a lottery? Will he please act? He has had the report since January 1992.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, income support helps groups with the greatest general need. The fund helps with specific needs, which are not necessarily the same. Awards are made to those who are in the greatest need of help with specific, exceptional and large expenses. They will not always be those who appear to have the lowest living standards.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Viscount continues to insist that the fund is helping those in the greatest need but the SPRU and other reports demonstrate clearly that those in greatest need are not being helped. Those who are being helped are the people who know where to go to obtain the help. They are usually the middle classes and the better off.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I can only repeat the successes of the Social Fund. The gross budget for 1993–94 is £346 million, an increase of £44 million (15 per cent.) compared with that of April 1992.—

British Rail: Privatisation
2.54 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have had further discussions with British Rail concerning their refusal to permit it to tender for franchises in connection with Government proposals to privatise British Rail.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, no.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that is a great pity? Is he further aware of, and does he agree with, the views expressed to the Select Committee in another place dealing with railway privatisation by Mr. Hugh Rees on behalf of the European Commission, that under public procurement rules there is no way in which the Government can exclude publicly-owned enterprises in other member states from tendering for franchises? In other words, that includes the German and French railways. Is it not therefore manifestly absurd and discriminatory so far as concerns British Rail, and probably unlawful, for the Government to seek to debar British Rail from so doing in this country?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question is no. On the remaining questions, our policy is to maximize private sector involvement in the railway operations, and that is what the Bill provides for.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government could not exclude state-owned enterprises from other Member states from so tendering? If that is right, does not he regard that as being utterly absurd? Therefore, would not the Government think it prudent to reconsider the

345
position, especially since it is probably unlawful for the Government to take the action that they are taking?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not believe that it is unlawful to take the action that we are taking in the Bill. I look forward to discussing that issue with the noble Lord in the near future.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the main objective of all these prospective changes in the railway system is to obtain a better system? As British Rail is among the leading experts in the country operating the system, it seems rather strange that it should be debarred from competing with the private sector.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord shares our aim of improving the railway system in this country. We believe that that is best done by the private sector. So far as concerns British Rail, I can assure the noble Lord that we welcome and positively encourage the possibility of management buyouts.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his answer to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, was unsatisfactory as it did not give any information? My noble friend asked him whether it was not strange that British Rail should be precluded from bidding for the British Rail franchise but that a foreign, publicly-owned railway should be able to do so. Does not the Minister agree that that is a serious question which deserves an answer?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, our aim is not to extend the public sector involvement in the railways. The franchising director would want to look closely at the basis of any bid from an operator receiving any state aid.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is not this a matter that we shall be discussing in detail in legislation, and is not this the wrong time for this debate?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, on behalf of the Government, one can only do one's best to answer the questions posed, but my noble friend is right. We look forward to having a long and substantial debate in the near future.

CAP Tobacco Subsidies: Italy and Greece
2.58 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have investigated the alleged misuse in Italy and Greece of common agricultural policy tobacco subsidies, following the death of Signor Quatraro, former head of the EC Commission's Tobacco Division.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no. It is up to the Commission. The Government will press the Commission for a report on alleged misuse of CAP tobacco subsidies.
Lord Jay: My Lords, how soon shall we be told the full facts about the scandal? Is it not somewhat unsatisfactory, that the Government should, first, spend public money on warning people of the risks of smoking; secondly, contribute large sums from the CAP to subsidise tobacco production in Italy and Greece; and, thirdly, discover that some unknown part of those funds is apparently being lost in fraud and corruption, not merely in Italy and Greece but now it seems in Brussels?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, on the subject of fraud, I hope that we shall receive a report from the Commission in the not too distant future. We shall certainly press for it through Council meetings and other representations available to us. As regards the amount of tobacco subsidy, the noble Lord will be pleased to know that the United Kingdom Government have made efforts to reform the CAP, and part of that relates to a reduction in support for tobacco.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does not the money that was lost in corruption at any rate do less harm than the money spent in producing this poisonous crop?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before I answer my noble friend, I ought to await the report from the Commission.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, as we help tobacco growing, will the Government now stop their hypocritical, fraudulent and unscientifically based campaign against smokers?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is another question.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that as regards fraud within the Common Market we are not entirely innocent either? Is he not aware that the most recent report on Common Market fraud reveals that Britain is one of the Community's top fiddlers too? We are third behind Italy and Denmark. Indeed, in the past 12 months there have been 300 cases, totalling over £21 million. Under Common Market law it is the responsibility of national governments to uncover fraud and deal with it. Will the Minister tell the House what measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to cut back on this fiddling and fraud of Common Market subsidies and funds?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am glad to be able to agree with the noble Lord that it is up to individual member states to take action. As he will be aware, we recently had a debate in your Lordships' House on this very matter. Some helpful contributions were made in that debate. The steps that the Government had taken to try to press the rest of the Community members and the Commission to take action on fraud were acknowledged. The Maastricht Treaty contains a number of provisions on fraud.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does my noble friend realise there is considerable concern in the country at the ridiculous position where the European

347
Community, through the common agricultural policy, subsidises the production of tobacco in the countries of southern Europe and at the same time other departments in the Commission are preventing its sale? I agree with preventing the sale of tobacco but the obvious step to take is to stop the production of tobacco.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend will therefore welcome the fact that there has been a significant change in the tobacco regime under the reforms of the common agricultural policy. Although we have not eliminated support totally, it has been and will be reduced in future years.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that fraud in the case of the tobacco regime has been talked about quite openly in Brussels and elsewhere for the past two years? Is he also aware that we do not need a report from the Commission on the latest developments to alert the Government to this whole matter? Is it not a fact that when the regime is considered annually on the occasion of the Commission budget, for the past two or three years Her Majesty's Government have turned a blind eye to the expenditure when they already have information that in many countries that expenditure has been fraudulently applied to the tune of millions of pounds?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government do not need a report from the Commission to persuade them to take action. As I have already said, we have taken action and positive steps with the main producer member states to establish control agencies and also to reduce the amount of crop that is subject to subsidy. As regards the specific allegation of fraud, we need to await a report from the Commission. I hope that that will be produced shortly.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the reason for this rather ridiculous subsidy on tobacco, half of which cannot be used in Europe and has to be sold elsewhere doing great harm there, is to alleviate a social problem in areas where tobacco is grown and where there is no alternative crop? What proposals have our Government made to alleviate the social problem without subsidising a bad product?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that this matter has implications for employment and other issues. Some 800,000 people on 200,000 holdings, mostly in the poorer member states, depend on tobacco production to a greater or less extent. However, as the noble Lord will be aware, there are other funds within the European Community to tackle such problems.
Lord Borthwick: My Lords, as regards fraud, what does my noble friend think about the laws in Andorra where tobacco is grown? When the tobacco is ripe, it is harvested, weighed, classified before the Inland Revenue and payment is arranged. However, the next day it is all burnt. They should not be able to get away with that.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe most tobacco ends up being burnt in some form or another. However, I must be careful when commenting upon Andorra as it is not a member state and has a special position with regard to the Community.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does not the noble Earl agree that one of the fundamental issues here is that the British Medical Association has established beyond all peradventure that smoking tobacco can cause lung cancer? That is a serious position. Should the Government therefore not be interested in any kind of arrangement that leads to increased tobacco smoking?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord tempts me to answer a question which is different from that on the Order Paper.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that fraud is endemic in the common agricultural policy? That policy is a lunatic system, as it is neither common, agricultural nor a policy. The estimated cost of fraud is £5 billion to £6 billion a year which represents some 25 per cent. or more of the CAP budget. Does not the Minister agree that the whole rotten system was summed up by the comment of an EC official who could not understand why Signor Quatraro had committed suicide as, he remarked, he would probably have been given a little money and asked to leave his post anyway to avoid scandal?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is no question but that fraud is a serious problem in the agricultural sector. It is being tackled in a number of ways. As the noble Lord will be aware, the United Kingdom Government have been very much at the forefront of making sure that other member states fulfil their responsibilities and the Commission fulfils its responsibilities.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is not my noble friend absolutely correct when he says that fraud is endemic within the EC? Would not the right policy be to repatriate agriculture to this country? That may give the Agriculture Minister, Mr. Gummer, something to do and perhaps he would not then interfere so much in matters ecclesiastical.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord cannot wait to have the Maastricht Bill in this House, whereupon he will be able to discuss those matters at length.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, apart from fraud and corruption, does the noble Earl have any figures to demonstrate the proportion of the subsidised tobacco grown in southern Europe that is of such poor quality it simply has to be thrown away?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords, I do not.
Lord Jay: My Lords, how much is now being spent on this tobacco subsidy? Is it not several hundred million sterling a year?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sorry, I missed the first part of the noble Lord's question.
Lord Jay: My Lords, how much money is now being spent annually on the tobacco subsidy?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord exactly how much is being spent but the amount of tobacco receiving this support has been reduced from nearly 460,000 tonnes in 1992 to 350,000 tonnes in 1994.

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in the anticipation that your Lordships will agree to the Motion which is about to be moved by my noble friend the Leader of the House, I should like to say a word about this afternoon's debates standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hunter of Newington and Lord Greenway. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes, and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 11 minutes and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, 12 minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length, he would be doing so to the misadventure of subsequent speakers in that debate.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Hunter of Newington and the Lord Greenway set down for today shall each be limited to 2½ hours—(Lord Wakeham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pharmaceutical Industry
3.9 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington Lord Hunter of Newington rose to call attention to the role of the pharmaceutical industry in relation to the interests of both doctors and patients in the National Health Service; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already referred in a recent debate to the cost of prescribing in the National Health Service. In relation to the London scene I suggested the creation of large group practices with additional facilities or secondary care centres. I also suggested that a pharmacist should be readily available to the group and able to offer advice to doctors and patients and to collaborate in the making up of local pharmacopoeias.
The position is complicated. There are many pharmaceutical preparations which are available without prescription which a doctor may suggest a patient takes or which patients themselves may decide to take, having received advice from a practice nurse or pharmacist.
In Great Britain in the past the Government control scheme has been the prescription pricing regulation scheme, a voluntary agreement between the industry and the Government which agreed profitability on National Health Service provision of drugs. From the beginning an element in that pricing has been the research-based nature of the company. It would be useful if at some stage the Minister would tell us what is the present position concerning that arrangement, which has worked so well for the past 40 years. It has supported the development of a research-based industry in this country which has been enormously advantageous from the point of view of profitability. The exports of those companies make up a substantial proportion of total UK exports.
However, the family health service authorities and their professional advisers are charged with the challenging task of:
"improving the quality and cost effectiveness of prescribing".
Their role and effectiveness is well worthy of examination. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on that issue.
The limited list is a scheme whereby particular medicines may not be prescribed under the National Health Service. The scheme was introduced in April 1985 and included seven categories: indigestion remedies, laxatives, analgesics, cough and cold remedies, vitamins, tonics and benzodiazepine sedatives and tranquillisers.
However, the position is changing. The Government, in their wisdom, have made a number of decisions in relation to the National Health Service, introducing the concept of providers and purchasers of materials and services. The Government's argument in support of their White Paper Working for Patients relied partly on the lack of strategy for reform.
The White Paper was built on a number of fundamental assumptions. First, it assumed that pricing in medical care effectively reflects value and that trading in internal markets would therefore increase efficiency. There is no substantial evidence to support that view. Managers lack the information to purchase value for money because the data do not allow any measurement of the effectiveness of care. Secondly, the White Paper also assumes that patient throughput effectively measures care performance, despite the complete absence of measures of patient outcome.
There was a need for the development of an applied research agency in the National Health Service, supported by a clinical database, and the direct results of such a policy should lead to change. In fact, that is a concept which the Science and Technology Committee of this House had in mind when it proposed research and development changes. There is now for the first time effective machinery to begin to study the results of change in treatment or management.
The procedures for the examination of new drugs must be understood and accepted by the pharmaceutical industry, the medical profession and the National

351
Health Service Policy Board. The existence of the new machinery developed by the Director of Research and Development makes all that possible.
There is a new aspect to this issue with the introduction of an element of competition into the service. It is being suggested in the pharmaceutical industry, as it has been in the United States of America, that there is a case for the industry to be in direct contact with patients.
In the past representatives of industrial companies were in contact with doctors, but recent studies have shown that that is totally inadequate from the point of view of prescribing habits in practice and that substantial savings can be made by close collaboration between doctors on the one hand and between doctors and pharmacists on the other.
Hospitals are given large discounts on drugs. Such discounts could mean that the price of a branded drug is lower than the price of a generic drug, but consultants may be unaware of the price being charged or the price at which the drugs are sold in the community. However, one good business outcome of that policy of hospital consultants and the pharmaceutical industry in relation to hospitals is evident from a recent survey in which four out of five general practitioners claimed to follow the hospital prescription on patient discharge. The influence of the industry is evident.
The situation in general practice is quite different. Drugs are expensive in primary care, not only because of the unit costs but because many patients continue to take them for years. The remedy for that is in the hands of doctors. Generic substitution of drugs is common in hospitals but in primary care only two out of five prescriptions are written generically. In the United Kingdom an incentive could be a reduction in prescription charges if the patient accepted the generic option.
In the United States the pharmaceutical industry is increasingly providing advice direct to patients. As I have said, the question has been raised indirectly here by the Government in their support for the system of providers and purchasers. In that regard the views of Jerry Avorn, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, are pertinent. He said:
"A nation that puts health care into the market-place as if it were any other commodity should not be surprised when manufacturers of drugs begin to utilize market-driven strategies".
The advent of the Tomlinson inquiry drew attention to the need to strike a balance between market-led and planned approaches to health care delivery. That is important not only for hospital rationalisation but also for the preservation and development of services.
Specialised services which include new pharmaceutical preparations are often in the forefront of improving standards of care and the introduction of new developments. However, in the internal market for health care provision created by the 1990 NHS reforms more flexible and sensitive mechanisms are required to provide stability for specialised services while at the same time enabling the benefits of
352
purchaser choice and provider competition to be realised. The Government must define their policy more clearly.
There is also the important issue of the limited list, which is at present the subject of consultation. Many aspects of the issue were dealt with eloquently in the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, on 14th April. I should like to quote something said by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, in that debate which is relevant to our discussions:
"However, the more I have studied the effect of introducing the selected list at that time and how it has worked in practice the more I have come to doubt whether it is a sensible measure".—[Official Report, 14/4/93; col. 1153.]
Everything that is decided about the limited list is of vital importance to industry. It is an industry which has brought great wealth to this country. Whatever the decisions about the final list, the whole trend will encourage industry to advertise drugs directly to patients. Is that the Government's view and purpose? My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.21 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, two years before I did so, my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding—alas he is not present in your Lordships' House today—addressed the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries in Paris. He introduced a rather intriguing statistic. He told those who attended that conference in Paris that in 1951 when Her Majesty the Queen ascended the throne she sent out in the first year of her reign 270 telegrams to those who had achieved their 100th birthday. He then cited that four years ago—I anticipate the number of telegrams would now be more—Her Majesty was sending out annually 2,700 telegrams to those who had achieved their 100th birthday. Within my time in your Lordships' House there has been at least one Member of your Lordships' House who has received such a telegram. That is welcome news.
That is welcome news, too, because it represents a demographic change in our community and indeed in the communities of all the countries in the world. We are living longer. For one who is in the latter days of his youth, like many other noble Lords, this is good news. The spread of those figures is happily across the world. For example, in the period from 1960 to 1982 the rate of population growth in France was about 17 per cent. But the rate of those who have lived over 65 years increased in the same period by 28 per cent.; and those who lived over the age of 85 years increased by the splendid figure of 50 per cent.
The impact of those welcome developments on health costs is most significant. I do not wish to plunge your Lordships into a series of statistics but I shall give a few more because I believe that they will be of assistance to your Lordships in the debate. They are official figures. In 1970 the total cost of the National Health Service came to £2.04 billion. In 1980 our health cost had risen to the level of £11.9 billion. In 1990 it rose to £28.5 billion. These figures can be projected fairly accurately—they have been produced to me by the Office of Health Economics. The estimated figure for 1992 is £36.1 billion. For 1995 it is estimated to be £42.7 billion. By the year 2000 by the

353
same projected figures—they may be underestimates—the figure is £54.5 billion. Therefore in the 25-year period between 1970 and 1995 we are witnessing an inflation of over 2,000 per cent.—an inflation which would dazzle even some of the economies of South America.
We can reach only one conclusion: that under the present structure of the health and welfare of responsibilities of our Government (and indeed of governments of any Western country which take on responsibilities for the health and welfare of their peoples) there is a burden placed on the working population which is unsustainable. Therefore the only long-term solution, I suggest, does not lie in readjustment with the pharmaceutical industry or other readjustments within the National Health Service. It means a radical rethink. That is not to burn the effigy of Nye Bevan, but to recognise that times have changed, and changed so significantly that a radical reappraisal has to take place.
This Government quite rightly approach cost cutting exercises and look at where costs can be saved in the National Health Service. The feeling in the pharmaceutical industry is that the Government look first at their industry. It is an easy target. The difficulty is that, first, the Government are the upholders of British industry. That includes the pharmaceutical industry. But at the same time the Government are the regulator and the monopoly buyer of the goods of the pharmaceutical industry. It is that conflict which the Government face when they seek adjustments with the industry.
In a notable speech which the President of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry made in London a few days ago—I am happy to tell your Lordships that he has come to listen to your Lordships' debate—he quoted some of the figures of the pharmaceutical industry's success as a British industry. He quoted the figure of £750 million in 1980 and £2.25 million exports in 1990. He cited further statistics to show what is now well established: that the pharmaceutical industry is a major and most important industry.
I have argued before in your Lordships' House—I repeat the argument in this debate—that what is needed is co-operation between that great and successful industry and the British Government. That industry achieves enormous savings in National Health Service costs. One example is anaesthetics to enable day surgery to take place which involves enormous savings in hospital bed costs. Two drugs have been developed in the United Kingdom for gastric ulcers, one by a United Kingdom and another by an American company. Those drugs have saved the National Health Service industry enormous costs. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, quoted in the debate that I introduced on 14th April, while the cost of medicines may have increased—that is, the use of those particular drugs—by 66 times, and there are statistics to support that figure, the overall savings on the treatment of patients was of the level of 70 per cent.
354
It is therefore saddening that the Government's short-term response to the need for looking at cuts is to cut back on the patent term protection, introduce the selected list scheme and so forth. Those can only cause damage to a successful industry, and an industry that is highly supportive of the National Health Service.
One can go on citing examples concerning the selected list scheme. I do not intend to reiterate the argument that was placed before your Lordships on 14th April. However, I am waiting for the Minister to give a more measured response to the argument that was presented in that debate than she was able to do at the time.
Mention has already been made of the speech in that debate of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. Let me cite one example of the treatment of skin disease. A Written Answer in another place stated that there are 1,770 potential drugs to be placed on the new extended selected list scheme. Of those, 900 are drugs not requiring a product licence. They include such things as sun creams. The net saving to the National Health Service of taking all those drugs off the selected list scheme would be £60,000. However, the bureaucratic cost of their removal from the selected list scheme will be in the region of £½ million. I merely cite that as another example which has come to my attention.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I wonder whether he meant that. Did he mean £60 million or £60,000 saving in costs?
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea. If I said £60 million it was a slip of the tongue, the savings would be £60,000. That is against the figure of £½ million in increased costs for carrying out the exercise. From the sad relationship between the Government and the industry that exists at the moment—it is too much a relationship of confrontation—it is good to record that there are developments in co-operation. There is the strategic working group set up by my noble friend's department, the Department of Health. There has also been the initiative of the Department of Trade and Industry in setting up the chemicals and pharmaceuticals section. Thus, there are developing areas of co-operation. However, let us have the right adjustments in the right way and at the right time.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I wish to thank my noble friend for moving this Motion. It is useful to take a wider view of the pharmaceutical industry than we did two weeks ago when we concentrated on the proposed limited list. This is only one way in which drug costs can be curbed; I hope to describe others.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and others have pointed out, the pharmaceutical industry is one of the United Kingdom's most successful manufacturing sectors, with a healthy contribution to our export earnings. Its success, however, is in part due to the stability of the internal market offered by its historical relationship to the National Health Service. The pharmaceutical price regulating scheme, negotiated

355
with the industry initially by my noble friend Lord Ennals, takes into account the need for a high research and development expenditure by the industry. The profits allowed are in large measure related to the investment of the industry in the United Kingdom, which is therefore encouraged—a wise move by my noble friend in setting up the scheme.
I am sure that a Labour Administration would like to see the industry's success continue, but, like the present Government, we would be forced to explore ways of controlling the upward spiral of costs so well described by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. They run at nearly twice the rate of inflation. I know that there are many reasons for that, including the ones which he put forward: the demographic changes in the population—the greater number of older people with greater health care needs and of course also increasing technical sophistication, with its inherent high costs.
However, following the debate two weeks ago, my noble friend Lord Desai came under subsequent criticism from the ABPI because he differed in some measure from the views of the Opposition health team in another place by giving qualified support to the Government in their limited list proposals. I have to say that the campaign of the ABPI against those proposals has borne fruit in that some people who should possibly have been wiser have been persuaded of the total wickedness of the proposals, even before we know what drugs will be put on the list.
I have made a list of the drugs which I prescribe. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said during that debate two weeks ago, I am probably the only Member of your Lordships' House who has the right to use a National Health Service prescription pad. I have made a list of the drugs which I prescribe and frankly I doubt whether many of them will be affected. If one or two are, I shall look at alternatives which will still be available, and still on the list.
This time round, the Government have been careful to include a wide range of professional interests on their advisory committee to decide on the drugs to be put on the list. If they insist on eliminating irreplaceable essential drugs of importance, I shall be the first to protest, particularly in the field of the newer oral contraceptives—the "lipid-friendly" progestogens—which are more expensive. I have it on some authority that at least some of these will be on the permitted list. In fact, I think that all important drugs with proven clinical benefit will still be available. Many general practices and hospitals already have their own limited lists or formularies of drugs, consisting of about 300 drugs out of the many thousand available right across the board, not merely in the proposed categories, which will be limited. Not only does that help to control costs, but it also leads to rational drug treatment with benefits to patients.
It is far better for doctors to become familiar with, say, six drugs in each category than to jump into prescribing the latest preparation as soon as it comes on the market. That is usually twice or three times, or even more expensive, than the one it replaces. The industry, of course, points out that doctors in the United Kingdom are already slower than other countries to prescribe new products. That is because
356
our prescribing habits are more rational than those of other countries; it is not that we are dragging our feet particularly. Although, regrettably, doctors and general practitioners in particular receive their most persistent postgraduate pharmaceutical education from drug reps and drug lunches—as we know, there is no such thing as a free lunch—despite that, they retain a healthy scepticism. Perhaps not enough, in my view, but enough to make our prescribing habits more economical than those of France, Germany and many other countries, as the advertising campaign of the ABPI, for example, in the House Magazine week by week clearly points out.
The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, have already been quoted from the debate two weeks ago. He made a good case against the limited list which was produced in 1985 by the Government. But in so doing, I think he made a good case—perhaps without meaning to—for generic substitution, which is another cost containing method. When a proprietary or trade name drug is prescribed, the pharmacist is then permitted to dispense a generic equivalent of the drug manufactured by any firm when the patent period of that drug has expired. That will usually be cheaper. It is the method of cost reduction which was recommended by the Department of Health's Greenfield Committee in 1983 but which the Government were persuaded by the industry to reject.
Since all hospitals in the National Health Service substitute generically, as do the United States and Germany, there is no real objection to this, especially if when prescribing the doctor may insist on the proprietary drug if there is a special indication for it. But that is quite rare.
A disincentive to prescribing generically is that the names are far longer and more difficult to write—a problem when a doctor is seeing many patients. I am told that the pharmaceutical industry dominates the naming committee for generics. For example, Ponstan, which is quite a well-known analgesic and anti-inflammatory, is Mefenamic acid in generic terms (13 letters to write instead of seven) and Co-amilofruse is the generic term for Frumil (12 letters as against six).
There are several other methods for cutting costs. One method which the Government have introduced but have not yet fully capitalised upon is the PACT scheme (prescribing analysis and costs) under which all GPs get details every quarter of all the drugs they have prescribed and the costs. I do not think that that excellent educative tool has yet been sufficiently exploited. Teachers of pharmacology in medical schools should be allowed greater access to this mass of data. At present it is highly confidential. No names need to be given, but it could be made use of for research and teaching. My own family health service authority has, however, introduced "prescribing fora" in which groups of GPs discuss their PACT returns in groups with the pharmaceutical advisers of the FHSA. I attended the initial series of meetings and found them very helpful.
Other possible ways of reducing costs include toughening up or expanding the requirements for licensing new drugs. At present, safety, efficacy and quality are the only considerations. I consider that

357
perhaps cost-effectiveness in comparison with existing drugs should be included. Such a comparison is much more complex than it might seem since it includes calculations on savings which the drug might achieve, such as those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, in avoiding hospital admissions or extending what are known as QUALYS (quality-adjusted life years). The industry is naturally opposed to such a move. It emphasises the difficulties of such assessments and the length of time that the calculations would take—hence putting off the time when the drug could be marketed. There are many other ways in which cost containment could be considered.
The PPRS (the pharmaceutical price regulating scheme) is a useful mechanism. It recognises the need for the industry to make extra profit to go into its high research and development costs: But I think that the Government need to field a pretty tough team in their negotiations in the next round of the PPRS. The industry is very skilled in putting its case. I am sure that the noble Baroness knows that.
Research in the pharmaceutical field is vitally necessary. But is it so necessary that the drug industry needs to invest £1.2 billion in research, which is more than comes from all other sources of medical research—the universities, the Medical Research Council and the medical charities combined. It has been said, with some justification, that the high pay and status given to research scientists in the pharmaceutical industry attract good scientists away from other important tasks—those relating, for example, to the prevention of disease rather than the treatment, perhaps too late, of established disease.
I want to see, as we all do, a healthy pharmaceutical industry. But fitness and long life are associated with leanness, not with running to fat. I believe that the Government should encourage the industry to lose a little excess weight and accept the need for cost limitation. Otherwise, it will become a parasite on the very body on which it lives; namely, the National Health Service, which it will debilitate and even possibly destroy.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I intervene in the debate in my capacity as an occasional consumer of the products of the pharmaceutical industry. I have no medical or scientific training, and inevitably my contribution will consist of questions rather than answers.
Three aspects of the drug industry are important to me as a potential patient: first, the quality of the drug which is administered to me; secondly, the potential of that drug for serious side-effects, particularly side-effects which are irreversible; and thirdly, the adequacy of the research which is carried out into the improvement of existing drugs and the production of new ones.
To refer first to the quality of a drug, I was a little alarmed when I learnt that doctors are now encouraged—or it may be that they are directed—where it is possible and cheaper to prescribe a drug by
358
a general description rather than by a particular brand name; in other words, a so-called generic drug in preference to a well-known and well tried brand name.
I am aware of the Government's problem. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has given impressive statistics. Perhaps I may add one more. The annual cost to the National Health Service of the dispensation of drugs has risen from £54 million in 1960 to no less than, and possibly more than, £3,400 million today. In other words, we now spend 63 times more money on drugs than we did in 1960. So I know that savings must be made. But a drug prescribed by a doctor without a particular brand name may turn out to have been manufactured in any of some 14 or more countries.
When a drug is prescribed by a generic name the prescription is taken to the pharmacist, who then hands over a drug of any manufacture which fulfils that generic description. The choice in the case of a generic drug rests with the pharmacist. The drug may come from any country which manufactures that drug, provided that it can lawfully be marketed in this country.
My question is this. When so-called generic drugs come onto the market from so many different sources, are the Government satisfied with the measures in place to control their quality and to ensure their efficacy and purity? Is it correct, as is suggested in some quarters, that there can be a significant variation in the clinical performance of some drugs purporting to meet the same description? Would it be better to leave it to the judgment of the doctor to decide whether to prescribe a drug by a particular brand name in which he has confidence rather than leaving it to the chemist to hand over a drug of any authorised manufacture that he chooses?
I leave the quality of drugs and turn now to the important question of side effects. My concern here is with a drug that may have a potential for serious and possibly irreversible side effects if by mischance the administration of the drug is not adequately controlled or monitored. The question that concerns me is whether the drug company gives as much prominence to the drug's potential for serious side effects as it gives to its curative properties.
So far as a new drug is concerned, the major sources of information available to doctors are, I understand, professional journals on the one hand and publications issued or meetings sponsored by the drug company on the other hand. Professional journals are likely to be wholly impartial. But reading professional journals is time-consuming for the doctor. In consequence, I am told, meetings and discussions with representatives of drug companies are a common way in which doctors keep themselves up to date. However, it is difficult to suppose that such meetings and discussions will always be wholly impartial. The representative of a drug company, who will not be a medically qualified person, is bound to be sympathetic toward the drug which he seeks to sell.
I should like to feel that a drug company, in promoting such meetings and discussions, will recognise that it is under a duty to give as much emphasis to a drug's potential for serious side effects,

359
if any, as to its curative properties. My question is: are the potentially serious side effects of a drug sufficiently publicised by the drug company to the medical profession and of course by the doctor to the patient?
Lastly, I turn to the subject of research. The aim of a pharmaceutical company, like that of any other trading company, is to generate profits which will cover its expenses and reward the shareholders who have risked their money. In the case of a new drug which will be used to treat some common disorder, it is relatively easy for the drug company to recover its outlay and to have money to spare for research, because the drug will inevitably be prescribed by a large number of doctors during the life of the patent.
But what about drugs needed to treat the less common or rare diseases? Where is the money to develop and test those drugs? I am told that it may cost £150 million to develop and test a new drug. Therefore, some drug companies—perhaps all drug companies—have a policy not to seek to develop a drug unless they can be assured that there will be sales of £x million during the effective life of the patent. One can understand that approach. The same problem arises in the case of tropical diseases. Governments of countries in which such diseases are endemic may not have the financial resources to import such drugs in significant quantities. So the drug company's target of £x million would not be met if successful research led to the discovery of the needed drug. I ask therefore to what extent the pharmaceutical industry is in a position to finance research into drugs which will not yield the large profits that are needed to offset the costs of discovery.
Those are my questions. What is clear is that only a strong pharmaceutical industry is likely to have the resources needed to develop new drugs and improve existing drugs. I very much hope that a strong pharmaceutical industry will prosper in this country and not be overtaken by the pharmaceutical industries of other countries.
In conclusion, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunter of Newington for having introduced this thought-provoking debate and for giving us the opportunity to discuss important issues.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, first, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for giving us the chance to hear some remarkable speeches. It is also an opportunity to develop our scientific knowledge. Like my noble friend Lord Hacking, I have no scientific knowledge—at least, I presume that he has more scientific knowledge than I do. I do not have even one O-level in science. This afternoon I shall receive a free course in pharmaceutical science and in law. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, whom I saw in his place a few moments ago, and other noble Lords may remember that 16 years ago this House discussed the reform and updating of the law of patents. From that day my interest in the law of patents and allied subjects, such as pharmaceutical science, was ignited.
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, and my noble friend Lord Hacking that the pharmaceutical industry is very successful. I stress that
360
it has been by far the most successful industry in the United Kingdom since the end of the Second World War. Perhaps I may pass on to the House some figures that have come to my knowledge.
Each year the industry obtains a surplus on the balance of trade of £1 billion sterling. It employs upward of 90,000 people. A further 18,000 people are employed in research and development. In his comments the noble Lord, Lord Rea, did not begrudge the tremendous effort and work done by the industry. I suspect that much of what those 18,000 people employed in research and development are doing spills over into areas other than pharmaceutical science and into lines other than the ones they are immediately pursuing. Another figure shows that United Kingdom research and development in pharmaceutical products represents upward of 10 per cent. of pharmaceutical inventions each year. That goes to prove that the industry is remarkably successful.
As noble Lords have stressed—especially the noble Lord, Lord Hunter—all that effort has to be targeted. Let me take the example of the United States of America, where the health care budget, I understand, is over 800 billion dollars a year. Roughly, 7 per cent. of that budget, which represents upward of 50 billion dollars a year, is spent on ethical medicines and prescription drugs. In the United Kingdom the latest figure is 10 per cent. However, that figure is probably not far out of line with the United States, as the cost of the health care budget of the United States might vary in some ways.
Indeed, the Centre for Medicines Research in the United Kingdom, which has considerable knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry, has produced figures estimating that the total global amount spent on research and development on medicines and pharmaceutical products rose from 15.3 billion dollars in 1988 to nearly 27 billion dollars in 1992.
In the European Community and on the continent of Europe generally, the cost of bringing one compound—a compound is the base for any of the pharmaceutical medicines that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, or I might obtain in the shop or which may be prescribed by the noble Lord, Lord Rea to the market in the late 1960s, when I was struggling with chartered accountant examinations (from 1957 to 1970), was 50 million dollars. Twenty years later, to bring a similar compound to the market—science and technology have changed as well—the cost was between 250 million to 300 million dollars. Of course those figures would have to include the costs of parallel scientific research carried out by the pharmaceutical industry which might have some bearing on the compound being brought to the market. But it shows that in 20 years inflation as well as technological change have contributed to the increase in the figures.
I believe that there are four points that the pharmaceutical industry would consider relevant to the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter. The industry is concerned both with doctors who are trying to understand and prescribe the medicines and with patients who are perhaps consuming them.

361
First, on what areas does the pharmaceutical industry concentrate its effort? I suspect, and the industry may agree, that there are known and agreed areas of research. Through scientific knowledge and the pursuit of patents each company will have a good idea of the specific areas, products and aspects of human health that its rivals, both large and small, are pursuing. Occasionally a company can strike what I may call "lucky"; by chance and by tolerance a company can achieve an enormous breakthrough.
In Basle a company called Sandoz allowed one of its scientists in the late 1970s, in his own time, to pursue a project that had virtually been abandoned. The project went under the name of Cyclosporin A, the trade name of Sandimmun —naturally from Sandoz in Basle—and I understand (my noble friend on the Front Bench was inquiring about my scientific knowledge) that it will suppress the immune reactions to transplanted organs. It was a complete chance effort but it showed that there was tolerance and benevolence from the members of the company who did not push the scientist and tell him to abandon his work.
Secondly, another aspect that the pharmaceutical industry would like to look at are the specific aspects and products that are innovative. I understand that there have been enormous efforts made in the United Kingdom—I hope that they will be successful—to bring the European Bioinformatics Institute to Cambridge. That would provide a European, if not a world, centre for gene technology. We may have an opportunity to discuss that at a later date. Gene technology is in the process of trying to discover and decode upwards of 100,000 different genes which it is estimated are present in the human body, and to discover what scientists call the "handbook of man".
The third aspect of today's debate that may interest the pharmaceutical industry and which has been mentioned by every speaker, including my noble friend Lord Hacking, is the speed with which companies can bring their product to the market. I have seen it quoted in much of the research presented to me that one day's delay—between today Wednesday and tomorrow Thursday—in bringing a specific compound or product to the market can cost a company up to 1 million dollars a day. Of course, the product may or may not be marketed or the company may be beaten by a rival. Even when the product has been brought to the market I understand that there is a requirement to make £50 million by the third year of its launch. That information comes from a British company. A Swiss company working along the same lines would be looking for a return of 300 million Swiss francs in the fifth year of marketing the compound.
With regard to the speed of bringing products to the market place I looked at one specific example and was somewhat startled to find that a company in San Diego which produced the concept and film "Star Wars", which many noble Lords may have seen, have developed a new technique called "virtual reality". It gives the illusion of going through an electronic screen and being surrounded by molecules. Indeed, there is
362
something called a "virtual reality helmet" —I hope my noble friends on the Front Bench do not wear them when they are listening to a Wednesday debate—which can take one into another world.
The concept gives the scientists the chance to be in what one would call a molecular superstore where one can pick and choose molecules and put them together. I am advised that it is producing remarkable strides in the speed with which products can be brought to the market. That specific company is involved in cancer research.
The fourth consideration is the management of human resources. We must have computers in pharmaceutical research, but the systems must be devised and tested by humans. Motivation was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I still believe that it is not difficult to bring research and development in science into the main-stream of a company's activities in the pharmaceutical industry. One then comes to the information, the marketing and selling of the product, especially for small companies.
In the pharmaceutical market in the United Kingdom there are 30,000 general practitioners, 6,500 consultants, 5,000 registrars and around 10,000 pharmacists who need to be apprised of specific products which may be available from a company. I understand that a company launching a product will not get much change from £2 million. I hope that the Government will take that on board.
But what the pharmaceutical industry may really be concerned about is the price restraint scheme. I believe that it works well. I hope that the Government will be able to fine tune it, keep their nerve and, above all, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be able to justify the figures that she quoted when she said that the drugs bill would grow by 12 per cent. every year and starter costs in the health service were going up by only 1.5 per cent. If my noble friend on the Front Bench could clarify that information I should be grateful.
In regard to the extension of the selected list there are three items which my noble friend may be able to explain. One is the appetite suppressants and another is contraceptives. Are they clinically necessary? The third relates to—yesterday my noble friend might have said "How would I know?"—female complaints. But I wonder whether some of the products are clinically necessary. I can only presume that they are.
Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, and hope that my noble friend will be able to give us some answers this afternoon.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, for initiating the debate and I congratulate him on his fine speech. I intend to strike a different note from that of all the speakers in the debate.
Notwithstanding the pharmaceutical industry's fine record of innovation, which has saved millions of lives throughout the world, and which has transformed many fatal diseases into minor ones, I intend to highlight grave misgivings—particularly grave misgivings—in regard to the surveillance of drugs to ensure

363
safety. Some of the doctors concerned, and some practices, are in danger of jeopardising the health of patients and even imperilling their lives. That is a scandalous situation which calls for urgent action by the Government, the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry.
We have seen many disasters, from thalidomide onwards, and we must all do what we can to avoid any more. I am indebted for much of my information to Professor Bill Inman, who was the pioneer of the yellow card reporting system on adverse reactions and the originator of prescription event monitoring, which monitors the whole medical condition of a person taking a drug for a specific ailment. This system is supported by four-fifths of Britain's GPs, many of whom do a great deal of work without payment. It is effective for identifying reactions. Professor Inman's work has been invaluable.
However, another drugs surveillance system, far from adding to patient safety, actually endangers it. Some companies are carrying out their own drug surveillance, an idea put forward some eight years ago by a working party, and which at first sight seems very reasonable. What is wrong with people carrying out their own drugs surveillance? But what is unreasonable is the hidden objectives of some companies and, consequently, the way some schemes are carried out.
The first urgent danger signals should be flying when we learn that patients taking part in these commercial trials do not have to be fully informed volunteers giving their written consent after careful explanation. This is what always happens in pre-marketing clinical trials and it should happen in all post-marketing trials. So, incredibly, patients can be unwitting guinea pigs.
Why should some doctors participate in such potential malpractice? It is because they are offered inducements to take part in these commercial trials. I am told that the inducements include pocket computers costing more than £100, valuable equipment for the surgery and cash payments for each patient enrolled.
I have read the latest newsletter of the Integrated Network for Computer Administration. It reports a survey showing that GPs can earn £70 for half-an-hour's work by using a computer programme, designed by INCA, to complete 10 three-minute reports on their patients' progress after taking the drug under surveillance. The newsletter is a blatant encouragement to doctors to supplement their incomes in this way.
We all know that most doctors are honourable professional men and women, but there are obvious inducements to indulge in excessive patient registration. Professor Inman has described one case of a doctor who prescribed a new drug, which the Committee on the Safety of Medicines had determined should be used only for rheumatoid arthritis. He prescribed the drug to no fewer than 235 patients in six months. The average number would be about five or six patients suffering actively from this complaint in a practice of 2,000 patients. It is understood that the doctor received between £100 and £200 per patient. So
364
some 230 patients were prescribed a drug which in many cases was not relevant to their illness, but which made money for their GP.
Professor Inman, because of his own system of monitoring, has been able to monitor GPs' involvement in the drug companies' activities. In almost all of his studies the "top 1 per cent."—the heaviest—prescribers accounted for about 10 per cent. of the early market for new drugs, while the top 10 per cent. accounted for about 50 per cent. of the market, often prescribing for dozens or even hundreds of patients at a time when simple common sense would indicate that perhaps one or two per month, carefully observed and monitored, would be a more reasonable number. Professor Inman says that in the groups of high prescribing doctors, more than 90 per cent. are male and more than 40 per cent. gained their first degrees overseas. Clearly, some doctors are responding to the inducements by prescribing promoted drugs to an excessive number of their patients.
If the patient does not have the complaint for which the drug is intended—and it seems that this is happening—it is outrageous to prescribe an unnecessary drug with the inevitable risk of side effects. If the patient does have the complaint, his or her current drugs should be changed only for good medical reasons and not for the benefit of the drug company or indeed the doctor.
These company trials mock scientific practice. They are uncontrolled. The numbers involved relate mainly to the strength of the company inducements and to the willingness of GPs to be induced to participate. And equally important, the results are kept confidential by the drug companies concerned. They are deemed to be commercially sensitive, a highly convenient phrase to be used by the companies. The truth is that these drug trials are little more than drug company promotions, providing generous rewards for doctors in return for prescriptions for their patients. The trials are an outrage which should be stopped by the Government and by the medical profession. Patients' informed consent must be made compulsory and the number of patients any one doctor can include in a trial should be limited. Unless strong and urgent action is taken, this medical malpractice will continue to the detriment of people's health and it will be a danger to their lives.
I want to conclude with this thought. In an earlier speech the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said that the pharmaceutical industry is a great and successful industry. He was quite right: it is. We all want to support it and give it all the help we can because it really has many fine accomplishments to its credit. But it is these few companies Which are bringing the industry into disrepute. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a full and comprehensive answer to these points. If she cannot, I will fully understand that, but I would appreciate it if she could write to me later if she is unable to answer them today.
4.18 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I note with interest that much of our debate so far has been about costs. My perspective in this debate is a little different again, and I think I ought briefly to explain why.

365
I speak largely as a patient, as did my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman, most of whose concerns I share. Having, over many years, exhausted the resources of mainstream medicine, I was compelled, as many are, to turn to the world of the unconventional therapies. As a result, I have developed a profound respect for much that goes on there. I found myself serving for a while on the Research Council for Complementary Medicine, and I am currently chairman of the British Acupuncture Accreditation Board and also (jointly) of the Parliamentary Group for Alternative and Complementary Medicine.
Quite early on I became intrigued by one particular question, and it is this. If there is so much of value in acupuncture, homoeopathy, chiropractic, healing, massage, nutritional and herbal and environmental medicine, why are we not all aware of it? Many surveys, which I have quoted on other occasions, demonstrate that millions of people are benefiting, so it cannot just be a matter of my own experience. Here we come to the subject of the present debate.
Like other speakers, I would want to take nothing away from the great benefits that mankind has received from a wide range of therapeutic drugs, even if more is sometimes attributed to them in the eradication of disease than the evidence will bear. But it is my belief—and not just mine—that the immense financial power of the pharmaceutical industry is now distorting our whole perception of medicine to a degree that is positively unhealthy. This happens in a number of ways, some of them even more fundamental, I believe, than those referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, whose speech I listened to with great interest.
The influence of the drugs companies, with their multi-billion pound turnover, now reaches into almost every corner of mainstream medicine. They have been involved for years in the funding of medical schools, of journals, of conferences. It is not possible that so much money should be put in and that outcomes should not, however subtly, be influenced. I am not talking here about sinister motives—merely of the unavoidable influencing of attitudes and priorities. The majority of the members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines have links to the pharmaceutical industry. The Medicines Control Agency is wholly funded by fees from product licences. And then there is research. Without the drugs companies, whole areas of research would simply not be covered. But it is product-orientated research: it has to be, because these companies are not in it for their health. And other kinds of research are being squeezed out.
Drugs company money has gone into Health-Watch, the body that has set itself up to expose unacceptable practice in medicine (but unacceptable, one may ask, according to whose agenda?). In the world of AIDS, nearly all the voluntary groups are substantially funded by pharmaceutical companies, and AIDS patients have been almost exclusively snapped up and recruited into trials of the drug AZT. Even the All-Party Parliamentary Group on AIDS receives a five-figure sum from the drugs industry.
366
The chief implication of this is that we suffer the dangers of a virtual monoculture. And one of the principal dangers of a monoculture is that you are not even aware that you are in it. It is easy, for example, to fool ourselves that AZT, or something like it, is the only worthwhile approach to AIDS. If we believe this, it is more likely because AZT is virtually all that we have been presented with. Whenever there is a medical problem, the cry goes up, "We must find a drug!" or, "We must find a vaccine!" The agenda is severely distorted when only one view is being heard. And it is heard everywhere because of the overwhelming power of one of the players.
I know of examples where highly promising lines of research into complementary medicine are being stifled by the influence of drugs company funding of the department concerned. In another area of medicine, Linus Pauling, the Nobel Prize-winning scientist, has told of the difficulty of getting good research on the benefits of vitamin C published in medical journals, because of the editors' fear of losing drugs company advertising. Vitamins and minerals cannot be patented—nor can foods—which explains why so little research effort is put into these areas.
In yet another field, I know of a distinguished scientist who took a lone stance on a medical issue, and was questioned by a friend of mine as to how he could be the only scientist to oppose the general view. "Oh", he said, "I'm not the only one at all. I know eight other senior scientists who believe as I do. But I am the only one who is free of financial attachment. None of the others is in a position to speak out because of the strings attached to them".
If we are to see and judge clearly, it is crucial that we should be aware of the power of financial attachments. You do not need to be a conspiracy theorist to have serious questions about the large commercial interests in the field of healthcare policy.
I want to tell briefly of a research project in the AIDS field published in 1992. It was conducted by the Bastyr College of Natural Health Sciences in Seattle, Washington. It was a one-year open trial of 16 men with AIDS-related complex on a regime that comprised dietary and lifestyle counselling, nutritional supplementation, psychotherapy and hydrotherapy, with the alternative of homoeopathic or herbal treatment. The results, with no patients progressing to AIDS, no patients dying, and in fact some clinical improvement observed, compared more than favourably with anything that had been achieved in the orthodox, pharmaceutical field. It was not in any way a tightly controlled trial, and the numbers were small. But does anyone imagine that if the agent involved had been a drug it would not, in the present climate, have been pursued by pharmaceutical money for all it was worth? Leads have been followed up on far less when the incentives were there. So far as I am aware, the Bastyr College is still looking for funds to proceed to Stage 2.
In the field of cancer, I am aware of a number of approaches that have yielded good, not to say dramatic, results in some cases. The US Congress Office of Technology Assessment has listed no fewer than five in its detailed report two and a half years' ago

367
on unconventional cancer treatments: behavioural/ psychological; herbal; dietary; biologic/ pharmacologic; and immuno-augmentative. So far as I know, there are no major trials underway on any of these. For the most part they are not money-spinners. They are not even part of the medical agenda. In the field of heart disease, the position is not much different.
At a deeper level still, the grip of the pharmaceutical view exerts an equally unfortunate influence. There are two doctrines which I believe will eventually come to be seen as unhelpful in medicine, if not actually pernicious. The first is the doctrine of specific aetiology, which arises from the germ theory of disease and leads to the mirage of the magic bullet, and, incidentally, to the view that HIV equals AIDS—a hypothesis, as one distinguished critic has remarked, that has yet to save a single life. Drugs seldom get at the root cause of disease, in any case.
The second is the notion, so firmly entrenched in the medical mind and so laughable to the practitioner of natural medicine, that you cannot have benefit without risk. This has led, among other things, to the easy acceptance of a situation where some 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. of hospital beds are occupied by people who, among their other complaints, have been injured by their treatment—not all pharmaceutical, but mostly so. The dominance of the drugs-based approach to medicine helps to underpin both these doctrines.
I have said enough to show why I believe that the role of the pharmaceutical industry does not always serve the best interests of patients. But I should like to take the case briefly one step further and beyond what I might term the intrinsic consequences of an over-concentration of power in the therapeutic field.
I spoke the other day to a man who was the inventor of a device which was proving very successful with migraine. In a search for funding, he was visited by a senior manager in a major drugs firm who flew over to inspect the device. This man said, in front of witnesses, that he believed that approach had a major future in medicine, and that his firm were going to do everything in their power to ensure that it did not see the light of day for 50 years. There was an interesting sequel to this. Some time later a merchant bank offered to back the device. After protracted negotiations, my contact was on the point of signing a not very favourable agreement when a director of the bank rang him strictly off the record and said that he thought he ought to know that behind the deal was the self-same drugs company, whose plan it was to buy up the rights to the device from the bank and suppress it. There are some who see a pattern in events of this kind. I do not know about that; but I have heard of other examples.
Having said as much, I ought to say that it is the inherent dangers of the monocultural view that worry me the more. A conscious abuse of power is serious; indeed, criminal. The unconscious distortion of the whole way a society sees its system of medicine is much worse, not least, as I said earlier, because it may lie too deep to be seen. Unless you step outside the system, even if only in imagination, I do not believe
368
you will get it in perspective. There are two maxims which can stand as a summary of what I have been trying to say, and I think that we ignore them at our peril if we wish to get things in proper focus: power tends to corrupt; and he who pays the piper calls the tune.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, not for the first time the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, has enabled your Lordships' House to debate a very important subject aligned to medicine, and, as usual, he has graced the House with a very eloquent speech.
I have to tell the House that I never learned science at school; I learned languages instead. My interest in this subject came via the Medicines Bill and a very respected friend of your Lordships' House, the late and lamented Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, when I was asked to support him on a matter concerning patent law, on which he was the acknowledged expert in your Lordships' House—not only in his time but, I should think, in the future also. How I dreaded the experience, but I learned a certain amount from it.
There are clearly two parts to this Motion—one concerning the doctor (and the general practitioner in particular) and the other concerning the patient. The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, made an interesting contribution about complementary medicine. I believe that complementary medicine, particularly homoeopathy, has a part to play in the health of the nation, especially for what one might call "non-malignant diseases". Even with all the research carried out by the pharmaceutical industry in this country and elsewhere over the years, conditions such as the common cold, the common cough, dyspepsia and other illnesses can be cured more effectively by old-fashioned remedies, such as perhaps cinnamon, by other remedies which are obtainable over the chemist's counter and, indeed, by homoeopathy, which I have tried on occasions myself.
General practitioners today work under a great deal of constraint, especially in rural practices. One of the problems which he or she faces is the enormous amount of literature which is piled upon him or her about new drug products which, of course, the general practitioner must study. I hope that more is being done by the sales managers of the drugs companies to ensure that they use an appointment system with general practitioners. This is an important point. That practice should be carried out to a much greater extent because it is much more important that general practitioners treat and heal their patients than that they spend their time during working hours dealing with matters of this kind.
Speaking from the patient's point of view, I recall suffering from a mastoid problem in 1941 following a very virulent attack of measles. This was before the discovery of Sir Alexander Fleming's great invention of penicillin—and it was not a pleasant experience. Since then, much progress has been made and although conditions such as mastoid are still serious—I have a nephew who suffers from it—developments within the pharmaceutical industry have been considerable.

369
It is interesting to note from the government White Paper, The Health of the Nation, that the life expectancy of girls is now 79 and that of boys is 72. I think that it is fair to say that the pharmaceutical industry can claim at least some credit for that. I would certainly not be rash enough to say that it can claim all of it, but it is important to get this matter into perspective.
What is important is that research and development is kept under reasonable control. It is essential that the leading pharmaceutical companies, which are members of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (the ABPI), should develop their ways instead of what one might call some of the "outside" companies which are not necessarily registered. It is at least possible that this is why the pharmaceutical industry has come under a certain amount of fire.
I have seen research carried out into such dreaded diseases as Alzheimer's disease. A particularly dear friend of my parents—and in later years of myself—who was the matron of St. George's Hospital when it was at Hyde Park Corner (my father served on the board) died at the age of 64 of that terrible disease when she was Chief Nursing Officer for Scotland. Ever since then, the need for urgent research into this dire and tragic complaint has been brought home, to me at least.
Mention has been made of migraine, into which a good deal of research is taking place. Again, homoeopathy has a part to play. I know one or two people who suffer from migraine and who get certain benefits from homoeopathy. I believe that there is a case for some kind of liaison between alternative medicine and the pharmaceutical industry. As I mentioned earlier, non-malignant and curable complaints can be dealt with in that way. It is in relation to the long-standing complaints, such as that awful complaint of cystic fibrosis which affects children—how sad it is—that we look to the pharmaceutical industry for research and development.
We have been given an opportunity this afternoon to discuss a subject which will always be controversial. This country's pharmaceutical industry has not only done a great deal for our exports, but employs people at all grades who work very hard and in a dedicated manner. With all the reservations that there may be, long may the industry continue.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for not being present to hear his speech at the beginning of the debate and to other noble Lords whose contributions I missed. I look forward to reading them in Hansard tomorrow. I should like to thank my noble friend the Chief Whip for finding me a position towards the end of the list of speakers. It is very difficult for me to get away from my practice as early as three o'clock.
I have given some thought as to whether it would be sensible for me to take part in this debate as I have very strong feelings about the pharmaceutical industry
370
and two brothers-in-law who fundamentally disagree with everything I say. One is an eye surgeon in Salisbury and the other is a very senior research chemist with Glaxo. However, before I make a very brief contribution, I must declare an interest as President of the Natural Medicines Society and an association with other organisations which believe that our health and medical treatment should in most circumstances be maintained and treated by the promotion and reinforcement of the inherent biological systems within us which maintain health and eradicate disease. Your Lordships will be aware of my interest and belief in the effects of natural medicine and fundamental disapproval of the continued reliance on synthetic drugs to allay symptoms rather than treat the cause of the problem.
The assumption that greater availability of medical services, the increased recruitment of doctors and other health-related personnel, the construction of more hospitals and clinics, or the development and distribution of a wider range of drugs or surgical techniques will inevitably lead to improvements in health, increased longevity or the eradication of disease is ill-founded yet widespread, even among well-educated sections of the population. It is an assumption that has been challenged repeatedly for more than a generation by an articulate, well-qualified and careful body or researchers and commentators, yet it has been almost totally ignored by policy-makers and by the public at large.
The best interests of doctors and patients in the NHS has not been served by the failure on the part of governments and public bodies to control the almost uninhibited growth of medical technology and synthetic drugs and inability to rationalise the style and content of treatments on offer. It is ironic that, in a period when the accountability of industry for environmental damage has become a major priority on the political agenda at home and overseas, the undoubtedly damaging effects of much orthodox medicine continue to provoke little more than temporary scandals.
In 1986 the World Health Organisation launched its first Health Promotion Charter in Ottawa. In describing the nature of health promotion, it emphasised how it ran throughout most, if not all, the activities of society. The charter states:
"Health cannot be separated from other goals … and health promotion goes beyond health care. It puts health on the agenda of policy makers in all sectors and at all levels, directing them to be aware of the health consequences of their decisions and to accept their responsibilities for health".
This is an approach which is now called holistic medicine; a concept which looks at the individual as a whole rather than just at the symptoms which present themselves at the physical level. It is, above all, a recognition that detectable symptoms are but a hint that there is some underlying cause of the patient's disorder and that it is this cause or causes which must ultimately be treated if the patient is to become healthy.
It is not my intention to suggest that all would be well if only current procedures of orthodox medicine were replaced by alternative methods. I pay tribute to the good and caring doctors, dedicated nurses,

371
effective drugs and life-saving treatments. Natural medicine is no panacea for all human ills, any more than orthodox medicine has proved to be. The simple replacement of one set of therapeutic modalities with another would still leave untouched the issues of improvement in preventive medicine, social organisation and community care which, taken together, are bound to have the greatest impact on public health as they did in the last century. Nevertheless, it is obvious that something radical has to be done and that the careful intelligent introduction of what may broadly be termed holistic health care may, in a fresh context, lead to significant improvements on several levels.
Criticism of the current state of medicine ought not to be deflected by promises of reform and assurances from the pharmaceutical industry that there are yet more wonder drugs to come. I am reluctant to remind my noble friend of my advice to the Government six or seven years ago when I asked them seriously to consider the wisdom of allocating funds towards research for a "magic bullet drug" to combat AIDS. I think that I have been proved correct and can say that it is now generally believed that "lifestyle" and the maintenance of a competent immune system are far more relevant. It is, as was said by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, virtually impossible to achieve any funding for something as simple as that. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the almost total refusal of the scientific establishment to fund and undertake research into at least the better-established alternatives—or aspects of them—is in poor keeping with the spirit of independent scientific inquiry.
It is time for reappraisal. There are adequate studies on which to draw, competent critics to whom to turn and numerous avenues to explore. Should we turn in the right direction the future for human health on this planet may well be bright. If we fail to turn at all the 20th century will have produced no greater ecological disaster than that now being manufactured within human beings themselves.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, for introducing the debate. When one reaches this point in the list of speakers many of the comments which one was going to make have already been made. However, I shall risk repeating some of them. I was fascinated to listen to the speeches, in particular those made by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, and the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. I am certain that there is more in what they say than most of us are aware of. On the other hand, today we are discussing the contributions of the pharmaceutical industry to our healthcare system. I also enjoyed the non-scientific explanations of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, which blinded me with science. I could not understand some of the scientific terminology which he used.
I wish to apply myself to the role of the pharmaceutical industry in relation to the interests of doctors and patients. I believe that everyone connected with healthcare —whether doctors, nurses, ancillary staff or those who supply the NHS—have a common goal; that is, to improve the health of the
372
patient. The success or failure of our healthcare system and of its suppliers, such as the pharmaceutical industry, should be judged against how far it achieves health gain for patients.
The role of the pharmaceutical industry is obviously to provide good quality, effective and safe medicines for patients. Indeed, the industry is probably one of our most successful. I was therefore sad to be told that in the preparation of The Health of the Nation White Paper there was little co-operation with the pharmaceutical industry. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, mentioned the importance of the existence of such co-operation. In preparing the White Paper the department did not draw on the resources of the pharmaceutical industry. Yet, within each of the five key areas, the industry possesses knowledge and is engaged in ongoing research and development to find a cure and, perhaps more importantly, the prevention of disease.
If the test of success is making patients better it may be helpful to examine recent developments in the UK pharmaceutical market, particularly as the NHS drugs bill has risen markedly in recent years. Department of Health policy has been to shift the balance of healthcare from hospital provision to treatment by GPs in the primary sector, of which we all approve. This has been happening for some time. That means that medicines will use a higher proportion of total NHS resources, since the main treatment option available to GPs is to prescribe medicines.
An example of this shift to primary care was the introduction of the new GP contract in April 1990, which encouraged GPs to hold clinics in conditions such as asthma which can be life-threatening if not diagnosed early. This has led to an increase in the total cost of medicines used by GPs in asthma treatment. That has obviously been for the good but there is also evidence that it has reduced emergency hospital admission for asthmatics. The contract also specified targets for the immunisation of children, which were reached by May 1991. In that year for the first time ever there were no infant deaths from whooping cough or measles.
Indeed, GPs are also now able to carry out minor surgery rather than send patients to hospitals. In the first year of the contract, GPs carried out 850 minor surgical operations. In the same year, GPs' use of wound healing preparations and antibiotics showed a marked increase. Therefore, in part it is health policy which has increased the drugs bill.
We all believe that that treatment in the primary sector is not only cheaper, although I doubt that, but it also implies that it gives patients a better quality of life. It is important that we keep that in mind.
There is evidence that the use of pharmaceutical medicines is a very cost-effective use of scarce health resources. Classic examples are—and these are always mentioned in debates—the receptor blocking agents such as Zantac and Tagamet which have greatly reduced the number of patients requiring surgery for gastric ulcers. One survey shows that these medicines increased the "drugs" element of treatment costs for ulcer patients sixfold, but reduced total treatment costs by 66 per cent. These medicines, both of which

373
were discovered and developed in the UK and are manufactured by British companies, save the NHS millions of pounds a year and make a valuable contribution to the economy of the country.
A recent calculation by the Office of Health Economics shows that the annual savings from seven groups of diseases as a result of the reduction in hospital bed days (using 1957 as a baseline) amounted to £4 billion in 1991. By contrast, the cost of all medicines prescribed in general practice for all diseases in the same year was £3.3 billion. Therefore, there is a direct benefit to the NHS.
Cancer is identified as one of the target areas in the Health of the Nation. In 1988 an article in the Lancet showed that the use of carboplatin in place of the cheaper cisplatin for the treatment of cancer can prove less expensive in the long term because it is not so toxic, is easier to administer and improves the quality of life of cancer patients. It allows out-patient therapy to replace costly in-patient treatment. Carboplatin costs £205.71 against £17.90 for cisplatin, but the total treatment costs are reduced from £347.90 to £228.77. Therefore, there is a direct saving to the NHS by using an expensive medicine.
Of course, new medicines do not come free. Pharmaceutical research and development is a costly and risky business. It takes an average of 12 years and £150 million to develop a new medicine, and only one in 10,000 compounds researched actually reached the market. Scientists who work in that field are some of the most patient people in society. But if a higher value medicine reduces overall treatment costs or enhances the quality of life for patients, then it is cheap.
Because of its reputation in the pharmaceutical industry, the United Kingdom attracts a disproportionately high share of research investment in the EC because of its innovative track record. Three of the major drug discoveries, which are the best selling drugs in the world in recent years, have their origins in British research laboratories.
The drugs bill is not rising because of price increases. Price increases are already less than the rate of inflation. The drugs bill is rising because more patients are receiving treatment and because new and more effective treatments have been made available by the pharmaceutical industry.
Much has also been said today about the pharmaceutical industry's economic and financial standing in the country. It has been mentioned that it produces a trade surplus of over £1 billion and the UK's export of pharmaceuticals reached almost £3 billion in 1992. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, mentioned also that it employs 87,000 people of whom 18,000 are research scientists, but he failed to add that an additional 250,000 people are indirectly employed.
In my view, the industry has an outstanding record of investment in research and development, capital equipment and training. Six out of 20 of the world's top selling medicines were discovered and developed in the UK.
In summary, therefore, the pharmaceutical industry has contributed to the ability of doctors in the
374
NHS to treat more patients, both more effectively in terms of the quality of life of individuals and more efficiently in terms of the use of resources. That this has led to an increase in the NHS drugs bill should be no surprise. The rise of the NHS drugs bill is a symptom of the success of the NHS in achieving health gain for the population and providing high quality care for those who need it. At the same time, the pharmaceutical industry has made an enormous contribution to the economy and to the creation of wealth which allows health care to be funded in the first place. The pharmaceutical industry's role in relation to doctors and patients in the NHS is an important one, and one of which the industry can rightly be proud.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we have had an excellent and radical debate on the subject introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, to whom we all owe a vote of thanks. At the beginning of the debate this afternoon I did not expect that we should cover such new and radical ground as has been covered in the speeches by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, and my noble friends Lord Ashley and Lord Rea. We have covered a wide ranging set of issues.
At one stage we were in danger of repeating the debate which we had two weeks ago on the narrow question of the selected list and the Government's policy about the drugs bill. I am unrepentant as regards what I said on that occasion. We broadly support the Government on that issue. We have reservations about certain items on the list but by and large it is the correct way to go forward. So long as they are effective and safe, we should pursue the path of generic prescriptions; that is the way forward. I have no reservations about that.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I am aware that time is limited but I am troubled by what the noble Lord said about reiterating his position and the position of his party, as I understand it.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I said "my position".
Lord Hacking: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will help us about this. In another place his party has condemned the selected list scheme.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I have nothing to add to what I have said. I said that I broadly support the position but have two reservations which I have already mentioned. They are the reservations put forward by my honourable friends in another place who signed the Early-Day Motion.
We should not make this a debate about the interests of the pharmaceutical industry and the role of doctors and patients in furthering them, but rather about the pharmaceutical industry furthering the interests of doctors and patients. I am somewhat puzzled that people simultaneously argue—I was not going to get into this argument, and I am sorry about it—that the selected list will be ineffective and will not save much money, but yet will do untold damage to

375
the pharmaceutical industry. We are led to believe that the pharmaceutical industry is successful, innovative and dynamic—something which I believe to be true. It is a profitable industry. At the same time the mere announcement by the Government of broad topics to be discussed, even before the medicines have been listed and decided upon—consultations are continuing—results in us being told that should the policy be carried out untold damage will be done to the pharmaceutical industry and the NHS.
I advise the friends of the pharmaceutical industry to be more subtle and restrained in their analysis. I agree that research and development in this area is important. I shall come to the cogent and radical speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, and the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. The industry spends nearly 15 per cent. of its total revenue on research and development. At the same time the way to encourage research and development spending is not just to leave the generic prescription case out of consideration. There are other ways in which the Treasury can encourage research and development not just in the pharmaceutical industry but elsewhere. I do not believe that the selected list will be that damaging. It would have to be proved that the previous selected list was damaging, if that were to be the case.
We have reservations about who is being consulted, and whether there have been consultations with patients. We have reservations about contraceptive drugs and dermatology, but by and large the idea is good and it is one that we should pursue.
Two issues have been raised upon which I wish to comment. First, I greatly welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, said towards the end of his speech, that given the new purchaser/provider culture being introduced into the NHS we should think about the variety of flexible ways in which doctors can respond to the opportunities available to them with respect to prescriptions or the alternatives by which they can save money. I shall read his speech carefully and learn much from it. There is clearly a case for thinking further about that matter.
The subject of alternative medicine was eloquently raised by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, and the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. I had the good fortune to grow up not in a mono culture but in a pluriculture with respect to medicine. In as much as the UK is now a multiracial society, access to alternative medical systems should be available. Such systems should perhaps be considered as a matter of official policy. We should see whether we can satisfy consumer choice. If consumers want such alternative medical systems, we should consider whether there are ways of satisfying that choice. We should not believe that there is only one truthful way, because there are many alternative ways. So I welcome that suggestion.
I was impressed by the observations of my noble friend Lord Ashley about the safety of medicines. There is anxiety about the testing for new drugs which may not be ethical, but is not quite unethical, and the way in which new drugs are pushed at doctors. The newspapers recently reported a case relating to Wellcome, the well-known pharmaceutical company,
376
and the side effects of a drug used for immunising against whooping cough. Such anxieties are genuine, we should remember them although we should not exaggerate them. Moreover, issues regarding the broader responsibilities of the pharmaceutical industry towards patients should not be forgotten.
In general, I agree with the many noble Lords who have said that the pharmaceutical industry has made a tremendous contribution towards improving the health of patients. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, that medicines do not provide the only way to good health and that in some cases they may be an obstacle to it. Many noble Lords commented upon how much more money we are now spending on the NHS. I would argue against that. The numbers naturally seem large but when we compare our expenditure on health internationally, the UK spends a smaller proportion of its GDP on health and receives good results. One reason for that is that governments of different political hues have jealously controlled costs within the NHS. That should continue to be the case.
5.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for initiating this debate. It is a matter of great importance to the prosperity of this country and to the well-being of its people. There can be no person better fitted to the task, and I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the noble Lord has given us a clear and concise exposition of the issues involved. I am grateful to the noble Lord for that, and to your Lordships who have taken part, for this is a confused and complicated area. In fact the Government are in a delicate position.
The Government's first duty is to patients, but they are also the purchaser of drugs supplied buy the pharmaceutical industry, and as a result our relationship with the industry is immensely complicated. The Government pay the entire NHS drugs bill. My noble friend Lord Hacking and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, highlighted graphically the meteoric rise of the drugs bill and the forecast figures which, if unchecked, are breathtaking. Of course money spent on drugs is money not spent elsewhere in the NHS, so it is natural that the Government should try to ensure that spending on drugs is as effective and economic as possible —seeking value for money for both patients and taxpayers.
But the Government, although paying the bill, do not generate the expenditure. It is doctors who prescribe according to clinical need. So again it is natural that the Government should look to ways of encouraging more rational prescribing. It is equally reasonable for the Government to make every effort to keep the population healthy, thereby reducing the drugs that they might otherwise require.
Although anxious to contain costs, the Government recognise the very positive contribution which drugs can make to people's lives. Astonishing progress has been made since Alexander Fleming's

377
discovery of penicillin in 1928. Whether in mental health, transplant surgery or treatment for ulcers, innovative drugs have allowed people not only to live longer but also to overcome disabling conditions and to lead healthier and happier lives. To continue to bring those benefits and to research and develop new and more effective drugs, the industry has to generate profits from sales of existing products. The costs of research and development are of course immense and the timescale long. I should like to pick up the issue of research a little later. So the skill of the Government is to hold this balance between conflicting pressures.
I believe that we all start from the premise that all the parties involved are genuinely aiming to serve the people and the Government's role is to ensure maximum co-operation in order to achieve maximum benefits. It is also essential that the Government are active in their support for science-based industries. None of them is free-standing; they are all interdependent. The fact that our pharmaceutical industry is successful is in itself important because pharmacology is closely linked to other sciences which are vital to the practice of modern medicine. It is therefore of great importance that pharmacology does take a leading role.
Just as the pharmaceutical industry is essential to our science-based industry, so research emanating from NHS hospitals and universities is vital to the industry. The NHS is a necessary adjunct for trials and statistical data and the industry is responsible for sponsoring a good deal of research. This interdependence and co-operation are critical in maintaining an active industry and a progressive health service.
My noble friend Lord Auckland raised the question of the industry's approaches to GPs. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, voiced a mild rebuke at the way the industry employs representatives to sell its products to GPs and consultants, sometimes in a fairly lavish way. Of course eventually many of these marketing costs are reflected in the price that the NHS pays for the product.
The level of costs is of course indirectly regulated, but we also have to assess the cost against the benefit which it brings. We want a vibrant industry which is active in marketing its products, and when considering world markets we recognise that there is no place for complacency. But we also need to be careful that we do not assume that drugs are always the best solution to ill-health.
Sir William Osler, the distinguished physician, made two good points. First, he said,
"the desire to take medicine is perhaps the greatest feature which distinguishes man from animals",
and, secondly, that,
"one of the first duties of the physician is to educate the masses not to take medicine".
On the first maxim, the relentless work of the pharmaceutical industry's public relations, marketing and advertising departments plays on people's tendency to take medicines as a first, rather than a last, resort. The rise of sales of non-prescription drugs is a tribute to the success of those departments.
The second Osler maxim is not yet perhaps as effective a counterbalance as it should be. It will take
378
time to educate the public and perhaps for some doctors to accept that consultations need not conclude with a prescription, although most patients expect one. Many doctors too see this as the accepted way of closing an appointment. We need to disabuse people of this expectation and to dissuade doctors from this habit. In the meantime the drugs bill increases remorselessly—by 11 to 12 per cent. per annum. Set against inflation of 1.9 per cent., and at a time when health service pay is pegged at 1.5 per cent., this rise is both disturbing and unacceptable.
My noble friend Lord Lyell asked why the drugs bill had increased by 12 per cent. per annum and how that was calculated. Between 1986–87 and 1991–92 the family health service drugs bill has risen at an average rate of 11 per cent. in cash terms. Indeed in 1992–93 the FHSA drugs bill for England rose by almost 40 per cent. Undoubtedly some of the rise in the dugs bill is due to changes in demography but much more important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, pointed out, is the fact that doctors have been writing more prescriptions per head of the population and those prescriptions have become more and more expensive. However, the bulk of the rise in the average cost of prescriptions, some 6 per cent., is accounted for by what one can best describe as the product mix; that is to say, changes in the medicines which are being prescribed.
The Government therefore have a multi-pronged policy for containing the drugs bill. Our first priority is to maintain health, and the Health of the Nation strategy, which brings people from all walks of life together in a co-operative drive against avoidable illness, makes an important contribution on this front. But when health breaks down and drugs are necessary, the Government seek to achieve value for money, first, by encouraging the prescribing of generic drugs, which are generally cheaper, as advocated by the noble Lords, Lord Hunter of Newington and Lord Rea. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, asked whether the Government were satisfied that generic drugs are truly safe and pure and whether doctors should be able to prescribe brand names. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, asked whether the Government should do more to ensure the safety of drugs generally.
Doctors are already able to prescribe a brand name if they so choose. The advice that is given to them is not mandatory. They are free to reject or accept it as they wish. However, all drugs, including generic drugs, go through the same rigorous licensing tests by the Medicines Control Agency. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, can rest assured that every new drug in this country is as safe as we can make it. Those drugs undergo the most scrupulous scrutiny. Existing products on the market are carefully monitored.
Clearly every drug though has the potential to do harm and clinical trials must run a minute element of risk. However, I do not recognise the picture painted by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. The noble Lord has asked for a very full reply this afternoon. I

379
am unable to give that, but I am willing to discuss with the noble Lord on another occasion the views that he has.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the noble Baroness says that she does not recognise the picture that I have presented. Has she taken the trouble to read the material presented by Professor Inman to whom I have referred? If she has not done so, she is in no position to be able to identify or not identify the picture I have presented.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am well acquainted with the yellow card scheme. I have seen it work very effectively on most occasions. I am prepared to accept the noble Lord's view that it is not working on all occasions. I am happy to discuss that with him on a later occasion and to discuss the report that he mentions. I do not know it in detail and therefore I think that that is something we should explore together on another occasion.
A further measure that has been introduced by the Government is the selected list scheme which was well and thoroughly debated two weeks ago. I really do not want to go into that in detail this afternoon; but I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for yet again so forcefully supporting the Government's initiative, albeit with some reservations. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, posed the question whether the selected list scheme will encourage pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to the public. The availability of drugs for sale to the public is determined by the licence indicators of the product. These decisions are made by the Medicines Control Agency whose work is entirely independent of the advisory committee which is advising the Secretary of State on the selected list scheme. I think we shall have to wait and see what happens. I take the point made by the noble Lord as regards what is happening in the United States. Perhaps that is something we should look at.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, took part in the debate a fortnight ago. As was said by your Lordships this afternoon, he was critical of the selected list. I wish to take this opportunity to stress first of all that the original list saved the NHS £75 million in the first year alone, and that the approach which the Government are now taking to extend the list to more categories is altogether different. We are more cautious. We have involved the industry as never before, and our advisory committee of highly respected professionals has been expanded in number and in experience to take into account some of the previous criticisms. We are giving it an entirely free hand, and if that committee comes to the conclusion that not a single drug should be put onto the selected list, the Secretary of State will, of course, want to take account of those views.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, as the only Member of your Lordships' House in possession of a prescription pad, for his measured approach and support for the Government's proposals.
My noble friend Lord Lyell asked why the 10 selected list categories were included. He mentioned contraceptives and appetite suppressants. I am not
380
sure whether he saw a link between the two. The 10 new categories were chosen because they cover a range of products, at varying price levels, which offer scope for savings while enabling all real clinical needs to be met.
The third measure introduced by the Government in their attempts to contain costs is the indicative prescribing scheme which guides doctors in their prescribing decisions. I was very interested in the view of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that we have not yet made full use of that scheme. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and her Ministers will wish to take away those thoughts and capitalise on them.
The Government have also given GP fundholders real incentives to prescribe economically. That initiative has been particularly successful, for GP fundholders' prescribing costs are not only 10 per cent. lower than those of their non-fundholding colleagues but are rising more slowly. There are lessons there for other GPs. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Minister for Health has recently announced an initiative to extend those benefits to all non-fundholding practices.
A major but indirect tool in containing costs has been the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme, which was highlighted by a number of noble Lords this afternoon, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington. I suspect that he knows more about the scheme than most of us as I believe that he was one of the architects of the original scheme. It is a voluntary agreement which is negotiated between the department and the pharmaceutical industry. The scheme regulates the profits which companies make from the sale of drugs to the NHS and has proved to be more successful than the alternative schemes adopted by our European neighbours. However, the present scheme, agreed in 1986, is now being renegotiated with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, as your Lordships are aware. A fair price for the NHS and a fair profit for the industry underpin the scheme.
The Government take care not to intervene between doctor and patient, but they have a duty to collect data and to use them to assess effective treatments. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, expressed concern that effectiveness is not sufficiently taken into consideration. The Government are aware of that. Therefore, we have recently established the Medicines Resource Centre which issues monthly bulletins to all GPs on the comparative effectiveness of competing drugs. We also fund the distribution of the drugs and therapeutics bulletin which is published by the Consumer's Association.
Those are some of the national initiatives. Locally we have encouraged family health service authorities to appoint medical advisers, and in many cases pharmacists, who work directly with GPs giving them professional advice as to the most effective drugs available.
I should like to pick up a few other points raised by noble Lords. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, raised the question of information to GPs

381
concerning the side effects of drugs. The Government sponsor a number of publications, some of which I have just mentioned, which are provided free to GPs and offer independent guidance about the drugs available. The most respected of these is the British National Formulary, which I understand is the GP's bible. That publication is updated every six months and contains the indications for each drug as well as its known side effects and interactions. Contained at the back of the publication is the adverse reaction card, which has already been mentioned this afternoon. A GP fills in a card when a patient notifies a side effect. The GP then sends the card directly to the Committee on the Safety of Medicines.
The noble and learned Lord also asked how the research costs of low selling drugs can be met. Under the PPRS scheme the Government provide substantial help with the research and development costs of drug companies. It is for the companies to decide where to spend that money. We do not interfere in those decisions. That must be a matter for the commercial judgment of the company. Further, in Britain companies have the freedom to set an appropriate price for a new drug.
My noble friend Lord Lyell raised the question of the need for companies to bring new products on to the market quickly. We fully agree that new products should be placed on the market quickly and I am happy to tell your Lordships that we have now made the Medicines Control Agency the swiftest licensing authority in the world. Unlike some European countries, there is no impediment of direct price control by the Government in this country.
I share the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that the contributions of my noble friend Lord Colwyn and the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, were full of interest and were challenging to some of our mainstream thinking. Perhaps I may do a little thinking on the subject and come back to the noble Lords in due course.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for pointing out that the pharmaceutical industry has an enormous contribution to make in the five key Health of the Nation target areas.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, raised the effects of the power of the drug industry and the monoculture which results. Although the noble Earl's speech was full of interest, I do not believe that he did full justice to the industry. Many of its products have made a huge difference to the quality of life of many patients. My noble friend Lord Auckland gave just one example, of mastoiditis, which is rarely seen nowadays because of the advent of antibiotics. The noble Baroness pointed out that drugs can not only be life saving but good value for money.
In conclusion, as my noble friends Lord Hacking and Lord Lyell, pointed out, the pharmaceutical industry creates great wealth for Britain. In 1991 there was a positive trade balance of almost £1.2 billion. The UK pharmaceutical industry exported over £2.5 billion. Four of the top 10 best-selling drugs in the
382
world were researched in Britain. The industry employs more than 87,000 people in the UK. That is an achievement which we should all applaud.
Efficient and effective use of resources is an integral part of our commitment to meeting the needs of patients. It is a reflection of our concern for them. Every pound and penny which is wasted or misspent is a loss to the health service, to the country and so to the patient. We must ensure that when the NHS buys drugs it buys wisely, when it prescribes it does so effectively and when dispensing it does so efficiently.
Medical science, the pharmaceutical industry, people's expectations, doctor's practices and NHS management methods are constantly moving forward and changing. This Government have clearly demonstrated their ability and willingness to change and adapt to new circumstances. The role of pharmaceuticals, although central in the delivery of health care, will also change, but it is clear that the NHS needs the industry, the industry needs the NHS and patients need them both.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will be kind enough to allow me to intervene. We have six or seven minutes left.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hacking: My Lords, we have six or seven minutes to go and I rise on a point of correction. I am entitled to do so. My noble friend referred to my having spoken of the escalation in the cost of drugs. I spoke not of the escalation in the cost of drugs but of the escalation in total national health costs. The only reference I made to increased drugs costs was when I referred to a 66 per cent. increase in a drugs' costs which was set against a 70 per cent. saving for that drug in total health costs. This is an important area of co-operation and that is why I am asking my noble friend whether the Government will co-operate with the pharmaceutical industry in relation to drugs which save National Health Service costs.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say this. I apologise to my noble friend if I misunderstood him. However, I believe that both the cost of drugs as well as expenditure on the National Health Service are escalating at a very alarming rate.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I believe that the whole House unanimously would wish me first to thank the Minister for a stimulating and wide-ranging reply. I wish to thank everyone who has taken part in the debate and contributed substantially to the topic. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Disability (Grants) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Merchant Navy
5.30 p.m.
Lord Greenway Lord Greenway rose to call attention to the problems facing the Merchant Navy; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. In so doing I should like to say how much I welcome the opportunity to bring to the attention of your Lordships the present state of our Merchant Navy, and to outline some of the problems affecting it. I cannot stress too strongly how vitally important it is for us—a great trading nation and still an island race despite the sometime onset of the Channel Tunnel—to see that we maintain a viable and efficient merchant fleet and thereby a strong voice in international shipping circles.
To enable the current position to be fully understood, it is necessary to go back a little into history. Thanks to the industrial revolution, we gained a head start over the rest of the world and the emergence of steam as a means of compulsion of ships, coupled with plentiful supplies of the best Welsh coal, enabled us to reinforce our dominance in both shipbuilding and shipping and so carry our manufactured goods efficiently to all corners of the world.
However, as other nations began to industrialise, so they too acquired merchant fleets and began to provide competition. Twice the German fleet became the strongest competitor; and twice, as a result of war, it was reduced to virtually nothing. The same can be said of the Japanese fleet during the last war. But both those fleets were rebuilt with great rapidity after 1950 when restrictions were lifted.
We on the allied side also suffered grievous losses which eventually had to be replaced at greatly increased cost. To tide us over in the interim, we employed many of the wartime-built standard ships which had become surplus. Eventually those and many others found their way into the hands of new and somewhat less scrupulous owners. Many of them were to be traded successfully for about 20 years, generally to the detriment of the traditional shipping nations which were beginning to be faced with greatly increased managing costs due to the increasing strength of the unions.
The position was not helped by the emergence of inefficient third world fleets nor by the rapid build up of the Soviet and Comecon merchant fleets from the early 1960s. More recently the Eastern countries have been in the ascendency, and their newly-built fleets are highly efficient and competitive. In order to combat the increasing costs, the Americans were the first to adopt flags of convenience in a big way. Flags of convenience are not new in the shipping world. They have been used for many years. Over the succeeding years more and more shipowners from other nations,
384
including some of our own who have done so reluctantly, have been forced to follow suit in order to compete commercially and to remain in business.
Not all have survived, however. Whether it came about by their own failure to cope with changing circumstances, whether there was not enough Government intervention, or whether some simply saw the writing on the wall and got out while the going was good, the list of UK shipping companies which have now left the business of owning and running ships, is a long one. That list is still growing and will continue to grow unless something is done about it.
What then is the position today? Let me take a global view to start with. World trade is currently rising at about 4 per cent. a year and is expected to increase by at least 50 per cent. by the year 2005, subject to the current GATT problems being sorted out. With regard to world shipping—let us not forget that shipping is and always has been a truly international business—the whole world fleet is ageing. Sooner or later it will have to be replaced. Current shipyard capacity is not large enough to cope with the number of ships that will be needed.
Crewing is also becoming a very serious problem with some estimates putting the shortfall at about 750,000 by the year 2000. As the flag fleets of the more responsible nations have declined, so a lot more shipping has passed into the hands of entrepreneurial owners who make full use of dubious registries which have mushroomed as a result. They employ, often in atrocious conditions, the cheapest crews available, many of whom have little or no formal training and whose safety record is abysmal, to say the least.
Thanks to one or two recently well-publicised disasters, safety is now the buzz word with regard to shipping. Governments, international bodies, learned societies, the media and the general public are all falling over themselves to have their say. This is not a debate about safety per se and I shall touch on the subject only briefly. If my memory serves me right, the last shipping debate in this House concerned the excellent report of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I am glad to see him in his place. His report was on shipping safety, as noble Lords will remember. I am delighted that the noble and gallant Lord will speak. I am sure that he will have some valuable comments to make.
We also have the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, looking into shipping pollution at the moment as a result of the "Braer" incident. The noble and learned Lord understands the sea. I have great faith in his ability quickly to see through some of the more bizarre schemes being put forward. I am sure that he will produce a worthwhile report which I suspect will have more than a little to say on the subject of manning standards which are crucial to the whole question.
Before leaving safety, I wish to mention the role of the IMO. A lot of people complain about the IMO, saying that it is too ponderous and has no teeth to enforce its conventions. I do not hold that view. Because of its truly international nature, shipping can only be directed by one international body such as the IMO, backed up by responsible state enforcement.

385
The recent decision of the EC—which does not have a great record so far as concerns shipping—to put pressure on member states to ratify IMO conventions in the wake of the "Braer" incident, and the accident off Corunna, and to strengthen port state control is a mature one and a great step forward. Someone at least has learned something from the poorly thought out, knee-jerk reaction of the US in the shape of the Oil Pollution Act 1990 following the "Exxon Valdez" casualty.
I have said quite enough in the general context. I now turn to the nub of my Motion, our own Merchant Navy—"our dear Merchant Navy" as Churchill so memorably referred to it after its great contribution during the last war.
The bald fact today is that our British flagged merchant fleet—those ships which actually fly the Red Ensign—has contracted from a pre-eminent position in 1939 with a quarter of the world's shipping to a mere 33rd position today with a bare 0.5 per cent. share. To the layman that must seem like a total disaster. But if one includes British-owned ships under other flags we still own some 2 per cent. of the world shipping. That puts us in 11th position. Therefore the overall position is not quite as bad as is sometimes made out.
On top of that our directly owned fleet, lean though it may be, is both efficient and competitive. It is acknowledged to be one of the safest in the world. In P&O it includes one of the world's major container and cruise shipowners, and in Shell, the world leader in the carriage of liquefied natural gas. We are pre-eminent in ferry operations. Even today our largest ferry ever, P&O European Ferries' "Pride of Bilbao", recently acquired from a Finnish owner, is making her maiden voyage from Portsmouth to Bilbao. Blue Star Line owns the world's third largest reefer fleet. We have a modern and competitive coastal fleet and a valuable offshore support fleet.
However, where we have lost out is in the bulk and tanker sectors. Also, let us not forget the fishing fleet which, although not part of our trading fleet, is still a valuable part of the merchant marine industry. Its plight has been highlighted by recent demonstrations and, irrespective of recent legislation and conservation measures, it has fallen behind our EC neighbours in both age and competitiveness, due to lack of investment. There is a real danger that as a result of the EC's decision on the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, much of it could fall into the hands of foreign companies, to the detriment of British fishermen and their highly dependent communities.
To return to our trading fleet, we may be down and we will have to learn to live with the fact that we will never again reach the dizzy heights of the past, but we are far from being out. British shipping still contributes something over £2 billion net a year to the economy in invisible earnings—not a patch on what it used to be, but still a tidy sum and one that, with a modest investment, could be increased fairly quickly.
In addition, there is a whole range of affiliated or dependent activities that have grown up on the back of our shipping business. Only days ago, I saw that it was
386
announced that Gearbulk, a large Norwegian company operating in specialised bulk tonnage, is moving its operational headquarters to London which is still regarded as the international centre of the shipping world. We have in the City the Baltic Exchange, the leading sale and purchase market in the world. It is also big in the charter business and is now happily back in part of its own building after the terrible bomb last year. I believe and I am happy to say that it is doing well at the moment. It is also working on plans for a new open register to attract more shipping to London.
We also have Lloyd's and the insurance market which provide more than half the world's marine insurance cover. We have the P & I Clubs, the protection and indemnity clubs, which are becoming increasingly involved in the safety argument. We also have Lloyd's Register of Shipping, arguably the best and certainly the largest classification society in the world. London is also the world leader when it comes to maritime law, with a large number of the international arbitration cases being heard here. All those activities contribute another £1.5 billion net to our balance of payments. So much depends on shipping, much depends on our own shipping and if, God forbid, we were to lose our own flag fleet, how then could we maintain our influence both at IMO and in the other shipping councils of the world?
Now, what are we going to do about it? First, fleet renewal: I have already mentioned that the world fleet is ageing. Our own fleet is no exception and on average it is about 16 years old. If one takes 20 years as the generally accepted economical working life of a ship, noble Lords can see that fleet renewal cannot be put off much longer, certainly not if we are to maximise any future benefit from increased world trade.
Just in passing, it is perhaps interesting to note that we now carry on average about 18 per cent. of our foreign trade in UK registered ships, compared with about 35 per cent. in 1980. The current figure for the US flagged ships is about the same, but South Korea carries over 50 per cent. in its own ships and Japan about 45 per cent.
Current freight rate levels which, through over-tonnaging and the current recession, have in many cases sunk to all-time lows, are simply not sufficient to enable some of our shipping companies to finance replacement tonnage. That is a problem which is common to us all and most other countries have adopted measures to support their shipping industries to the extent that, in Europe, our own fleet, which has not enjoyed similar support from the Government, is pushed from being the second cheapest flag, after Italy, to being the most expensive. That cannot be right and ways must be found to reduce our costs. If only we could do that, we could be on to a real winner.
Our Treasury-led Government are always quibbling about money, but there comes a time when they are forced to come up with something to avert disaster. For example, they managed to find £700 million the other day to help the coal industry. Our shipping industry is nowhere near disaster, but it needs sufficient help in the short term to tide it over this particular hump. I have with me a letter from one

387
of our more enterprising shipping people who is always looking at new ideas. He says that venture capital is almost non-existent in the UK, in notable contrast to other North European sources. He goes on to say that the 3Is Shipping Finance Corporation, set up to help British shipping, is hardly used because it demands too high a level of guarantee. We all know that HMG hold the admirable ideal of bringing other countries up to our own standards, but that could take for ever and British shipping cannot wait that long. Surely it is no more than prudent husbandry to invest some money in a core industry that will ultimately benefit the future prosperity of our country. What is wrong with that?
The second thing that needs to be done is to ensure that we have an adequate supply of properly-trained seafarers in the future. That brings me to the question of education and training. With the decline in the UK-registered fleet and greater use being made of foreign crews by those flagging out, the number of UK seafarers has also declined dramatically. There are now only a third of what there were 10 years ago and the average age of our officers is something over 40. In addition, due in the main to our shipping companies no longer being able to afford to employ them, junior officers are now in short supply. As a direct result, the number of colleges specialising in training seafarers has declined from 13 to only four. One of those, Southampton, is now just a department of another college, and its continued existence is open to question. We have only some 300 new entry cadets in the present academic year, compared with about 2,500 in 1975. Studies show that we need at least 1,000 fully-trained seafarers a year to feed our marine-related professions and industries, such as the ones I have mentioned in the City and also jobs such as coastguards, harbour masters and the like.
The whole infrastructure relating to merchant navy entry is under threat. I have already mentioned the vital importance of properly trained crews in terms of safety. How then are we to continue to train officers and ratings of sufficient calibre to meet our future needs, both in terms of manning our own ships and ultimately supplying the host of marine-related industries and organisations that have always relied on that source? The question is a vexed one and there is no easy answer. For example, if we were to train more people—and evidence suggests that there are still plenty of young men and a number of young women who are keen to go to sea—we would not have enough vacancies at sea to accommodate them. That is certainly true of flagged-out ships where, in many cases, only the senior officers are British. The newly-trained UK cadets surplus to our own flag requirements would therefore have nowhere to go to get senior officer experience. So how are they to bridge the gap between cadet and senior officer?
It is a worrying situation and one of which I hope the Government will take careful stock. There must be an answer and there usually is, if one looks hard enough. An adequate supply of properly trained seafarers is imperative if our good name and safety record are to be maintained in the future. That applies just as much to British-owned shipping as it does to
388
British-registered shipping. Besides which, British officers have traditionally always been sought after for their experience by other flags.
I wish briefly to mention the defence aspect. It is no secret that for a long time our senior officers have been greatly concerned about the decline of our merchant fleet. Levels have now fallen below those required to support the overseas deployment of troops in any great number and we could no longer mount a Falklands-type campaign. The Government take the view that commercial charters of foreign ships will fill any gaps, as indeed happened in the Gulf conflict. What would have been the position then if, for example, we had had some hostile foreign submarines operating in the Gulf? I think it would have been very much more difficult to find foreign ships to charter in order to carry our equipment out to the hostile area.
Any further manning shortages—manning is another problem which affects the situation—would also impact heavily on the fleet auxiliary, which is run by merchant seamen. The placing into reserve of its amphibious workhorses, the landing ships, poses a serious question as to their future availability—not through material deficiency, but because there may be no seamen left to man them when they subsequently need to be reactivated.
National emergencies are seldom foreseen and tend to catch us unawares. It is difficult to see how a policy of employing foreign shipping for military purposes accords with our national interest, especially if under certain circumstances it may rapidly become unavailable. That is another very good reason for maintaining an adequate British-owned and crewed merchant fleet.
I have tried to give an overview of the dilemma facing our Merchant Navy. What is past is past, and there is no use crying about it. We must be positive about our shipping. It is just as important as road, rail, or air, and possibly more so. We have a sound fleet base on which to build and we are still highly regarded worldwide in terms of skilled manpower. Let us all, including the Government—who have a most important role to play—take a sensible commercial decision now before it is too late to invest in the future of our Merchant Navy. Such a decision will repay us handsomely in the years to come. I look forward very much to hearing what other noble Lords have to say, and indeed what the Minister has to say. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, we have heard a most impressive speech from the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, in introducing the debate. We expected nothing else. We recognise his deep knowledge of the Merchant Navy, knowledge acquired over many years. We are very grateful to him for allowing us to discuss this important subject.
I speak with no such knowledge. I own no ships. I manage no shipping company. I never even served in the Merchant Navy. All my sea time—a very long time ago now—was in the Grey Funnel Line, the Royal Navy. But I have a total certainty of belief that in this country we depend on the sea. We are an island, for

389
heaven's sake—perhaps I should say a group of islands. We are totally incapable of maintaining anything like a reasonable standard of living by turning our backs on the ocean and trying to exist on what we have here. How many times have we heard the Government urge us—any government, not just this one—to expand our trade overseas, to export more. They are quite right. But virtually all the trade that they want us to conduct goes by sea.
Of course, people do not go by sea any more. Businessmen seeking contracts, salesmen trying to find markets, even holiday-makers go by air. The goods do not—or at least precious few of them do. One can take a packet of diamonds in an aeroplane, but if one tries to export a power station to China it goes by ship, as I believe I am right in saying do over 90 per cent. of all our imports and exports.
One would have thought that it would be seen as an advantage that a high proportion of all that trade should be carried in British ships. It would help the balance of payments, would it not, if we paid British companies to do the work rather than foreign ones? It would help the employment situation if more British seamen were employed at sea rather than foreign ones. In the long run it might even help the Exchequer, which gets precious little benefit out of enterprises that are in trouble.
But the awful truth is that that does not happen. The reverse is happening. Year after year, in a steady and infinitely depressing progression, the number of ships flying the Red Ensign goes down and down. With it, the number of British seafarers goes down and down.
I am no statistician, but I believe that I am right in saying that in the past seven years the number of UK-registered ships, those flying the Red Ensign, has halved and the number of seafarers employed has very nearly halved. To my mind that is a terrifying figure.
I use the word "terrifying" advisedly. There is another aspect to the question apart from the economic one which the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, touched upon. Last summer, the Defence Minister, Mr. Hamilton, said in a letter:
"The importance of merchant shipping for re-inforcement in an emergency is unlikely to diminish. A healthy British merchant shipping industry is good for defence and we would prefer to have a large pool of British flagged and British crewed vessels to choose from during crisis or war".
He is perfectly right. The Merchant Navy has always been the fourth arm of defence.
I remember nearly 10 years ago when I was chairman of the Select Committee for Defence in another place that we examined Ministers and officials year after year about the annual defence White Paper. We asked whether they were satisfied that the Merchant Navy was large enough to fill the role that they would need it to fill in an emergency. Year after year they said, "Yes, just about". Although we had our doubts, we had no alternative but to believe them. They were wrong, of course. Both the Falklands War and the Gulf War have shown that they were wrong.
390
But the situation is now worse than it was. Only two years ago our late and deeply lamented colleague, Lord Fieldhouse, said, in what I believe was the only speech he made in this House:
"The number of British manned ships sailing under the British flag and available for defence purposes is now at a critical level and may already be too few. We ignore this situation at our peril".
If the number was too few then when the noble Lord made his point, it is for sure too low now. If what I have been told is correct, two years ago there were some 480 ships in the category that he described. Now there are only 395. That is a reduction of nearly one-fifth. That is why I used the word "terrifying".
We have to consider how that situation has come about. One thing is certain. It is not because British seamen are not able to compete. Our seamen are the finest one can find anywhere in the world. Their training is first-class. Seamanship is bred into us; we have always been good seamen. As I said before, we have had to be because we are an island race. Nor do I believe that the shipping companies are no good. Like everyone else, in recent years they have had to look to their efficiency. I seem to remember a report a while back—one subscribed to by the Government—which described them, in a phrase which I do not like but one that is in current use, as "leaner and fitter". We all know what it means. I believe that the reason is that we are not operating—I am sorry but I have to use another horrid current phrase—on a level playing field.
I know that for years the Government, in conference after conference and discussion after discussion, in every forum they could find, have tried to persuade other countries to adopt a common standard as regards subsidies (hidden or overt), taxation and imposts of all kinds, training and safety. They are quite right. I commend them for their efforts. I urge them to go on doing that and I hope very much that they will be successful. But, perhaps with the exception of safety—about which the noble and gallant Lord knows much more than I do—they are not being successful.
I do not know what other countries say at those great meetings but I know what they do. They continue to treat their merchant fleets a great deal better than we do. Some of them give subsidies. Some—many perhaps—treat them far better in taxation matters. Some do not bother about training. How else can it be that our Merchant Navy is so small while others are so large?
Let us look at what is happening. We all know about Liberia. But Cyprus has a merchant fleet that has three times as many ships as we have. Malta has twice as many ships as we have. Malta is a splendid place and I am sure that it has excellent seamen. However the situation is ridiculous. I beg the Government to do more than they are doing.
What precisely the Government should do I am not confident to advise. I think it is largely fiscal. As I said, I do not run a shipping company or serve in a merchant fleet. But there are plenty of people who do and who know what they are talking about. I know how keen the Government are about consultation. Then let them consult. By that I do not mean that they

391
should say, "We are open to hearing what you have to say"; I mean that the Government should go to the people who are actively engaged day by day in the business and say to them, "We know there is a problem. Let us sit down together and see how we can solve it".
Let the Government listen and take action. If they do not do so, my fear is that the steady reduction in our Merchant Navy will continue. If it does, within measurable time we shall have virtually no merchant fleet at all. That would be one of the greatest tragedies that could afflict this nation.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for raising this subject today. He believes, as I do, that a large and prosperous UK shipping fleet is vital to the economy of this country. I wish to thank him for a most comprehensive and interesting review of the position as it applies today. Unless one has some understanding of the background to these problems, it is difficult to see how we should proceed. He has not left me with a great deal to say. I do not wish to repeat the arguments, so I shall confine my remarks to a few separate matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, spoke about the benefits which derive from our merchant marine. Those benefits need emphasising. They are quite apart from the direct benefit that we receive from our balance of trade and direct or even indirect employment. What is perhaps not fully understood is the effect that marine trained officers, both engineers and deck officers, have on different aspects of our industrial structure. For instance, engineering insurance companies employ almost entirely engineers with marine certificates to carry out industrial inspections. That is because marine training covers a broader range of skills and requirements than almost any other industry.
The noble Lord referred to the City of London and the services which lead the world in every respect. It is important that the core business for the London services will be provided by British shipowners. However, that is rapidly decreasing. Moreover, whether it is the ship brokers, Lloyd's Register or Lloyd's Insurance, throughout that complex of businesses there are marine trained people with experience who have come ashore. Such people are no longer being trained. They are no longer able to come ashore. There are not enough of them. There is a genuine concern that the City of London expertise cannot stand on its own without a substantial and prosperous British marine industry. Such a situation would be disastrous. The effect would be that the UK would virtually lose any influence that it has. It would lose the £1.5 billion net revenue received from the marine services provided by the City of London.
I believe that we have already gone too far down the road to sustain that group of industries because the officers and trained people no longer come ashore. That can be seen from the fact that in 1981 the average age of crews' officers on ships was in the range 25 to 28 years. The peak of that age profile in 10 years has
392
gone up to age 43. That means that young men are not entering the field and therefore they cannot go ashore to feed the service industries as they would formerly have done. Unless we can build up our fleet to a higher level than 3.5 million tonnes, we shall not have the men passing through the industry.
It might be thought that, although there are only 3.5 million tonnes under the UK registry, British owned ships under other registries, which amount to about 13 million tonnes, could provide the crews and trained men. But that is not so. One reason for flagging out is to employ cheaper crews. It is interesting to note that, whereas we employ approximately 15,000 men in our own flagged ships, amounting to 3.5 million tonnes, in the flagged out ships, which amount to 10 million tonnes, we employ only 6,500 men, with a ratio of 6.5 to 1 between British seamen employed on flagged out ships and our UK flagged ships.
My next theme is freight rates and safety, which are linked. No shipper anywhere in the world is making large profits, for the simple reason that the freight rates have been very low for about 10 years now. Last year the freight rates for both dry and wet cargoes were at a level which only just covered the direct operating costs for ships. That means that a new ship could not recover any depreciation or management administration costs. The levels of last year would need to rise between two and three times before they would support the costs of a new ship. That is an appalling situation.
There are many reasons for that. For instance, there has been a substantial decline in the Japanese economy in recent years. But probably the most important single reason is that it has been possible to operate old, inefficient and unsafe ships. The scrap price for steel has been very low. It has been possible for tenth level—not even third level —operators to buy up wrecked ships, man them in a kind of way and operate them at a profit. If the ship should sink after two or three voyages, that suits them quite well. It is worth pointing out that 44 large ships, tankers or bulk carriers have sunk in the past three years with the loss of 300 lives. That kind of statistic does not appear to be published.
We are allowing ships of that type to trade into our ports. Why do we do it? We do not seem to bother. I suggest that the UK should use its utmost endeavours to ensure that the IMO regulations for safe ship operation are pushed forward as quickly as possible. In February of this year the EC issued a draft directive which goes some way in that direction. But it needs urgent action, not only for safety but also, if the ships can be banned from all European ports, the rates would rise and that would help the whole shipping world.
There are obviously all sorts of measures that can be taken to improve the situation for British operators. But in the first instance it is up to the Government to take some pump-priming action to help the shipowners. One such action must be to permit free depreciation so that they can write off the ships whenever they have marginal profits. There are many other different inducements—that is perhaps the

393
wrong word. They need assistance to put them on the level playing field—a phrase the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, does not like.
It is important in that all our continental, European and EC partners in one way or another favour ship operation in a way that we do not. Why should we be at a disadvantage compared with our EC neighbours? I have never understood why during the past 20 years successive governments have not recognised the disadvantage under which our ships operate and have not done something about it. I am now more hopeful. Only last week the Prime Minister said that he intended to encourage export and employment. In helping shipowners he will do both.
On the assumption that something can be done to help British shipowners, the next thing that they will want to do is build new ships. The average age of the UK fleet is 16 years, which is a horrifying figure when one thinks that 20 years is considered to be the maximum economic life of a merchant ship.
I hope that when a British shipowner requires a new ship he will wish to build it in the UK. However, he will at once find that he is at a considerable disadvantage. A shipowner investigating the order for a new ship will discuss it with the ship financing department of the Department of Trade and Industry, where he can obtain 80 per cent. of the price of a ship in terms of a soft loan. But in order to secure that loan the department will accept only 30 per cent. of the price of the ship as security; the balance must be found by the shipowner. That means that the owner must find security for 70 per cent. of the price of the ship. In Germany they allow 50 per cent. In Denmark they will permit 60 per cent. of the price to be accepted as security and it is possible to cover another 20 per cent.—that is, up to 80 per cent.—by insurance, which means that the shipowner has only to provide the balance of 20 per cent. from security in some way or another. That is a substantial disadvantage to British shipbuilders and shipowners wishing to place orders in the UK.
I know that representations have been made over many months with the respective departments but so far no action has been taken. I hope that the Minister in his reply will be able to give some assistance on that point
6.14 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for initiating this important debate. Britain has a long history as a maritime nation—this sceptred isle set in a silver sea; how could we be otherwise?
During the Second World War, as an aeronautical engineer, I worked on developing high-speed fighter aircraft which played a vital role in helping to win the war. But in those rationed days we were also deeply aware that our food and supplies depended on the courage and endurance of our Merchant Navy officers and men and the existence of a powerful fleet of ships.
As has been said this afternoon, in 1939 we had 25 per cent. of the world tonnage in our ships and led the world. Now we own 2 per cent. of the world fleet—a
394
shadow of our former selves. Where would we be if we had to depend again on our merchant fleet? However, even if we put aside the fear of global conflict, a strong Merchant Navy is still vital to our prosperity as a country—a factor which must be uppermost in our minds as we climb out of our present recession.
Shipping carries over 90 per cent. of all British imports and exports and 40 per cent. of all trade between European countries. In the future we must carry our fair share of that trade in our own ships, employing our own seafarers. We must build for the future on our strong maritime tradition. Properly encouraged, our ship-building and ship-owning industry can recover much of its position in the world. Our safety record is second to none.
As a member of the Select Committee on Marine Safety in your Lordships' House we were aware of the need to safeguard our shores against environmental disasters. Since then the "Braer" has gone ashore in the Shetlands and the "Exxon Valdez" is still fresh in our minds. They were not British ships.
Efforts must be made internationally to bring home to ship-owners and operators their responsibility for ship safety as our House of Lords' committee, under the chairmanship of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, recommended. As we stated, in the long term we need to move towards a safety case being made for every ship in operation throughout its working life, with which the Government expressed considerable sympathy. The Government are also, on the "polluter pays" principle, pressing in Europe for higher limits of compensation on an international basis for restoration after an environmental disaster, and during our presidency secured the adoption of a directive requiring the reporting of information about carriage of dangerous goods by sea.
Transport by sea is generally environmentally friendly. But strict control is necessary of the cowboy ship-owners operating rust buckets long past their sell-by dates and operated by poorly trained crews who sometimes do not understand each other's languages. Those are the recipes for disaster, which, by contrast, do not occur in general with British ships because of their high safety emphasis.
As we also recommended in our report, stricter control needs to be exercised through IMO and Europe in particular where countries are known to have ineffective flag state controls and classification societies. The Paris Memorandum on Port State Control is already putting that into action, and also the inspection of all foreign-flagged ships entering Paris Memorandum ports for the first time, as is the practice in the USA.
All those kinds of controls will help Britain's Merchant Navy and gradually put out of action the cowboys. However, they emphasise the need for up-to-date ships incorporating in their design safe materials and new technology. Ships operate in a hostile environment, carrying cargoes that can be highly corrosive. I know that the Government are exercising pressure to improve international control in that direction through IMO, whose HQ is in London. I wish them every success.

395
British ships properly crewed by British officers and crews can continue to uphold our high safety record. But at present our fleet is 16 years old, as other noble Lords have said, and badly in need of renewal. I remind your Lordships that a ship's economic life is about 20 years. World trade is set to increase by around 4 per cent. a year so there are good markets available which, in British hands, can help reduce our present balance of payments deficit by increasing our world share both in carrying cargo safely and also by maintaining our share of invisible exports. In many ways the City of London is the centre of the maritime world and needs to remain there, continuing to make a substantial contribution of more than £1 billion to our balance of payments. Already the contribution of the shipping industry to our balance of payments is half what it was in 1980. We need to reverse that decline.
As other noble Lords have said, other governments in Europe and worldwide are far more generous to their merchant navies than we are, and that contributes to our declining share of the trade. I support the Government wholeheartedly in their efforts to eradicate national subsidies so that we have a truly free market in the future in shipping. We shall not, however, be in that happy situation for some time. Meanwhile, our shipping industry is anxious to regain its share of world trade. However, investment in ships is highly capital intensive and at present the industry needs fiscal incentives at least on a level playing field with the rest of Europe.
The Autumn Statement extended capital allowances from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. on a temporary basis, which is a help. I feel, however, that the industry needs a better kick-start than that if it is to regain something of its position over the next five years. I hope, in concert with my noble friend Lord Colnbrook, that the Government will meet the shipping industry leaders, whether ship-owners, ship-operators or shipbuilders, and discuss how we can regain something of our maritime position over the remainder of this century and that they will then take the necessary action. If Britain builds fleets and trains crews now we shall benefit financially from a greater share of world trade in the future. I am glad to hear that the Government meet half the training costs of officer cadets, to the tune of £3.2 million this year.
If the trade invests in building new ships with fiscal incentives from the Government, the subsequent UK trade returns will ensure that the Government will also reap their financial rewards in future years, both from the resulting increase in trade and invisible exports and reduced unemployment. We shall also retain London's central position in the maritime world. That must be good sense for UK Ltd., and the alternative is unthinkable.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister can assure the House tonight that he will take positive steps, in co-operation with our shipping industry, as soon as possible so that the UK Merchant Navy can once again fly the flag and uphold its worldwide trading position with pride.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for having initiated the debate on this important subject. I propose to concentrate on one aspect only—safety. Unlike my dark blue noble and gallant colleagues—I am sorry to see that neither of them is here today—that is the only one I am qualified to speak about, and only because I was chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Science and Technology Committee, whose report on this subject was published in February of last year. I apologise to the House and to the noble Earl that I shall not be able to be here when he replies because, as he knows, I am due to speak on this very subject to the annual dinner of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects.
When our report was debated in the House on 1st June last year, the noble Earl, in replying, was about as non-committal as it is possible to be. It was therefore a very pleasant surprise, when the Government's official response was published six months later, to find that a revolution appeared to have taken place within the Marine Directorate of the Department of Transport. The Government accepted almost all our recommendations, although our principal and most fundamental one only with certain reservations. That recommendation was that, in the long term, the basic principle by which maritime safety was regulated should be changed from one based on prescriptive rules, as is now the case, to one based on a scientific assessment of risks and the production of a safety case, covering all aspects of ship safety.
We were therefore greatly encouraged when the Government's response accepted that the goal we had set was a desirable one, and announced that they would take the initiative in trying to move the International Maritime Organisation in that direction. However, they expressed reservations as to whether it would ever be practicable to apply a safety case regime to every individual ship or to dispense with prescriptive rules altogether. We were further greatly encouraged when the Department of Transport recently produced a paper for consideration by the Marine Safety Committee of the IMO, recommending that formal safety assessment—as it prefers to call it—be applied wherever possible, and that a special working group be set up to consider the matter. It is an excellent paper.
Having congratulated the Government warmly on the revolution in the department's thinking, I shall turn to two other aspects of their response to our report about which I shall not be so laudatory. The first is what the official response said in respect of the part that might be played by the European Community. We made one long-term and two short-term recommendations. Our paragraph 11.52 stated:
"For the long term, we envisage a European maritime safety organisation, with responsibilities and powers similar to those of the US Coast Guard, acting as the executive arm of a European Department of Transport, with the status of a Flag State".
Our short-term recommendations were that the European Community should make it mandatory for passenger ferries, oil tankers and ships carrying

397
hazardous cargoes, sailing in European Community waters, whatever their flag state, first, to make a safety case meeting primary safety goals agreed among the member states; and, secondly, to meet a standard of verifiable safety management systems, based on that already recommended by the IMO.
The Government's response was cool. They pointed out that progress could be delayed by trying to involve the Community as well as the IMO in discussion, and that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea only allowed coastal states to impose unilaterally,
"generally accepted international rules and standards such as those agreed at IMO".
That has not stopped the Government from disregarding that —I do not blame them for it—in respect of passenger ferries.
Everyone agrees that the most urgent need is to improve the enforcement by flag states of standards agreed in the IMO while at the same time trying to improve those standards. The first step is to get a standard agreed as recommended: the second, to get it accepted as mandatory; the third, to get individual flag states to translate that into their own maritime law; and finally to monitor their enforcement of that law. In a voluntary organisation of 132 members, many of whom have not the resources and some not the will to enforce their law, it is inevitably a slow and incomplete business.
Ninety-nine years ago, when our Merchant Shipping Act was passed, we held such a prominent position in international shipping that we could enforce our own standards. With a miserably small fleet today, we no longer carry that clout. Europe together, however, could carry a good deal. Over a quarter of the world's seaborne traffic passes through European ports. If Europe was to make IMO-recommended standards mandatory for ships entering its waters, ships which did not meet those standards would be excluded from a very important area of world trade, and Europe itself would not suffer, except perhaps in some rise in freight rates. Some people would like a rise in freight rates.
The objection often raised against such action is that it would encourage the emergence of different standards in different parts of the world to the detriment of the free movement of international shipping, and that it could lead to protectionism, as exists in the case of cabotage. The United States unilateral imposition of a double hull standard for tankers is quoted as an example of that. But there are those who approve of the US action and point out that it has helped the IMO to introduce a higher standard, arguing that concerted action by Europe could help the IMO in other ways.
Ideally, co-operation should include all European coastal states, but only the Community has the political machinery to concert action of this nature. One must hope that enlargement of the Community will eventually embrace them all. We do not want Europe to develop different standards from the IMO, but to use its weight to improve standards; to be prepared to make recommended ones mandatory in
398
advance of general agreement and to ensure that, at least in Europe, those standards are uniformly and strictly applied both to its own ships and to those calling at its ports and sailing through its waters.
The European Commission has recently submitted what it calls a "communication" to the Council of Ministers which proposes just that. The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, referred to that. It includes measures to improve port state control very similar to those we recommended, and the measures which, with one exception, the Government endorsed. It is called A Common Policy on Safe Seas and includes an action programme. The noble Earl has informed us that the Government welcome the main elements of the action programme. That is a welcome change from their cool response to similar proposals in our own report. I hope that they will give the Commission their active support and that when the noble Earl replies he will have something to say about it.
One of our important recommendations was that the Surveyor-General's Organisation of the Marine Directorate of the Department of Transport, should not only be substantially increased in strength, but also that it be reconstituted as an independent statutory civil maritime authority on the pattern of the Civil Aviation Authority and should eventually assume a wider responsibility for maritime safety.
There are two reasons for this. The first is that there are far too many different bodies in this country separately concerned with different aspects of maritime safety and there are elements of that safety which get lost between them. The other is the need for the regulating authority to be, and to be seen to be, truly independent. That is not the case now when the Marine Directorate is under the political control of the Department of Transport which sponsors the shipping industry. A large element of responsibility lies with the classification societies, which are the clients of the owner, and the results of their inspections, other than the issue of a class certificate, are confidential between them. This is in stark contrast to the position of the Civil Aviation Authority and even more so, of the Health and Safety Executive.
Not long after our debate last June the Government announced their intention to convert the Surveyor-General's Organisation into an executive agency. We welcomed that as a first step towards the independence we favoured, although we again emphasised the need to strengthen it. Our recommendation that it should be an independent statutory authority was rejected on the grounds that it would require primary legislation which would not be justified.
But since then the department has produced a consultation document called The Surveyor-General's Organisation: Options for the future of Ship Survey and Certification Work, which causes us grave concern. Far from strengthening the SGO and increasing its independence, it proposes that it, and its successor the Marine Safety Agency, should contract out its survey and certification work, either by licensing organisations to do it on its behalf, allowing shipowners to choose which one; or by contracting out blocks of survey and certification work to the same kinds of organisations. In either case, in practice, these

399
organisations would almost entirely be the classification societies. In the words of the consultation document itself:
"The role of the new agency would be confined largely to policy-making and inspection work".
We believe, and have told the noble Earl, that this is a move in the wrong direction, away from our recommendation for a single, strong ship safety authority independent not only from the Department of Transport, but also from the shipowning and insurance interests. It envisages a smaller organisation or agency, even more dependent than at present on the classification societies. That cannot improve confidence among seafarers, passengers or those at risk from marine pollution; and it is at variance with the welcome trend at the IMO towards tighter flag state control. There is wide support for our view on this matter and I beg the Minister to urge his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to drop this flawed proposal.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, one of the great advantages of the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, has drawn his Motion is that it gives us an opportunity to go wide and far. One is not restricted in any way to following a particular pattern. This evening I would like to discuss two points. The first is what I call the wider trade issue. My understanding is that about half of present orders on British shipyards and marine equipment suppliers is in fact provided by British shipping companies. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, pointed out, with a fleet coming towards the end of its economic life, there is prospect of renewal, if not perhaps of an expansion programme.
If that were to take place then the considerable advantage both to our own yards and to marine equipment suppliers would be enormous. Even where British shipping companies build abroad, about 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. by value of a merchant ship is in equipment. I understand that the marine equipment business turnover is about £2 million a year. Any renewal programme and increase in the build would have a direct effect on that; similarly therefore, there would be a direct effect on our manufacturing industry base and employment generally.
I believe it was my noble friend, Lord Colnbrook, but others also, who mentioned the manner in which the Government might give assistance. Some have called it pump priming; others have suggested that investment allowances could take a different form. Certainly they could take longer-term forms so that the investment programme could be cycled over a number of years and not be subjected to annual budgetary considerations. I urge my noble friend the Minister to prevail on the Treasury to look further at the replacements and assistance, without subsidy, which can be given to builders and to the shipping companies in the replacement of fleets.
I believe that it was my noble friend Lady Platt who drew particular attention to the other area in which the shipping industry makes a significant contribution. That is through the range of financial and other
400
services available in the City of London. Those services make a substantial contribution to invisible earnings, estimated at between £1 billion and £1.5 billion sterling each year. All those services rely to a greater or lesser extent on the business that British shipping companies provide for them in the domestic market and the flow-through of seafaring and shipping company expertise. As my noble friend Lady Platt said, the maintenance of London as the maritime world centre depends in the long term on the continuance of a substantial and profitable national British shipping presence. I do not believe that that should be put aside from our thinking, because any diminution in the influence which the City of London has in world affairs will have a detrimental effect on UK Limited.
There is of course no doubt that the merchant fleet both in the United Kingdom and globally, faces problems in adjusting to the current challenge of depressed markets, although, as we have heard, there has been a small growth of around 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. per annum. However, the merchant shipping industry is, I suggest, in a unique position in that, in its role as carrier of the world's trade, increases in costs can and do have disproportionate effects on trading conditions in other sectors. In recent months there have been some fairly large rate increases on the North Atlantic, for example, and this has undoubtedly caused lost markets in the USA, where exporters have not been able to pass on the increased costs and still remain competitive. On the other hand, although the shipping freight industry may be depressed, that has to be seen in conjunction with the wider world trade markets.
A possible cost increase which is causing the industry some concern is in the area of further environmental controls. I do not wish to diminish in any way the responsibility of Government—or of any industry for that matter—for the protection of the environment, but we have to be quite sure that further cost increases on that front will result in real and increased benefit to the environment. For example, there are numerous international agreements concerning pollution—primarily, I understand, the 1973 MARPOL agreement, to which the United Kingdom is a contracting party. Yet, despite this and consequent IMO updates, breaches of the agreement are commonplace. The point that I make is that proper enforcement of what is already in place is preferable to and will have a greater cost benefit than another layer of controls.
This brings me to the second of the two points that I wished to raise, on which the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, and the noble Lord and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, have spoken at some length. I refer to the role of the International Maritime Organisation. The IMO is only 36 or 37 years old. It is a respected body, operating under the auspices of the United Nations but, by any value judgment, it is, as an international body with global responsibilities, woefully short of funds. The 1993 budget of the organisation is only £15.7 million. It employs only about 300 staff, most of them in London. Although its standards are universally recognised as sensible and

401
effective, there is an inherent weakness in the organisation, in that it is just not able to enforce the standards which are universally agreed. I think that the IMO should be given a greater role in the areas of pollution control, safety crew training, manning, maintenance and so on.
If my noble friend the Minister is able to do so this evening, I ask him to explain a little the thinking behind the European Community's Communication, A Common Policy on Safe Seas. If not, perhaps he will write to me. The Communication is broadly acceptable and one cannot really take offence at what is set out in it. I noticed that at the March meeting in Brussels of the Council for Transport, at which my noble friend the Minister is shown as having been present, it was underlined that the Commission's Communication contained an "action programme" which included measures intended to support international organisations, enabling them to strengthen their primary role in international standard-setting. I take it that that refers specifically to the IMO, unless we are to expect the Community to impose yet another layer of control, with which comes confusion, cost and the inevitability of adopting the lowest common denominator. Does my noble friend agree that it is important that the standard-setting role of the IMO (in a global rather than a regional context) should be strengthened and regional rules avoided so far as possible?
There are expressed serious reservations concerning the suggestion that certain IMO resolutions should be translated into EC law, on the grounds that it is doubtful whether that is right in principle or will have any significant effect on safety. I raise a question—surely any changes considered necessary to existing international conventions and resolutions will best be pursued through amendments to those instruments which are already in place, most of which are controlled and were introduced by the IMO?
It seems, therefore, that in the general field of safety, the raising of standards and greater efficiency—and therefore of lower costs—control should reside with the IMO rather than the Community. I hope therefore that my noble friend the Minister will give tangible support to that organisation.
6.46 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for initiating this important debate today. I am reminded every time that I walk through the Royal Gallery here in the Palace of Westminster that we are a maritime nation. I am proud to have come from seafaring stock; my grandfather having been a captain in the Royal Navy. I must profess, however, that I have little or no knowledge of the Merchant Navy.
British shipping is recognised throughout the world as one of the world's leaders in many of its skills and for its efficiency. We were rightly reminded in January this year, by Early-Day Motion No. 1225 in another place, that if the present decline in the size of our
402
Merchant Navy was not reversed, then damage to the United Kingdom economy would occur and the defence of this country could well be threatened.
There is a very real danger of the British merchant fleet disappearing altogether if the present trends continue. Just to quote one statistic from the Chamber of Shipping, since December 1985, the number of employed seafarers has declined by 44 per cent. from 34,000 to just over 19,000 and by over 10 per cent. in the past 18 months up until the end of last year.
I would like to highlight just two basic problems. First, the British tax system and especially that relating to tax allowances does not encourage the owning of ships by British companies. As most noble Lords will be all too aware, British seamen are comparatively expensive to employ and so many ship operators even when they are under British flag have the minimum of Britons in the crew (master, mate and chief engineer) and have the rest of the crew from elsewhere in the world where labour is cheap. The tax problem is both technical and complex but is well-known. I would say that it was a disappointment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not bring forward any measures in his spring Budget to assist our merchant shipping in the future.
My second point, which relates to support vessels, is bad and getting worse. Many of the support vessels in the North Sea now have their rating from Cape Verde or, increasingly so, from the states of the former Soviet Union and Poland. Without in any way wishing to appear protectionist, it is hard to know how the Government can stop the commercial ship-owner from doing this. In a competitive international market, he—the ship-owner—must seek minimum cost and the British crew costs are 40 to 60 per cent. of the daily running cost of the ship. If it were possible to cut the wage bill in half it goes without saying that a great deal of money would be saved.
There is an area, which is within Government control, which would help to stem the decline of the Merchant fleet and could make some difference. The Royal Navy is planning to pay off its survey flotilla during the next few years, as indicated by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. Already two vessels are on charter from the commercial fleet for survey and this requirement will increase. There is an increasing survey requirement to establish traffic routing following the "Braer" accident in the Shetlands. There is also the chartered research requirement and the need for naval training vessels. I put it to the Minister that it would be easy and very helpful for all Government charters to include a clause demanding British and EC crews. I am certain that there is a snag to that. However, when one considers the large number of unemployed people in this country and the many youngsters who would jump at the opportunity to go to sea rather than wander aimlessly around our cities and towns one realises that the cost to the Government would be minimal and would involve between 20 and 24 people per ship.
Finally, I should like to touch on the question of defence. Historically our merchant shipping has been the nation's fourth arm of defence, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook. In the Falklands, the

403
Gulf and now in what was Yugoslavia the Ministry of Defence has been totally reliant on taking up shipping from trade to get equipment and stores, which are either too bulky or too heavy, to move by air to the theatre of operations. Without that means of transport our forces would not be capable of operating on land.
With the demise of the eastern bloc forces and the resulting reduction of NATO forces in Europe the future demand for shipping may well be increased rather than the opposite. As Captain Roskill so aptly put it in his history The War at Sea: The History of the Second World War:
"Every strategic purpose conceived by the Allies, and every operation which they planned and executed was conditioned and controlled—and too often restricted—by the difficulty of providing the necessary shipping".
That is a lesson from the last war which we ignore at our peril. We just cannot become totally reliant on foreign shipping to move our men and supplies to wherever we want them. In recent months senior defence staffs have repeatedly warned that the numbers of British ships and sailors are already at a crucial level and that that situation can no longer be ignored.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Fairfax of Cameron: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for initiating the debate on such an important economic subject. I have been involved in the shipping industry for the past 10 years mainly as a lawyer in the P&I sector. Therefore, I have some personal experience of the subject about which we are speaking today.
British merchant shipping is currently a major British industrial success story. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I repeat some of the statistics which have been mentioned. Each year the shipping industry contributes more than £2 billion to the balance of payments. That makes it the third largest contributor to invisible earnings. The British shipping sector employs about 20,000 people at sea and 30,000 people ashore. Many thousands of others are employed indirectly especially in maritime service-related industries. We have also heard that the industry provides about 50 per cent. of the orders for British yards.
Only yesterday I attended an interesting meeting of the Parliamentary Maritime Group on the subject of the shipyard industry in the United Kingdom. I heard what a slimmed-down and vibrant industry it is today. When we consider that the industry depends on the British fleet for 50 per cent. of its orders further strength is added to the argument about the employment consequences related to the decline of the fleet.
We have also heard about the industry's important relevance to national defence. I need say nothing further about that. Finally, the British merchant fleet and its former strength help to maintain London's focus as a world shipping centre. Reference was made to the IMO. It is no coincidence that the IMO is situated in London, which reflects our former pre-eminence in the sector.
404
But today the British Merchant Marine is not operating—I shall not use the phrase "on a level playing field" because I have thought of a maritime equivalent—in a level seaway. The shipping industries of most European nations—for instance, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands and so forth—are supported fiscally by their governments one way or another. The British merchant fleet is not supported to the same extent, which presents something of an irony. The noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, referred to the fact that we are an island race. There is a certain irony that being an island race, which historically has depended to such a large extent on its fleets, we provide less support to that fleet than any of our European competitor nations. Some support is forthcoming but not enough. If the Government say in reply that it is a question of levelling out the seaway so that in due course within the European framework the conditions applying in all countries are the same, that is fine but, as we have heard, that position has not yet been reached.
The result of all that is that shipping's contribution to the balance of payments is half what it was in 1980. British shipping companies, with some of the most famous names among them, are either flagging out, going off-shore or disappearing altogether. Our registered fleet is now only 33rd in the world. Somewhat incredulous references have been made to Malta and Cyprus. Those of us involved in the shipping industry will realise that they are growing registers because it is attractive for shipowners to register there. What a shame that there are now 32 nations ahead of us in registration.
If the current trends continues it is estimated that there will be no UK-registered fleet by the second half of the 1990s and no British-owned fleet by 2010. No doubt the Government will say that that will not happen, but that is a sobering thought. Among the disastrous effects which that will have on this country are the economic effect, the effect on the balance of payments, employment direct and indirect, London's status as the centre of world shipping and the important consequences for defence.
I have some personal experience of the shipping sector and wish to take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke. He spoke of the reliance of certain service industries on seamen, officers and crew of the British flag fleet coming ashore and subsequently working in those industries, which are of particular importance to London as the world centre of shipping and to UK industry generally. They include surveyors, average adjusters, Admiralty lawyers, P&I clubs and so on. Those industries, which dominate in London and make London pre-eminent in the field, are staffed mainly by former British seafarers who have come ashore and turned their practical experience of the sea into economic use in the invisible sector. That is of particular benefit to the economy of this country. If the predictions are correct and there is no British fleet in the future, those people will not be available and the industries will have to look elsewhere because they will not find in this country the necessary qualified staff upon whom they rely for their existence.

405
As I say, there must be a level European seaway for European shipping companies. The Government must support the British fleet in the way in which some of our competitor nations do. The Government may say that that is not within their policy framework. In that case, I should like to give a recent, rather poignant example, which indirectly concerned the shipping sector, in which the Government were prepared to listen to economic arguments in order for something not to happen. Ironically, it was directed by definition only at people who are not domiciled in this country.
About four years ago there was a change in the general tax status of individuals. Many of the major figures in world shipping, who physically and formally run their operations from this country, were threatened with taxation of their worldwide incomes. The threat was not only to shipowners specifically but they were one of the main categories affected. Those people mounted an extremely successful campaign and the Government changed their mind. Those fiscal changes would have affected in particular the Greek shipping community. The Government feared the withdrawal of that extremely significant economic force from London, because they represent billions of dollars in revenue passing through British banks. The Government caved in, and most people no longer face the threat of that taxation and they continue to reside in this country, with the consequent positive effect on the British economy. Therefore, if enough economic force is applied, progress can be made.
I hope that this debate has demonstrated that if the Government are prepared to spend £1 today, they may save or even make £2 or £3 tomorrow. If they are in the business of backing winners, I invite the Government, as all previous noble Lords have done, to look favourably upon the British maritime sector and adopt positive fiscal policies. In particular, I recommend the Chamber of Shipping's maritime enterprise zone proposals.
7.5 p.m.
Lord Amherst of Hackney: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for initiating this much-needed debate. Some 60 per cent. of the world's deep sea fishing is made up of tankers and bulk carriers. It is in that sector that the full extent of our maritime impotence becomes apparent.
If the conglomerates of Shell Tankers and P & O Bulk Shipping were to be taken out of the equation, because neither is a pure ship-owning company, and if foreign-owned subsidiaries are excluded, then the tonnage controlled by the United Kingdom in this sector is virtually non-existent. What we see today is the result of a laissez-faire policy or perhaps of no policy at all.
The Norwegian Government comprehend that shipping is not only affected by world economics but also by world politics. This is the incalculable human element that can send shipping markets, without warning, through the roof or through the floor.
In 1986, for instance, a 10-year old tanker of 250,000 tons deadweight would have been worth about 6 million dollars. Three years later that
406
self-same tanker would have sold in 1989 for some 25 million dollars and now, in 1993, that tanker would again be worth about 6 million dollars for scrap. In fact, in 1989, Shell Tankers decided to buy three such ships, built in 1977, from the Onassis group. Shell spent about 90 million dollars altogether because it thought that the ships built in the mid-1970s had far more steel in them than the current high-tensile constructed VLCCs. For its part the Onassis group happily pocketed the cash and waited for the shipyards to become less steamy because they had been becoming very steamy and, hence, Shell had moved. The other day the Onassis group took delivery of a brand new 300,000 ton double-hulled tanker. It will be extremely interesting to see who was right. I am afraid that it was probably the Onassis group.
Quite obviously for shipowners to survive in such a severely cyclical business, they have to be able either to carry out their fleet disposals and replacements at completely different times or be provided with a compensatory tax structure.
The Norwegian Government grant their owners tax roll-over relief for up to seven years. The United Kingdom shipowner, on the other hand, has nine months. The Norwegian controlled fleet amounts to 48,000,000 tons deadweight against the United Kingdom's 14,000,000—and I question whether some of that is genuinely UK-controlled. The Germans maintain a substantial and very modern fleet in gross tonnage terms by granting private investors in German shipping 150 per cent. tax allowances.
The Greek flag tonnage is generally owned by Liberian or Panamanian companies and thereby has not been fettered by tax considerations at all. The Greek controlled fleet now amounts to an incredible 104,000,000 tons deadweight and is second to none in size.
It is impossible to have a debate on the Merchant Navy without reference to the Baltic Exchange. This unique shipping exchange, of which I have been a number for nearly 25 years, currently brings in vital foreign earnings to the tune of 1.4 billion dollars per annum, but, how can those earnings be maintained and indeed enhanced? The inception of this exchange in 1744 was to service the Empire, the coal trades and the British merchant fleet. Now, the exchange has to live on its very considerable broking skills, but its world is becoming ever more competitive.
The Minister, on attending the re-opening of the Baltic Exchange, was quoted as winding up his speech by saying to the chairman:
"British Shipping has come out of this commendably well due to you and your staff".
One can only hope that the Minister observed that the chairman, in his speech, hastened to thank not the Chamber of Shipping, but the London Greek shipping community, and, to emphasise that without its support and co-operation it would have been almost impossible to continue. If we cannot support our Merchant Marine, then, let us at least ensure that our famous maritime institutions survive and prosper, by once again becoming a maritime nation of consequence.

407
Let us capitalise upon our maritime heritage, our expertise, our administrative capabilities, and our technical and teaching skills by setting up and managing the best open register in the world. Let us offer the respectability of full and proper British registration to any ships and crews of foreign-domiciled owners who will abide by our rigorous standards of crew training, offer certification, vessel inspection and pollution control. Let us provide a home for the 20 million tons or so deadweight that is likely to make an exodus from Hong Kong in 1997.
Offshore ownerships from within the EC and fleets from old iron curtain countries have already shown interest in the concept of such a prestigious and scrupulously run open register which would be void of the stigma of cheapness. A British open register would create jobs not just in the implementation of the register but in the setting up and running of nautical colleges and training establishments. It would bring offices to London and business to the Baltic Exchange, and all the other maritime services that we offer such as the Lloyd's insurance market, the Lloyd's Classification Society, the protection and indemnity clubs, the maritime law firms which have already been mentioned, the London Arbitrators' Association, the ship managers, marine consultants, maritime banks, ship repairers and perhaps even our shipbuilders.
Such a register would embody the United Kingdom's right to requisition in the event that the realm is threatened or, I suggest, if a United Nations directive so requires. At the time of the Falklands war in 1982, all 56 ships requisitioned were British-registered, but in the 1991 Gulf war only six of the ships used by the United Kingdom were British-registered. In fact some of the business went overseas through non-Baltic Exchange channels and is, I understand, currently subject to investigation. That surely underlines the wisdom of all government departments in future utilising the services of the government freight market representative who is employed by the Baltic Exchange.
The matter of a British open register has already been raised with the Minister. I can only urge that a positive decision be given at the earliest possible opportunity, regardless of whether or not the British registry is to be privatised. Let us, with the stroke of a pen and at little cost, at least put the great back into shipping in British.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I must first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, for butting in. My register was out of sync. I am glad that I was able to hear him because some of his ideas were extremely original. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to deal with them, but it will be interesting to hear his response to the idea of an open register and maintaining European standards, something which most of us would wish if it were possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, is well known to the House for having a great knowledge and understanding of shipping problems. During the passage of the Pilotage Bill we met each other a great
408
deal. It was interesting to hear him. I have great respect for him. He knows a great deal more about the subject than I do and possibly more than any other Member of the House.
Shipping debates in the House have always been good because they have brought out the breadth of knowledge and experience of many noble Lords, something which it is not easy to obtain in the other place. During the past two years there have been at least two excellent debates which I must admit to having consulted fully over the past few days. In February 1991 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, presented the report of the sub-committee of the European Communities Select Committee. On 1st June 1992 the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, presented the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on the safety aspects of ship design and technology. His speech today was good. He obviously still has a great interest in the subject. His main interest today was safety.
Those debates were of a high standard. They should have had a wide circulation among the public and not been limited to the shipping press and circles associated with shipping. People still have a vague feeling that we are a first-class maritime power. Someone said earlier that people do not travel as passengers on ships because they now travel by aeroplane. Also, our ports are much quieter. To some extent that is because many of our older ports cannot take the big ships. People living near the coast who used to see ships going backwards and forwards see fewer of them now, especially near our older ports.
The point that has emerged strongly during the debate is that our fleet is too old and its replacement is not keeping up with normal obsolescence. The average age of the fleet is 15 years. Given that the working life of a ship is 15 to 20 years, we shall hit a crisis in a few years. In the past 10 years the age of our fleet has dropped, as has been said, from being the 13th youngest in the world to being the 33rd youngest. The economy of running new tonnage as against older tonnage was pointed out clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Sterling of Plaistow, in one of the earlier debates. He also explained that the tax system in Britain was detrimental to British shipping as against that of the 15 countries looked at by the Government and industry joint working party. Some way must be found, either through taxation or building grants, to help modernise the fleet.
In one of the debates the Government said that some help would be coming to British shipping in the near future. We all believed that that would be in the Budget. I did not see anything about that in the Budget. Perhaps the Minister can point us to where the Budget will help British shipping. Perhaps the Minister would let the House know, either now or later, how the financial position of British shipping has changed and how financial aid to our industry compares with that of the most generous nations.
As well as the decline of our merchant fleet, we have a dire shortage of trained crews. Again, the figures were given by other noble Lords. Between 1980 and 1990 the number of officer cadets fell from 1,274 to 512. I understand that an effort was made to increase

409
that figure, and that was widely welcomed in the House at the time. But my latest information is that the figure for 1992–93 may be as low as 370.
The noble Lord, Lord Amherst, suggested that it might be possible to give the young unemployed an opportunity to join the merchant fleet. He is right. If the conditions were right I believe that a great many of them would be only too happy to do that and they might be very good.
Will the Minister say something about training, and whether the Government have plans to increase grants and inducements for cadets in training? It is suggested that by the turn of the century we shall have just over 5,000 officers and 5,00 ratings as against the 1980 figures of 28,000 officers and 23,000 ratings of British nationality and largely British-trained. Those are dreadful figures. Even allowing for the increase in technology, they make it difficult to believe that there is any way in which we as a nation can remain at even our present not too glorious position as a shipping nation.
In a debate in 1991 my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff quoted from the report of the review that was chaired jointly by the department and the shipping industry. He said:
"The Government is concerned to see an efficient entrepreneurial community fleet. It believes this will best be achieved in a free market, without subsidy".
That was in 1991. I do not know how many believed that process was possible then, but in the face of all the evidence of other countries and the new interpretations in the past three years of the unsubsidised market, I cannot believe that that quote will be greeted with much enthusiasm now.
It has been fairly clear from this debate that there is no future for the British industry in an unfettered market. I would like to see the building and running of ships being subjected not just to narrow market conditions but to a cost benefit analysis of the benefit to the nation of shipping. It is all very well for a single shipowner or a single shipyard to do well, but we need to assess the benefit to the nation of shipping not just now but in 20 years or more. At the end of the day we usually pay the price of sticking too closely to the free market. Germany has announced new subsidy arrangements for its shipping. Sweden is producing new tax concessions. The Greeks are providing more government aid for shipping. The United States of America is looking at fiscal aid to ensure that its merchant fleet can survive against unfair competition. How do our measures for shipping compare with those of other countries?
I wish to deal with two other matters very briefly. One of them concerns the point that caused the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, some anxiety when he spoke about the survey of ships and the Government's possible desire to privatise the work carried out by the department's inspectors of shipping. I do not know whether the Minister has seen the paper produced by NUMAST. It refers to a ship that left Rotterdam after being held in that port for a few days. The ship had structural damage. When it reached London it was examined by the surveyors of the Department of Transport who said that the ship was one of the worst
410
they had seen. It needed some 13 tonnes replacement steel. Captain Alan Chadwick of the London area survey office said the corrosion could have jeopardised the ship's seaworthiness. I do not believe that British lives should be put at risk in such ships. I hope the Government will not consider hiving off the part of the Department of Transport that examines ships. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, said, we need an independent, statutory body—one that is even independent of the department—to examine ships.
My final point has, I believe, only briefly been referred to. I wish to refer to safety, which can be gravely endangered if a crew consists of too many nationalities and therefore language problems arise. NUMAST has highlighted language problems as a major hazard to safety. The master of a Liberian bulk carrier told NUMAST how communication on his ship between officers and crew,
"was impossible, except in sign language".
He concluded:
"I believe that our communication problems produced an inherent state of continuous danger to the ship far greater than a piece of equipment being out of date or not working".
The noble Lord, Lord Sterling of Plaistow, has in an earlier debate given figures to illustrate the immediate benefits of flagging out. The benefits or otherwise of flagging out will fall at the end of the day on ourselves. That is one of the reasons why the British fleet is in such a bad state.
7.25 p.m
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, tribute has rightly been paid to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, on his expertise with regard to the merchant fleet, and also for giving your Lordships the opportunity to debate this important and emotive subject. I wish to join that tribute. I am particularly grateful to him for producing a debate that falls within my own sphere of responsibility.
Seafaring is an integral part of British heritage, as one would expect for a nation surrounded by water. We are rightly proud of that heritage and of the accomplishments of our sailors both on warships and in the merchant marine in defending the realm, opening new trade routes and prospering. On the question of trade, your Lordships have reminded us tonight that well over 90 per cent. of our trade by volume travels by sea from and to this country. But what many people do not realise is that about 25 per cent. of intra-UK trade also travels by sea and is transported by our coastal fleet.
Times have, of course, changed. Whereas freight transport is increasingly cheaper, margins and profitability are increasingly squeezed. World trade patterns have changed, resulting in new opportunities for shippers both here and abroad; and so too has distribution with the concept of "just-in-time" which means less warehousing but greater pressures on the reliability and speed of shipping services. These are daily challenges which our industry has to face.
The past 30 years have seen the emergence of fleets in the developing world which enjoy inherent cost advantages. This has been coupled with a shift in trade

411
patterns, particularly in the Far East, which has helped these countries' fleets to capture an increasing amount of bilateral and cross trade.
During this time, the developed nations' fleet has shrunk from well over 80 per cent. to less than 60 per cent. of world tonnage. The registered fleets of the EC now account for less than 15 per cent. of the world's tonnage. Over the past 12 months, for example, the German fleet has decreased by 9.5 per cent., and so too has the Danish fleet; the Spanish fleet has decreased by 6.7 per cent. and the Dutch fleet by 214,000 tonnes. During the same period the UK flagged fleet has contracted by 2.9 per cent. Therefore the problems that our industry faces are not unique to this country but are shared by many other nations in the developed world.
The decline in the figure of the UK registered fleet belies the fact that the UK industry continues to be a key player in the shipping world. UK companies still manage, own or control some 6 per cent. of the world's fleet. But not all is doom and gloom. As the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby of Megiddo, reminded us, UK companies are acknowledged market leaders and innovators in cruise ships, ferries and container ships.
The UK's shipping industry is well placed to compete internationally. It is efficient, well managed and innovative. Additionally it can call on the extensive services of the City of London. Nowhere in the world is there such a depth of expertise or such a wide range in finance, insurance, reinsurance, arbitration, classification societies, salvage and shipbroking. The value of these services to the well-being of British shipping is self-evident. Equally, this unique concentration of such expertise and resources is good for Britain.
The City's contribution to the economic prosperity of the country is considerable and appreciated. I can assure my noble friend Lord Fairfax of Cameron and the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, that we want that to continue. It is our goal to establish the framework in which British shipping can continue to develop into the competitive, viable shipping industry which we recognise is essential to our national well-being. The industry's response has been positive. It needs and wants to be free from unnecessary regulation, but we recognise that it needs also to be able to compete on fair terms within the international arena.
My noble friend Lord Colnbrook asked the Government to discuss the future with the industry. I agree with that sentiment. It is something that I have been doing in a consistent and enjoyable way over the past year. That has brought home to me the diversity of the shipping industry. One cannot refer to the shipping industry as though there were one simple solution to its problems. It is made up of a number of components, and what might be the right solution for one part of the British merchant fleet is not necessarily the right answer for the other part of the fleet.
That fact was highlighted by what the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, said when he argued strongly the case for an open register. I have been to meetings with representatives of another sector of the
412
merchant fleet who have argued exactly the contrary and said that the last thing we need in this country is an open register. I have heard arguments in the Baltic Exchange which are totally contrary to those which the noble Lord advanced today.
At this stage, perhaps I may pay tribute to Peter Tudball and all those in the Baltic Exchange, and also the Chamber of Shipping, for the way they handled the situation a year ago following the bombing. It is a great tribute to them that they were up and running within two days.
So far as concerns the Baltic Exchange a British merchant fleet is not necessary. The exchange would be perfectly happy and would continue to trade and bring in money for the balance of payments without a British merchant fleet. That gives a flavour of the complexity of the problem.
I can tell my noble friend Lord Colnbrook that the discussions with the industry are much more constructive and more intensive than when I was last Minister for Shipping some six years ago. That co-operation is manifest in the current developments.
The Government established a joint working party in 1990 with those in the shipping industry. That forum was tasked with looking at non-fiscal measures to increase the efficiency of the shipping industry. The working party made recommendations when it reported in September 1991. Work on some of those measures was put in hand quickly; on others work continues, but overall we have made good progress.
In particular, the working party recommended introducing flexibility into ship registration requirements. I am pleased to report that a Bill to give effect to that recommendation was introduced in another place earlier in the Session by my honourable friend Mr. Richard Page. The Bill—the Merchant Shipping (Registration etc.) Bill—has passed through all its legislative stages in the other place and received its First Reading in this House on 26th April. The Bill also paves the way for consolidation of merchant shipping law going back to 1894 and introduces the concept of bareboat chartering to the UK register. Those who have shipping interests at heart will wish to ensure a speedy passage for that Bill. In looking further to the future, we would all welcome a consolidation of merchant shipping legislation that goes back hundreds of years.
In introducing the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, reminded us that shipping by its very nature is an international business. Increasingly our industry has to compete against foreign shippers who, in many cases, have unfair advantages which we wish to see removed. For instance, we continue to work hard in the EC to focus on state aids and subsidies and to improve trading conditions.
I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, an answer to his question as to exactly what subsidies other countries provide. They come in various shapes and sizes. Some are disguised and some are more overt. It is for that very reason that we are asking the Commission to set that down on paper so that we can begin to analyse what each country has done. We want greater transparency in that area, which to date has been very clouded.

413
My noble friend Lord Colnbrook said that he had not seen the results of our intensive discussions. Perhaps I may be permitted to give him as an example the liberalisation of coastal cabotage within the EC, which was another recommendation of the working party. That was achieved under the Portuguese presidency of the EC, just before we took over the presidency. That liberalisation will enable UK companies to enter markets throughout the Community which are so far forbidden to them. Limited derogations are in place, for example, for island services, but those will be phased out by 2004. I can tell my noble friend that we shall continue with the same determination to obtain agreement within the EC on the other outstanding difficulties such as state aids and subsidies.
The second strand of our policy, and of paramount importance, is safety, which was mentioned by many noble Lords. The Government have not only a national responsibility but, by virtue of our membership of international conventions, an international responsibility to ensure that ships are safe for crews, passengers and cargoes, and that our shipping lanes and coasts are protected from pollution. The recent "Braer" incident has focused public attention on ship safety and the effect of hazardous cargoes on the environment.
I am pleased to say that, together with our European partners, we are pursuing our common aim to improve maritime safety standards. We welcomed the Commission's communication, A Common Policy on Safe Seas, which was presented to the Transport Council on 15th March. The aim of the communication is to develop a Community approach to increased maritime safety and prevention of pollution at sea. We have pressed strongly for its publication for some considerable time. The Commission's analysis and conclusions closely mirror our views, particularly on the crucial importance of excluding sub-standard shipping, of whatever flag, from Community waters.
Some noble Lords may ask why that has been of such major concern to us. We believe that sub-standard shipping is a major and urgent problem, not only to safety but also to the environment. More particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, reminded us, it also represents a serious distortion of fair competition. We strongly support the Commission's view that the problem lies not with the international standards set by the International Maritime Organisation but with the implementation and enforcement of those standards. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, was right to stress the importance of the priority given to the International Maritime Organisation in the setting of those standards and my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth was right to mention their enforcement.
The communication sets out a detailed action programme based on a package of measures. These include the convergent implementation of existing international rules in the Community; tighter port state control; harmonisation of navigation aids and traffic surveillance infrastructure, particularly in
414
environmentally sensitive areas; support for international organisations to enable them to strengthen their primary role in the setting of international standards; and targeting the training and qualification of crews. The communication also proposes the formation of a Committee on Safe Seas to provide a forum for improved co-ordination.
Members of the Transport Working Group and the Commission are currently working towards agreement on an order of priorities for many of the proposed measures. The Transport Council will be invited to endorse the revised action programme in June this year. Together with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, I look forward to attending that meeting and making progress on that important front.
Ensuring the highest possible shipping safety standards and reducing the risk of pollution from shipping are matters of paramount importance. At the international level we are continually striving to secure those higher standards. Nevertheless, as the "Braer" incident at the beginning of January demonstrated, accidents still happen.
Apart from our efforts at the international level we are also very conscious of the importance of taking the initiative to see what further action can be proposed to reduce further the risk of pollution. For that reason we have set up the inquiry under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, to advise on whether any further measures are appropriate and feasible to protect the UK coastline from pollution from merchant shipping, taking account of the international and—I remind my noble friend Lord Lucas—economic implications of any new measures. The noble and learned Lord began his oral evidence sessions last week. A wide range of bodies, including my own department, will be giving evidence. We shall look forward to receiving the noble and learned Lord's report in due course.
Given the international nature of shipping, I agree with the point made by my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle that it is a matter of concern that some flag states are failing to meet their responsibilities in maritime safety. However, let me reassure her that we continue to strive at the international level towards higher standards.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth asked for greater powers in that area to be given to the IMO. I wonder whether he is right. We must be careful when considering this, because there is a great deal of merit in keeping the onus on the flag state rather than on the IMO. We must not let the flag states off the hook of maintaining standards for their fleets.
Within the European Community our efforts will focus on tightening the enforcement of safety standards for foreign vessels visiting Community ports. We are also pressing for action in the International Maritime Organisation to ensure that flag states comply with their responsibilities to enforce internationally agreed safety standards. At the meeting of the IMO's Marine Safety Committee in December 1992 it was agreed to establish a sub-committee to consider why some flag states do not reach the necessary standards and what can be done to

415
improve the position. The sub-committee met for the first time in April and the UK is taking a full and active part.
In this country, standards are monitored and enforced by marine surveyors from the Department of Transport carrying out thorough surveys and inspections. Because of our concerns relating to flag state implementation, we use the same surveyors to inspect foreign ships visiting our ports to ensure that internationally agreed minimum safety standards are maintained. That is known as port state control.
In 1982 the UK and 13 other European countries signed a memorandum of understanding on port state control which aimed to co-ordinate and harmonise the inspection efforts of the member countries. Each signatory to the memorandum agrees to inspect at least 25 per cent. of individual foreign ships using its ports in any 12-month period. I and my predecessors as shipping Ministers have set a higher target of 30 per cent. for this country, and that has been consistently exceeded.
Following a Ministerial conference in 1991 signatory states introduced inspections which look beyond the structure of the ship and its equipment. These "operational inspections" consider the quality of the onboard management and the effectiveness of officers and crew in running the ship safely and without threat to the marine environment. To ensure the best use of resources it is important to target ships which cause the most concern. Already special attention is paid to passenger ships, in particular ro-ro ferries, tankers and ships which are known to have had recent deficiencies. More recently agreement was reached, following a UK initiative, on an amendment to the memorandum which will allow the safety record of the flag state to be taken into account when selecting ships for inspection.
I turn to another part of the maritime world. The offshore supply vessel industry is basically very safe, but about 35 accidents were nevertheless reported to the marine accident investigation branch in 1992. Those accidents ranged from minor injuries to loss of life. Following one such incident, we decided to establish a consultation group, which met for the first time on 9th February 1993. Perhaps I may say to the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby of Megiddo, that the ongoing work will include a draft code of practice. That will apply to all supply vessels operating on the UK continental shelf, regardless of flag or ownership.
A number of noble Lords raised the important question of manning and training. The number of seafarers employed in the merchant navy depends essentially on the requirements of the industry. Nevertheless all UK sea-going ships of 500 tons or over, and foreign ships within UK territorial waters, are obliged under merchant shipping law to be in possession of a safe manning document. This document lists the minimum numbers and grades of personnel required to man a vessel safely and is assessed by marine surveyors after consideration of the operational requirements of each individual ship. In this way specific trading needs and other factors, such as voyage length and level of automation, are taken into account.
416
UK merchant navy officers usually train as new-entrant cadets and study for certificates of competency throughout their early careers. Financial assistance towards the training of UK cadets is provided by the Government Assistance For Training (GAFT) scheme. That is designed to encourage companies to train officer cadets. The number actually put forward for training is of course a matter for the commercial judgment of industry. Although the government money available for that purpose is limited, not all the places that it can fund are currently being taken up. Therefore it is not simply a question of increasing the amount of funds, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, requested. It is up to the industry and the companies as well to provide the places.
The statutory certificate structure enables standards of competence in navigation and engineering to be laid down. It also ensures that postholders on board a vessel are properly qualified. Deck and engineer ratings in the UK receive on-the-job training and are recommended to have training in first aid, fire fighting and sea survival before going to sea.
A debate on the merchant fleet cannot be complete without mention of the great contribution that such shipping has made to our defence. As many of your Lordships will know, next month marks the celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic. This is an opportunity to pay testament to the heroism and patriotism of all those involved.
We continue to monitor the nation's defence needs. As my honourable friend, the Minister for Procurement, said in another place last July, sufficient shipping is available to support defence needs without special measures. Nevertheless, my department and the MoD are jointly working on a further review of the position of British seafarers required to man chartered and requisitioned vessels. The review will be completed shortly.
I have outlined a number of measures that we have taken and that we are taking to achieve our goals of creating the conditions in which British shipping can continue to prosper and to ensure safe seas, protecting passengers, cargo and the environment.
My noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle was among many who argued that there is need for fiscal measures to help the industry. The issue of special assistance to a particular industry is difficult to reconcile against the background of the efforts being made generally to create a favourable economic climate with low inflation and lower interest rates.
I take note of what my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth said on that point. However, I found it difficult to understand his remarks—perhaps we can discuss the matter later—on how one can give assistance without giving subsidies. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered all those issues carefully. As noble Lords have reminded us, he concluded that there is not currently a case to be made for further support by the taxpayer.
The industry has drawn attention to the assistance given by other governments to their international shipping competitors primarily in the form of direct and indirect subsidies and cargo reservation schemes.

417
To follow the example set by other nations would lead to an ever increasing spiral of state aids and market-distorting subsidies which would be detrimental to free trade. Instead of that, we shall continue to press hard in the EC and OECD the case for eliminating those practices.
We shall continue to press for further liberalisation of markets and increased competition free from subsidies and uncompetitive practices. Success in our endeavours in Europe and other fora worldwide will be of benefit to UK shipping, to British industry and ultimately to the often neglected consumer.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, first, I must apologise for going over my allotted time at the start of the debate. It is the first time that I have moved a Motion. I was under the impression that I had 20 minutes. I was in error and I apologise.
I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. They have a wide range of experience. It is invidious to single out one noble Lord. However, I should like to mention the speech of my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney. If he will forgive my saying so, he is a prime example of a seafarer who has come ashore and had a successful job as a shipbroker.
I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his comprehensive reply to the debate. I enjoyed a great deal of it until he reached almost the end. I was looking for one chink of light—a ray of hope that perhaps the Treasury might be changing its mind and putting its money where its mouth is. It is all very well to praise our shipping but perhaps we need something more to help it on its way. Perhaps I had better recruit the services of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, whose tenacity is well known in this House with regard to the replacement of HMS "Endurance".
The noble Earl referred to the diverse nature of maritime interests in this country. That too is a matter that struck me when I was preparing for the debate. I wondered whether it might be an idea to set up a Committee of your Lordships' House to look into the whole maritime spectrum. It is an idea that I have mentioned to people in the maritime industry and they have all looked upon it with favour. I toss that in as an afterthought. Once again, I thank all those who have taken part and beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Defence Records
7.50 p.m.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the arrangements for the preservation and storage of the pictorial records, including video tapes, of the Ministry of Defence.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Greenway need not have apologised for speaking too long, he could have gone on for another 10 minutes in the debate and noble Lords would have benefited from his wisdom.
Over the years, for one reason or another, this Question has been deferred and various noble Lords have asked what it is about. I thought, looking at the Question on the Order Paper, that it was crystal clear, but I must give noble Lords the benefit of the doubt and will try succinctly to explain what I mean to the best of my ability.
Before doing that, I should say that without question the Public Records Office, or in other terms the national archives of Great Britain, is foremost in the world in that its collections are the most comprehensive and most accessible to the public of all collections and on the whole they are well preserved, with certain reservations. Conservation and preservation cost money and can sometimes take a back seat.
Only in the past 80 years at the outside—as compared with 900 years if we go back to the Domesday Book—have pictorial records been in our midst. Fairly or unfairly, as a nation I fear that we have yet to realise their importance or become aware of it. The pictorial records which we are debating tonight are those held in the Imperial War Museum which has very high standards, but some records are in jeopardy and we shall concentrate on them later.
I start by referring to The Times newspaper of 11th August 1916. An article in it described the release of the official British film of the Battle of the Somme and the reviewer wrote:
"If anything were needed to justify the existence of the cinematograph, it is to be found in the wonderful series of films of the opening of the British attack on the Somme … In years to come, when historians want to know the conditions under which the great offensive was launched, they will only have to send for these films and a complete idea of the situation will be revealed before their eyes—for we take it as a matter of course that a number of copies of them will be carefully preserved in the national archives".
More than 75 years on, there is both good news and bad news where the reviewer's "matter of course" is concerned. The good news is that steps have been taken for the careful archival preservation of this film and of many equally valuable subsequent records of the nation's history. The bad news is that there is cause to question whether those steps have been followed by sufficient other measures to ensure the continuation of the tradition into the second century of cinema.
We should therefore congratulate our predecessors who, in founding the Imperial War Museum at the close of the Great War, had the foresight to include in its collections the official British films made during that war, thus establishing what was probably the world's first official film archive. We should also honour the officials working on behalf of the museum who were, as early as 1920, taking and acting on advice on the optimum conditions for storage and the best procedures for testing and preserving the films.
Having mentioned storage and preservation, I feel that this is perhaps the moment to explain to noble Lords or to remind noble Lords that a decision to preserve a film is not simply a matter of finding a shelf on which to store it. Film is a fragile medium. I am sure that noble Lords are well aware of that. The film is exposed to risk of damage every time it is handled. To ensure both preservation and access, therefore, it is wise to ensure the existence of several copies or generations of each film: access copies for viewing by

419
the public and preservation master copies, the purpose of which is solely to be used to make further access copies.
Film is also vulnerable to passive damage. Stored in the wrong conditions, it may become brittle or dirty, or grow fungus. Over all those problems, in the case of old archival film, there looms the "nitrate problem". Film consists of two parts: the emulsion—the part of the film on which the image is recorded—and the base, the transparent carrier of the emulsion. Up to the early 1950s, virtually all professional film was made using film stock in which the emulsion was bonded to a base made of cellulose nitrate. Chemists among noble Lords present or who will read the Official Report will recognise cellulose nitrate as another name for gun cotton. In fact, nitrate film—the original stuff of the archival records of which we are speaking—is a close chemical relative of gun cotton. It is extremely, almost explosively combustible. Once alight, it is virtually impossible to extinguish and the fumes it gives off are highly toxic.
In the past 15 years, there have been major fires in the United States of America, France, Germany and Mexico, to name just a few countries which have suffered in that situation. A nitrate film fire is, however, the most extreme form of the nitrate problem. For archivists, there are other equally worrying concerns. As nitrate film ages, it deteriorates. Initially, it discolours slightly, then the base becomes sticky. Being sticky, it is possible that the picture-carrying emulsion in a spool of film will stick to the wrong strip of film and the picture will start to be lost. Beyond stickiness, the whole roll of film will turn into an unpleasant, jellied mass and, beyond that, into a heap of brown dust. The archivist has, however, lost the struggle to save the film long before that stage is reached.
The onset of that form of deterioration can be delayed, provided that the film was well processed originally and is stored in good conditions. There are still occasional finds of film from the earliest period of cinema from which much can be saved. Unfortunately, good processing and proper storage were far from universal and stories of almost miraculous survival can only too regularly be balanced by the stories of films less than 50 years old which have deteriorated beyond repair. As early as the 1970s the Imperial War Museum was finding advanced deterioration in viewing prints of films only 30 years old.
Since there is no infallible way of preventing the deterioration of nitrate film, the only way to ensure the survival of archival nitrate film is to copy it on to a more modern film stock. The film archivist's problems do not cease when the archive is held entirely on "safety" acetate film stock rather than on nitrate. But he or she is at least beyond the reach of the "nitrate problem". It might seem logical to expect that an archive would simply move through its whole collection and generate the necessary copies on acetate on a systematic basis. Such an approach is, however, likely to be beyond the reach of most archives because film preservation is an expensive business.
To generate a full set of preservation and access copies for a single 10-minute reel of film costs in the region of £900. The film archive of the Imperial War Museum still has 8,000 reels of film only on nitrate film—more than £7.25 million worth of work. At that rate of film copying the museum's programme will continue beyond the year 2020 when most noble Lords, or at least I myself will be very old—if I am still here. I shall be approaching 90. As I have already suggested, it is far from certain that all the film which needs copying will be so obliging as to wait that long.
Which films are we talking about? I have already mentioned the original core collection of the Imperial War Museum—the official films of the British effort in the First World War. Happily, those are not at risk, as they have already been duplicated onto safety film. However, the museum's collection has grown enormously since the transfer of its original collection; and by no means all of the later material, still nitrate-based, is ensured full preservation on safety film stock.
Perhaps I may give two examples of the later acquisitions. First, the film record of the Second World War, as compiled by the Army film and photographic unit and the Royal Air Force film production unit, was added to the museum's collections in the 1950s. It is uniquely valuable footage in its original unedited form—now truly the film equivalent of the unpublished source documents in public record offices which historians are so delighted to find. The second example is that the museum holds a substantial representation of the film distributed by the Ministry of Information in the Second World War, which was intended not only to sustain morale on the home front, but also to promote Britain's cause among its allies and the neutral nations. In addition, the museum has important collections showing the impact of the war on the civilian population; for example, material showing the railways at war or the work of the London fire brigade through the Blitz.
At the end of the 1980s, the trustees of the Imperial War Museum announced the goal of completing the transfer of nitrate film to acetate by the year 2000. That is a goal of useful symbolism, combining an approximation to the centenary of cinema on the one hand (1995–96) with an approximation to the 50th anniversary of the end of the nitrate era (2002) on the other. It was also a realistic estimate of the likely lifespan of much of the film concerned. How far has the museum progressed in terms of that target? What has it been able to do to ensure the preservation of its nitrate film?
Since the financial year 1988–89, the amount of funding put into film preservation by the museum, mainly in the form of payments made to commercial laboratories for the processing of new copies of film material, has totalled £1.1 million—an average of £220,000 per year. I must emphasise, talking of cash calls, that none of the figures cited in this part of my speech includes the salaries of museum staff involved in the programme or the running costs of the building. Such costs are far from negligible. Fourteen members of staff are employed full-time or part-time in the museum's film vaults and preservation facilities and in

421
work related to the central London site. The construction, maintenance and servicing of buildings to provide proper conditions for the long-term storage of film is also an expensive commitment.
An average of £220,000 a year is a major commitment for the museum, whose total budget for running costs, excluding pay, was just £4 million in the financial year 1992–93. It may even be considered an impressive sounding total in overall terms. But it falls a long way short of what is needed if the "year 2000" target is to be taken seriously. In its various five-year plans and corporate plans since that target was announced, the museum has calculated the amount of funding needed per year to make the target possible. That has inevitably increased from a projected 650,000 per year from 1991–92, according to the five-year plan for 1988–89, to a projected £1.046 million per year from 1994–95 as forecast in this year's corporate plan. The Government have made additional funds available. The museum is very grateful for that help. But the total received—£110,000 in 1989–90 and £200,000 in 1992–93—sadly, still falls a long way short of the museum's needs.
The museum has also sought additional funds from other sources. Although it is not apparent that preservation of historical record film is an activity that has yet caught the imagination of any corporate sponsors, there have been two important successes. While a Minister of Defence, my noble friend, Lord Trefgarne, whose wisdom we shall listen to shortly, ensured that the museum received considerable support from his Ministry—to the tune of £450,000 spread over three years—to ensure an improved rate of preservation for films approved by ministry historians. A further important and most welcome boost to the preservation of the museum's film has been the agreement of the National Heritage Memorial Fund to grant up to £200,000 towards the current programme that will ensure the preservation of the London Fire Brigade collection.
Finally, if all the sums of money that I have so far mentioned are added together, they total more than £2 million. It is a considerable sum, but it is not sufficient. Archivists have coined the phrase "Nitrate won't wait". The longer we make it do so, the more dangerous is the game we play with some important parts of our nation's history.
I have spent rather longer than is usual on this subject, but this is a one-off opportunity to talk about such an important matter. I hope I have given enough material to act as a springboard for noble Lords to follow, and enough material for my noble friend on the Front Bench, who I hope will respond from the Ministry of Defence point of view. One other interesting point—unless other noble Lords take part—is that it is a totally Welsh situation: one originally Jones, another Morris and finally a Philipps. I hope that I have done the subject justice.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this rather narrow, but I believe important, matter in the way that he has.
422
Noble Lords may be relieved to hear that I shall not try to follow him with all the detailed facts and figures, which he so helpfully gave during the course of his speech.
Ever since the invention of still photography, in about the middle of the last century, and the invention of motion picture photography towards the end of the last century, the Armed Forces of the Crown have been churning out photographs and films at a quite prodigious rate. Not every inch of film, and not every still photograph, deserves to be kept and preserved for posterity. But a very considerable quantity does. My noble friend was right to refer in particular to the splendid collection of films relating to the First World War which now form part of the collection of the Imperial War Museum. But that is not all. There are, I believe, within the Imperial War Museum collection a few films relating to as far back as the Boer War. There are certainly still photographs which go back to the Crimean War. The photographs and films, supplemented now by the video films which are more the fashion of today—and they were very much in vogue during the more recent conflicts in the Falklands and the Gulf—form what must be regarded as a priceless national asset. It is quite wrong that the significant proportion of them to which my noble friend referred is under considerable threat because there are simply not sufficient resources to convert the nitrate film to which my noble friend referred onto the more modern film which is necessary to secure their preservation.
As my noble friend said, it has long been the case that the responsibility for these matters rests with the Imperial War Museum. During my time at the Ministry, I took a considerable interest in this matter and visited the various places at which the Imperial War Museum maintained its collection. I was enormously impressed by the work the museum is undertaking on cataloguing and preserving these important records. It is doing its very best within the resources available to it.
I was glad to be able to make additional resources available from the Ministry of Defence, as my noble friend mentioned. However, it was a very small sum by comparison with the sum that is required to have the whole collection of nitrate movie film transferred to a more modern base. There are something in the order of 1,000 reels still waiting to be copied. On present plans, that will not be completed until well into the next century, by which time, sadly, many of those reels will be long past copying and fit only for the waste paper basket. That is not good enough. It is a priceless collection which is about to be lost for ever not only to the nation but to the world. I hope that my noble friend will be able to assure us that the Government will do something to ensure that that does not happen.
I do not insist or necessarily suggest that the Government are the only source of funds for that operation. I wonder whether it is possible to find additional commercial sources of money for that purpose. However, there is a difficulty. I ask my noble friend for a specific assurance tonight that, when commercial enterprises seek to make additional funds available to the Imperial War Museum for such a

423
purpose, the Treasury does not cut back its grant by the appropriate amount. If that were to happen in this case, it would be monstrous. I hope that my noble friend can assure me that, if commercial sponsorship and additional commercial support can be found for this operation, the Government will ensure that the existing allocations to the Imperial War Museum from the National Heritage Department are not affected.
I have referred in particular to the motion picture film problem. I should like now to touch briefly on the still photograph collection, which is enormous. It is contained in a whole variety of different negative formats. For example, the Imperial War Museum holds a very large number of photographic plates which are almost the size of a large piece of foolscap or quarto size paper. They are very expensive to store correctly but they are of an extraordinarily high quality and need to be preserved if at all possible. I know that the Imperial War Museum have pursued a programme of transferring the most important of those negatives to modern plastic—perhaps that is not quite the right word—or synthetic negative material, which makes them much easier to store and to access when the need arises.
I believe that there has been some commercial support for that particular exercise. If my memory serves me correctly, BP provided some support for the conversion of those very expensive and rather unwieldy glass photographic plates into a more modern medium. That was extremely welcome. However, so-called additionality—namely, slicing back government grant in the light of the commercial donation—was an issue at that time. I hope that my noble friend will be able to address his answer to that particular point.
Thirdly, there is the matter of the video films. These are a much more recent innovation in the archive of the Imperial War Museum. I know that there is still considerable technical uncertainty as to the best method of preserving these films for as long as possible, the best conditions under which to preserve them, how long they will last, and so on. Clearly some research needs to be done. The Imperial War Museum needs to be assured that the conditions under which it proposes to store the films are the best that can be arranged and the most suitable for the purpose. I am no expert in that matter but I dare say that the Imperial War Museum has access to the right expertise and does the best it can. The fact is that many of the motion picture records of the Ministry of Defence are now made on video film. The Ministry has designated the Imperial War Museum as the repository for those films and therefore I feel that the Ministry itself has a responsibility to ensure that the Imperial War Museum is supported to the extent necessary to ensure that those video films are properly stored. So much for the technical considerations of the three principal media.
Finally, I come to what I regard as a most important matter, which I have already touched on briefly; namely, commercial support. I have already referred to the possibility of commercial support for the specific copying operation of the old nitrate movie film. But I wonder whether there is more scope to
424
exploit commercially the collection of photographs, films and, for that matter, videos, which the Ministry of Defence is now consigning to the Imperial War Museum. For example, the number of photographs is enormous. I do not know how many photographs are in the Imperial War Museum, or, for that matter, are yet to be deposited there by the Ministry of Defence. The number must be enormous.
I wonder whether those photographs could be rather better and more effectively catalogued—I refer to the Ministry of Defence and not to the Imperial War Museum whose cataloguing arrangements are rather good whereas the Ministry's are rather less good. If only we could have a more complete and detailed catalogue of what is available in the way of photographs, I feel certain that a greater degree of commercial exploitation would be possible. I dare say that those noble Lords who served with gallantry in one or other of the armed forces and are now writing their memoirs would regret any prospect of having to pay a higher royalty for the use of a photograph to be included in those memoirs. But the high cost of preserving those pictures and films ought to be better defrayed by those who make use of them. I am sure that there are many people and many commercial organisations, such as television and film companies, who would be willing to pay a reasonable amount to have better access to that great archive.
I hope that the Government will give some consideration to that point. I gave some consideration to it in an earlier incarnation. I know that the Imperial War Museum makes its pictures and films available to those interested; but I am less certain whether it markets them with the vigour and enthusiasm that might produce better results. I am not even certain if the museum is the right body to do it. The Services Sound and Vision Corporation, which is part of the Ministry of Defence but which operates on a commercial basis, might be in an equally well placed position to market the pictures, photographs and films in an effective way.
Let us not simply say that the Government must provide more money, though that would be very welcome. Let us try to find some additional outside support as well for that important process. Let us ensure that the key problem of converting the nitrate films on to more modern stock can be carried out with a degree of government support.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important matter tonight. I feel sure that noble Lords will unanimously agree with me that it is vitally important these days that we should all be politically correct in all our Questions and debates. So I take it that the wider aspect of the Question before us is to what extent, if any, the Ministry of Defence feels janitorially challenged in its custody of such pictorial records and visual material as comes into its care from time to time. The material which comes into its care, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, pointed out from his first hand experience of dealing with it, is enormous both

425
in quantity and importance. It is also of many different categories. One of the things that must be decided in the preservation and storage of all this visual material is how much of it is sensitive; how much of it needs to be kept as unofficial—secret—because some of it clearly does.
Equally, I feel bound to inform your Lordships that this Question is not a matter to which the Labour Party has given its full and undivided attention as a matter of policy over a long period of time. We are of course deeply and urgently concerned about unnecessary secrecy in government. We believe in a Freedom of Information Act, and my colleagues in another place are actively promoting our Right to Know Bill. But we recognise that in the Ministry of Defence, as in the security services, there are records and documents that must be kept secret in the interests of national security. One does not expect a stiff card invitation to "An Open Day with MI5".
The preservation and storage of MoD pictorial records and public access to them would, of course, be subject to the Labour Party's Freedom of Information Act. But obviously access would be restricted in cases where the information could jeopardise national security or threaten the lives of service personnel. Restrictions on access and disclosure would also be required where information was commercially confidential or liable to cause distress to service personnel or their families.
But I think we would agree on all sides of the House that the Ministry of Defence records of all kinds must be professionally conserved, catalogued (where that is appropriate) and stored in correct conditions of temperature, humidity and security. Greatly at risk at the moment is that part of the collection which is on film. Obviously there is going to be a problem caused by the vastly increased amount of such material flowing back into the Ministry of Defence week by week. I heard recently that an Army photographer in Bosnia has taken many thousands of pictures of that conflict, equivalent to a roll of film every day for six months—and back it comes. Someone has to process it; decide what parts of it can be sent down to the Imperial War Museum and what cannot.
A different order of problem comes with the work of official war artists. Your Lordships will recall the temporary embarrassment caused when some rather controversial paintings by our official artist in the Gulf War were made public. Now, I believe, a war artist is being sent to Bosnia and problems may well arise there. Does the ownership of all or any of those images of war accrue to the Ministry of Defence? If so, what rights does the artist retain?
I hope I do not exaggerate when I say that the public perception of the Ministry of Defence is not as an organisation deeply concerned with the conservation and storage of artistic artefacts. It has other priorities to attend to. Obviously the ministry must be heavily dependent on professional advice from museums and galleries. The Imperial War Museum is, of course, an official repository for film and war photographs under the Public Records Act. But I have to remind your Lordships that the formal, legal
426
position is one thing; the actual operation of the process is another. The Ministry of Defence should deposit all film that it does not necessarily retain with the Imperial War Museum. But alas that does not always happen as it should. The Imperial War Museum has asked the ministry to issue an internal departmental record order to try to encourage compliance. So far as I know the ministry has not done so. It would be interesting to know why not.
Indeed, the Ministry of Defence should know its way better around the world of museums and galleries and should play its part in that world perhaps more enthusiastically than it sometimes does. After all, the ministry is directly or indirectly responsible for the funding of some half a dozen national museums and over 100 regimental and corps collections. It has its own collection of about 250 paintings, many of them on display in MoD premises at home and abroad, and they are rightly proud of the high standard of conservation which those pictures receive. Surely then the ministry should be aware of the importance of the conservation of nitrate-based film and should be ready, willing and eager to continue its funding of the Imperial War Museum for the continuing conservation programme which it is so dangerous to discontinue. The importance of the IWM's expertise and work on conservation of film is universally recognised, not least by the National Heritage Memorial Fund, which gave a grant to assist the conservation of the film records of the London Fire Brigade. But the future cannot be left to the National Heritage Memorial Fund. It has too many other calls on its slender resources. If government aid is not to be forthcoming, commercial sponsorship must be sought and won.
If the Ministry of Defence is in any doubt about that, let its officials consult the Museums and Galleries Commission, which is the Government's principal adviser on these matters. That raises the question of why the ministry has not already consulted the Museums and Galleries Commission on the matter, since its conservation unit is at the forefront of research on the subject. Perhaps when the noble Viscount comes to reply he can tell the House what consultations there have been between the Ministry of Defence and the Museums and Galleries Commission during the past year or so. No doubt there are continuing discussions on the implementation of Admiral Sir David Williams' report on the Armed Services Museums, but is that the only current point of contact or are there others?
There are some other questions I should like to ask the noble Viscount, since this area of the MoD's activity seems slightly shrouded in mystery and the facts about it are not easily to be obtained elsewhere. First, can he give an indication of the number of pictorial records currently held within the MoD? I realise that that is a fluid and constantly changing situation, with material coming in and going out daily. But could he give the House some idea of the order of magnitude of the flow? Are we talking about hundreds of items each week which need to be processed, or thousands, or tens of thousands?

427
Next, could the noble Viscount tell the House the number of civilian or military sites currently storing those records and the annual cost of the preservation and storage of that material? Can he confirm that the Government are satisfied with the level of security at those sites wherever material of a sensitive nature is being stored?
Thirdly, can the noble Viscount explain to us who is responsible for the classification of pictorial records and who rules on the question of public access to them? Clearly, the vast majority go to the Imperial War Museum, but who decides what goes and what stays? Can he confirm that the Lord Chancellor's advisory council on public records is involved in the process?
Fourthly, can he say how many archivists, curators, conservators or other museum professionals are currently employed by the Ministry of Defence to look after those pictorial records which the Ministry retains within itself for the normal reasons of national security or commercial confidentiality? I ask that to seek reassurance that the properly secret records are properly conserved, documented and stored. We know now a great deal about the standards set for correct conservation both in the Imperial War Museum and by the conservation unit at the Museums and Galleries Commission. It is important that there should be complete public confidence that the standards set and achieved within the Ministry of Defence are equivalent to those obtaining in public museums and galleries. When a record is to remain secret, that is an additional and important reason for ensuring that it does not deteriorate in any way.
The Question which the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, raised—and rightly raised—is an important one and it is also a sensitive one. I hope that the noble Viscount who is to reply will understand that several of the questions I am asking are probing questions and I fully understand that he may not be able to answer them here tonight. If there are questions that he cannot answer, I profoundly hope and pray that he will not write to me about them because that would be an unnecessary expenditure of everyone's time and effort; and there may be genuine reasons of security which prevent him from providing your Lordships' House with the details that I have requested. I hereby absolve him from any necessity to write to me about those matters too. I hope that he and I both recognise that "security" should never be a convenient blanket to conceal the nakedness of inefficiency or sloth. As one important 20th century guru wrote:
"Security is when everything is settled, when nothing can happen to you; security is the denial of life".
The words, my Lords, are the words of Ms. Germaine Greer; the curious may find them in her book The Female Eunuch.
8.30 p.m.
Viscount St.Davids: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's inquiry on the preservation and storage of pictorial records of the Ministry of Defence. It comes at a time when officials at the Ministry of Defence are
428
reviewing the present arrangements and it provides me with a timely opportunity to say something about the problems and how they are being tackled.
The present procedures and instructions for the custody and preservation of films and photographic material are of long standing. With regard to films—and here I include video tapes—a master copy of each Ministry of Defence sponsored film considered worthy of permanent preservation must be earmarked for transfer to the Imperial War Museum, where the content is primarily of military interest, or otherwise to the National Film Archive. Here I would correct an idea of the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. Not all material is passed to the Imperial War Museum by the Ministry of Defence but only material that is considered and deemed to have historical value and therefore to be worthy of permanent preservation. In other words, when the noble Lord talked of a roll of film a day, not all of them would necessarily be of historical value and possibly not all of them would survive.
To this end, sponsors of films are required to report to the Ministry of Defence departmental records officer at the end of every calendar year details of each new acquisition they have made so that a decision can be made on its eventual disposal. If the film is judged worthy of permanent preservation, a master copy—preferably the original—is retained under the best conditions possible until, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Records Acts, it can be released to the Imperial War Museum or National Film Archive as appropriate. These institutions are the approved places of deposit under the provisions of the Public Records Acts.
Similarly, long-standing arrangements exist for the proper management of photographic material. All photographs which merit consideration for permanent preservation have to be sent to the Ministry of Defence archives for review and, ultimately, transfer to the Imperial War Museum. The approved place of deposit for aerial photographs is the University of Keele. For security reasons all post-World War II material is retained by the Ministry of Defence at the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre, RAF Brampton.
The procedures which I have described, together with instructions for their implementation, are given wide publication through Ministry of Defence manuals covering both headquarters and outstations and are also supplemented through announcements in Defence Council Instructions. Nevertheless, there have been indications Of late—and the Imperial War Museum has expressed its concern—that all is not well and the supply of material reaching the Imperial War Museum seems to be on the decline. There are question marks, too, over material held in Service museums, libraries and other establishments both as to the propriety of their retention and as to the conditions under which they are stored.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, asked whether we know how many institutions of one kind or another retain significant holdings of pictorial information. So far, I have not been able to obtain an answer. If one thinks of regimental museums,

429
regimental associations, old comrades' associations and museums up and down the country, it is obviously a large number. However, I cannot, I am afraid, come up with the number.
The Ministry of Defence departmental records officer, supported by the Service historical branches, met representatives from the Imperial War Museum and the Public Record Office on 27th January this year to discuss what should be done to regularise and sharpen the procedures governing the care and flow of material through the Ministry of Defence archival system to the Imperial War Museum. In particular, it has been accepted there is a pressing need to identify fully the principal sources of film and photographic material so that they may be advised directly and routinely on their obligations to the Imperial War Museum, rather than as at present leaving it to the vagaries of standing instructions.
Experience shows that all too often such instructions go unheeded. It has been recognised, too, that appropriate material needs to be sent to the Imperial War Museum as soon as possible—that is, within the statutory 30-year period —subject of course to the usual security and sensitivity caveats. For example, it is our intention that photographs deemed worthy of permanent preservation will in future go straight to the Imperial War Museum once they are no longer required for Ministry of Defence use. The status of certain film and photographic collections held by Service museums, libraries and other establishments will be examined against the provisions of the Public Records Acts. If there is a case for the continued retention of public record material by any of those bodies an application will be made to the Lord Chancellor for his formal authority. The Lord Chancellor would of course have to be satisfied with the conditions under which the collection would be held. Material not authorised to be retained would be transferred to the Imperial War Museum. And, finally, clearer instructions for the care, custody and selection for permanent preservation of film and photographic material have been prepared and will shortly be issued.
In all these initiatives the Imperial War Museum and the Public Record Office are playing a full part. As my noble friend will be aware, the Imperial War Museum is one of the National Museums and Galleries funded by the Department of National Heritage. The department's grant in aid to the museum in 1993–94 is £10.8 million. Management of collections is the overall responsibility of the trustees, who, with the senior management of the museum, allocate the resources given by the Government to the particular needs of the institution.
I can tell your Lordships that the Imperial War Museum has made significant bids for additional funding for the conservation of the nitrate film stocks and for additional storage facilities at Duxford. It also has bids for additional funding for documentation and additional curators to service the collections. However, these bids will go with other bids to the Department of National Heritage. It is for the department to decide on the priorities.
430
My noble friend Lord Trefgarne raised the question of commercial sponsorship and commercial exploitation of the collections. Both issues are ones for the trustees of the Imperial War Museum and for the Department of National Heritage. My noble friend asked me about additionality, but I am quite sure that he, with government experience behind him, would not expect me to come up with a firm assurance on such an issue, for it is one on which the decisions lie with my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury.
I am aware that the museum considers conservation of the collections as being its largest and, in the long term, most important curatorial programme of activity, which has normally accounted for about 14 per cent. of its running cost expenditure. For a variety of reasons, including the delicate nature of many of the materials and sheer vastness of the collections, the trustees are confronted with a substantial volume of conservation work, and the House should commend them for what they have been able so far to achieve.
In recent years the Government have provided additional funds to assist the museum with its film preservation programme. The then Office of Arts and Libraries gave £110,000 in 1989–90, with £450,000 in kind provided by the Ministry of Defence over three years ending in March 1992, the sums referred to by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. A further £200,000 was allocated by the Office of Arts and Libraries in 1992–93, and £200,000 over three years from the National Heritage Memorial Fund.
A comprehensive review of collections storage carried out by the museum in 1987 and updated in 1989 and 1991 has established a general policy of seeking to place all suitable exhibits on show either in conventional displays or in appropriately secure forms of open stores or study rooms. Duplicate records for which no significant second or multiple use is required should in principle be disposed of by loan or sale.
I know that there are many pressures on the museum in the areas of conservation, storage and documentation, and it has managed these in a most professional way. I also know that the Department of National Heritage is very much aware of the museum's priorities in all these areas, and it will certainly consider them fully when assessing the museum's requirements in its corporate plan. However, as I am sure the House is aware, there are finite funds available, and the Department of National Heritage must assess this important area of work against overall priorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, asked whether I could give any indication of the number of pictorial records currently held by the MoD. I believe that even to come at an approximation would be an impossibility because, as my noble friend Lord Teviot indicated, those records go back a considerable way—to the Crimea—and they are being generated all the time. They are in many diverse places. I do not believe that we can come up with a realistic number, but I am quite sure that they run not only into hundreds of thousands, but well beyond that.

431
The noble Lord also asked me who is responsible for the classification of pictorial records and the rules on public access to them. Obviously, the classification of pictorial records has a security implication and the responsibility lies with the Ministry of Defence. I can confirm that the Lord Chancellor's advisory council on public records is involved in the process.
The Imperial War Museum and the National Film Archive, acting on behalf of the Public Record Office, are the authoritative sources of professional advice on matters of storage and preservation. The Government have not found it necessary to consult the Museums and Galleries Commission on this particular issue. The noble Lord also asked me whether I had any idea of the number of archivists, curators and other professional people employed by the Ministry of Defence working on the records. Again, I have been unable to ascertain the number.
432
I assure my noble friend that the Ministry of Defence is fully committed to the proper care and preservation of pictorial records. I hope that he will agree that the measures that I have outlined will go a long way towards remedying the recent decline in the supply of material to the Imperial War Museum and will also provide the means by which both the Imperial War Museum and the Public Record Office can be satisfied about the conditions under which retained material is stored.

Midland Metro (No. 3) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before nine o'clock.

  GUYANA: AID
  GUYANA: AID
  RUSSIA: UK AID
  RUSSIA: UK AID
  HM LAND REGISTRY: PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS
  HM LAND REGISTRY: PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO. 93/306— HM LAND REGISTRY
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NO. 93/306— HM LAND REGISTRY
  HM LAND REGISTRY AND PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE: KEY TARGETS
  HM LAND REGISTRY AND PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE: KEY TARGETS
  MENTAL ILLNESS AND SCHIZOPHRENIA STATISTICS
  MENTAL ILLNESS AND SCHIZOPHRENIA STATISTICS
  PLUTONIUM SUPPLIES TO JAPAN
  PLUTONIUM SUPPLIES TO JAPAN
  ORDNANCE SURVEY: PERFORMANCE TARGETS
  ORDNANCE SURVEY: PERFORMANCE TARGETS
  IACS: FIELD DATA SHEET COMPLETION GUIDANCE
  IACS: FIELD DATA SHEET COMPLETION GUIDANCE
  IACS: EC MEMBER STATES' INFORMATION PUBLICATIONS
  IACS: EC MEMBER STATES' INFORMATION PUBLICATIONS
  EC ENERGY TAX PROPOSAL
  EC ENERGY TAX PROPOSAL