Sitting of 25 January 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL HERITAGE

    Recreational Facilities (Urban Areas)
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what forms of assistance his Department gives to urban areas to develop new recreational facilities; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key): My Department assists in the provision of recreational facilities through credit approval cover to local authorities and by the grants that are available from the Sports Council. Substantial additional funding of new facilities is provided through the Foundation for Sport and Arts, the Football Trust, Government support for the Manchester Olympic bid and the Department of the Environment's urban programmes. Non-sporting recreation is also widely assisted.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister advise me how communities such as Ossett and Normanton in my constituency can obtain leisure facilities given the capping of local authorities, which means that authorities are helpless when it comes to providing such facilities? The Minister's main answer will not help communities such as Ossett and Normanton. Has he any advice to give?
    Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman and I have sparred over these issues for several years. We did so when we were in different jobs. Responsibility for local government spending must rest with local authorities and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Local authorities are being inventive and innovative in their funding. Many of them are establishing charitable trusts to set up facilities of the sort to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
    Mr. Robert Banks: May I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government's outstanding commitment to create a brand new museum to house the royal armouries collection in Leeds? Is this not a remarkable example? We trust that there will be a sizeable commitment from the private sector to create a great focus for bringing tourists both to Leeds and Yorkshire generally, and at the same time renew the urban environment of Leeds.
    Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that he has taken a substantial interest in this and several other
    694
    tourist developments, as well as accompanying infrastructure developments. The Leeds project is extremely important for the future of our armouries and those of the world. The partnership that is exhibited between central Government, local government, the Urban Development Corporation and the private sector is crucial to the success of the enterprise.

    Press Regulation
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has regarding new regulations regarding the press.
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): The report of Sir David Calcutt's review of press self-regulation was published on 14 January. I refer the hon. Member to the statement that I made on that day.
    Mr. Winnick: While recognising the right of the press to investigate the rich and the powerful—I wish only that it would do so more frequently—when was the last occasion when press barons were criticised in the newspapers that they own or in other newspapers? Does the Secretary of State agree with the views that Lord Gilmour expressed last week outside the Palace when he said that for 10 years Tory newspapers toadied at every opportunity to the Government, especially to Lady Thatcher, and acted as her poodles? Is there not a great deal of hypocrisy coming from the press, especially the tabloid press?
    Mr. Brooke: My knowledge of the press over the past 10 years is not so encyclopaedic that I could give a categorical assurance to the hon. Gentleman. Lord Gilmour has been in separate correspondence with me to rebuke me for having misquoted the example of John Wilkes when I first took office.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the historic meeting of the 21 editors is an important sign of what newspapers intend to do? Does he agree also that the people who should be even keener than newspaper editors on protecting press freedom are members of this place?
    Mr. Brooke: I am in broad agreement with my hon. Friend. I thought that the reaction of editors in terms of the manner in which they wish to see the Press Complaints Commission further changed was extremely encouraging.
    Mrs. Clwyd: The Secretary of State will recall that on Friday hon. Members voted to give the Shops (Amendment) Bill a Second Reading. The Government have, in effect, allowed the Bill to move to its Committee stage as a form of consultative process before they introduce their own Bill in the autumn. Will the right hon. Gentleman follow that precedent and agree to give the private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) the same opportunity when it is debated on Friday? Will he allow it to go to Committee so that we can examine in detail the need for legislation on the right of reply?
    Mr. Brooke: When I made my statement on 14 January, I explained the Government's attitude to the Bill being promoted by the hon. Member for Hammersmith. It would be wrong of me in any way to anticipate the views of my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. However, a consultative process would be welcome—not least to the

    695
    hon. Lady, who will recall that on 11 January she described the statutory body as a necessary move, but by 14 January she was saying that it was clearly not the answer.

    Broadcasting Act 1991
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the working of the Broadcasting Act 1991.
    Mr. Brooke: The aim was to increase diversity and choice in broadcasting and that is being achieved.
    Mr. Mullin: Is not it true that the Broadcasting Act has been a catastrophe? Has not it unleashed a tidal wave of junk television? Have not many of the new franchise holders already reneged on the commitments to quality that they gave when they obtained the franchises? Are not some of them already in serious financial trouble because they overbid? Will not they shortly be going cap in hand to the Secretary of State's Department asking for new financial arrangements? What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to enforce the commitments to quality that were given when the franchises were awarded?
    Mr. Brooke: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on all three of his assertions at the beginning of his question. He offered me the role of censor; he implied that various institutions had already reneged on their commitments —of which I have seen no evidence; and he made further references to their financial state, which does not fall directly within my responsibility. The need to enforce quality is an obligation under the Act which has been discharged to the Independent Television Commission.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate new franchises such as Carlton, Meridian and Westcountry on their arrival in the field only this month? Can he tell the House whether it is his intention to review the progress being made in the cable industry in bringing new franchises into operation across the country?
    Mr. Brooke: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in welcoming the new stations that began broadcasting this year. I shall certainly be in touch with him on his point about the cable industry.
    Mr. Maclennan: What representations has the Secretary of State received about the future of Independent Television News? Is he prepared to reconsider the arrangements in the Act that require the franchise holders to become minority shareholders in ITN?
    Mr. Brooke: As with everything else in the Act, those matters were widely debated at the time that it passed through the House. In the light of that widespread debate, it would be inappropriate to go back over the conclusions of the Act and I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend share with us his thoughts on the decision of the Office of Fair Trading about the networking arrangement? I understand that the matter is currently before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but does he share my concern that if the independent television companies are denied the opportunity to sign secondary rights when signing up new
    696
    programme contracts, that should apply to all other television broadcasters? If that were to be the case, what future would there be for the BBC, Channel 4 and BSkyB, not to mention the independent television companies?
    Mr. Brooke: As my hon. Friend made clear, the networking proposals are now being examined by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It would be wrong of me to anticipate its conclusions.
    Mr. Corbett: When will the Secretary of State respond to public concern and quickly use his powers under that Act or other legislation to prevent hard-core pornography from other European countries being beamed into British homes via satellite? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that neither domestic nor foreign hard porn and depravity have any place on our screens? Does he accept that those paid-for programmes, which are especially demeaning to women, are contrary to the standards set out in the Act and should be prohibited?
    Mr. Brooke: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are consulting urgently on the legal position in the context of such broadcasts. It might be unduly premature to pass judgments on censorship upon them until there is wider knowledge of their content.

    Tourism
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will consider the reintroduction in England of grants under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Key: The section 4 scheme was withdrawn in England in 1989 because of doubts about its effect on overall levels of tourism investment in England, and there is no evidence that the situation has changed. Last November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced proposals to target the resources that are made available through the English tourist board to the regional tourist boards on those areas where the industry is most in need of support to exploit tourism potential.
    Mr. Waterson: In the light of my hon. Friend's answer, I ask him to explain the other measures that he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have in mind to assist the tourism industry in England, and in particular hoteliers and resort towns such as my constituency of Eastbourne.
    Mr. Key: Eastbourne is one of this country's premier tourist resorts. Sussex resorts took part in the English tourist board's highly successful resorts initiative in 1992 and Brighton has joined for 1993. The Eastbourne resort prosperity initiative is a prime example of the partnership that we seek to establish throughout the country. Much more than that, it is crucial that this country's tourism industry is acknowledged as one of the most important and prosperous of all our industries, offering massive employment and huge potential for growth over the next decade.

    Windsor Castle (Fire)
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his latest estimate of the Windsor castle fire costs.
    Mr. Brooke: The cost of clearing, making safe, and protecting the site will be about £1.5 million. It is too early to estimate the costs of restoration and rebuilding.
    Mr. Tony Banks: When will that figure be available, because the Secretary of State was very quick to move in and to write an open cheque on behalf of British taxpayers? Does he recall my question to him on 1 December 1992, as to what attempt had been made to attract private money to help meet the cost of refurbishing and running royal palaces, which now cost about £18 million per year? Why does not the Secretary of State approach companies such as McDonalds or Euro Disney, to see whether they would put some money into refurbishment? That raises the whole question of sponsorship for the monarchy. I am sure that Crown Paints would be interested, as would Virgin Atlantic. The virgin queen is not particularly original, but at least it has a certain historical cachet. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman use his imagination, get some private money, and save the taxpayer a great big bill?
    Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the breadth, scale and verve of his imagination. As to the cost of restoration, the figure of £60 million widely quoted in the press is one which the Government have never endorsed. There is no reason to suppose that the cost will rise that high. We shall make a more accurate statement as soon as we can.
    Mr. Stephen: While acknowledging Her Majesty's offer to pay part of the cost of restoring Windsor castle, which is one of the most important parts of our national heritage, does my right hon. Friend agree that Her Majesty should no more be expected to pay than should my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in respect of the restoration costs of No. 10 Downing street?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to add to my answer of a moment ago. It is clear from offers of assistance of which I am aware that an independent fund is a possibility, though I cannot add to that at this time.
    Ms. Abbott: Will the Secretary of State answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about private money being invested in royal palaces and royalty? As the Government apparently believe that private capital and know-how can energise British Rail and improve our health service, why do they stop short of putting private capital and know-how into royalty?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady was concentrating so much on the eloquence of the question that she was about to ask that she apparently did not hear the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen). I said then that I was aware of the possibility of a private fund being set up.

    Royal Parks (London)
    Mr. Jessel: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to maintain and improve the character of royal parks in outer London.
    Mr. Key: The Department is committed to maintaining and restoring the royal parks to the highest standards of excellence. A new next steps agency responsible for all the royal parks will be created on 1 April.
    Mr. Jessel: Does my hon. Friend accept that, while the royal parks are national, Bushey park and Hampton Court park are cherished as local parks by my constituents in Teddington and all the Hamptons? They, and I, insist that the trees, the grass, the deer, the birds, the gardens and the open space are all protected. They do not want any large events, car parks or other so-called improvements.
    Mr. Key: I acknowledge the enthusiasm with which my hon. Friend always embraces his constituents' concerns. Of course, the finest parks in the world are to be found in Greater London, in the form of the royal parks. I am delighted to say that relations with the Friends of Bushey Park are very good, and I know that people care deeply about such details as whether the park gates are open on time in the mornings: we have sought to put such things right.
    In Bushey park, we have a programme completely to restore the chestnut avenue over two years. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently planted the first new tree. The management of Bushey park will stay with the park's agency.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does not the Minister recognise that, when the Government proposed the privatisation of the management of the royal parks, they did so in the face of the almost united opposition of all who knew about, were concerned about and cared for those parks? It is not a question of improvement; the parks are well maintained, and have been in the past. Does the Minister recognise the anger and concern that are now felt about a possible fall in standards as a result of cost-cutting, and the introduction of management practices that have already led to many staff members' losing their jobs in Greenwich and other royal parks?
    Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman wants it all ways. The fact is that the controversy—which was perfectly genuine—has been resolved very happily. Most of the societies and community groups in the park areas are now working closely with us and with the new agency, and standards have undoubtedly improved.
    In my opinion, the parks have not been looked after that well for half a century. That is precisely why we have increased the amount to be spent on them over the next few years, and why Greenwich park, for instance—a park which I personally have known for a number of years—is already being improved, and will continue to be improved.

    National Lottery
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has had from representatives of charities and voluntary organisations about the likely impact of a national lottery; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Key: I have received a number of representations from representatives of charities and voluntary organisa-tions about the likely impact of a national lottery. They include organisations such as the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Charities Aid Foundation and the Association of Charitable Foundations.
    Mr. O'Hara: Does the Minister accept that the vast majority of the proceeds of the lottery—if it is introduced —will be collected at local level? Does he accept that that money would otherwise have been spent on local charities, and that a disproportionate amount will be contributed by people on low incomes? Does he agree that if such a lottery is introduced, the mechanism for distributing the proceeds should ensure that local charities and voluntary organisations are not penalised, and can continue to serve the people who need them most?
    Mr. Key: I do not accept that most of the money that may be spent on a national lottery will come from what would otherwise have gone to local charities. It is precisely because we wish to protect and, indeed, enhance local charities—whether they are private or local authority charities—that we are changing the law in the National Lottery etc. Bill, so that better prizes and bigger turnovers will be allowed for small charities.
    The evidence suggests—and I firmly believe—that we shall attract a completely new market and that the whole community, right across the kingdom, will receive the overall benefit. That is an important point. It will not be a question of a few grand projects in London; that is why we are setting up the distribution mechanism that we propose.
    Mr. Burns: When my hon. Friend considers the representations that he has received from charities and voluntary organisations, may I ask him not to allow himself to be seduced by the special pleading of the football pools? Does he accept that prior to the introduction of a national lottery, the nearest thing that this country has ever had to a national lottery is the football pools? Apart from the money that they give to football, they are profitable organisations. They are organising a self-motivated, self-interested special plead-ing to defend their special interests and privileged position.
    Mr. Key: Yes, of course my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I respect entirely the very strong representaions that have been made by Members of Parliament who represent constituencies where the football pools are based, but there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the football pools, which are extremely profitable, should continue to be profitable under the new arrangements. However, that is profit for the private sector, and what the national lottery will address is the wider public good.

    English Heritage
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the representations he has received to the English Heritage strategy document, "Strategy for the 90s"; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Brooke: I have received some 250 representations about English Heritage's new forward strategy since its proposals were announced last October.
    Mr. Hughes: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. I do not know whether that figure includes responses to the proposals for London. I should be grateful if, either now or later, the Secretary of State could let me know. Does he accept that the proposals have elicited a huge amount of distrust and a considerable amount of opposition? Does he agree with the proposal by the committee for the future of London's architectural
    700
    heritage in its response that, in order that it should not be seen to be a carve up between English Heritage and the Government, there should be, to use the committee's words, a "full-scale and independent inquiry" into the future of England's heritage and that that is the best way to manage it rather than to leave everything to be decided by a quango?
    Mr. Brooke: It is my present firm understanding that the letters received in connection with the London region have been included in the answer that I have given. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the consultation process has come to a conclusion in terms of its timetable, though I am sure that other comments would still be received. In collaboration with English Heritage, I shall look closely at the outcome of the consultation.
    Mr. Adley: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the strategy for the 1990s will include any proposals to ensure that national artefacts no longer required by their owners, if those owners are in the public sector, remain available to British museums? Is my hon. Friend aware that one of his predecessors kindly invited me some years ago to sit on the committee of the National Railway museum. The assurances that the museum was given in the Railways Bill appear not about to be honoured. Will my right hon. Friend please ensure that his Department keeps an eye on that aspect of the national heritage?
    Mr. Brooke: I am not sure that I can do a precise read-across to the question that my hon. Friend raised, but I shall look closely at it to see whether there is an immediate application in our own case.
    Mr. Skinner: Why should areas in the provinces—for example places in Derbyshire, which includes the Bolsover constituency, such as Hardwick hall, Bolsover castle and a few more, including Creswell crags—suffer from the lack of Government money when the Government could save up to £60 million by telling the Queen to pay for the Windsor castle fire out of her own money? They would then have a bit more to spend on other areas in the provinces. Why does the Secretary of State not do that?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point of the strategy. Its purpose, in the context of a number of the monuments for which English Heritage is responsible, is that management might more sensibly be at local level. I am glad to be able to report to the House that more than 50 bodies have been in touch with English Heritage to discuss the possibility of taking over responsibility for its management.

    Calcutt Report
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he has had an opportunity to consider the report of the committee on the conduct of the press chaired by Sir David Calcutt; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Brooke: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to the question from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).
    Mr. Fabricant: Although I accept that the Secretary of State has to consider the Calcutt report, which has only just been published, I believe that many of my hon. Friends share my view that the Press Complaints

    701
    Commission, if it has teeth at all, has milk teeth. Will my right hon. Friend consider either giving canine teeth to the PCC or setting up a more powerful body that could deal with delinquent newspapers?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's question. He takes a keen interest in these subjects. One of the benefits of the consultation period is that it offers the opportunity for such suggestions to be ventilated.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Does the Secretary of State accept that he would be on far firmer ground in seeking to resist and restrict gross intrusions into the privacy of ordinary individuals if this Administration were committed to introducing a freedom of information Bill?
    Mr. Brooke: It will be to the benefit of the hon. Gentleman that, coincidentally, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has responsibility for these matters, is in the Chamber and will have heard his question.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a free press is as important to a free society as a free Parliament, but that so is the freedom of any two law-abiding individuals to have a private conversation, in any circumstances and anywhere, without fearing that someone will reproduce it?
    Mr. Brooke: Many hon. Members will share my hon. Friend's view and Sir David Calcutt's report dealt with intrusions into the privacy of everyone in the land.
    Mrs. Clwyd: May I exercise my own right of reply to correct an inaccuracy? A few moments ago, the Minister said that I am in favour of statutory controls. Does he accept that, until we have a freedom of information Act, the only statutory control on the press of which I am in favour is a statutory right of reply? Will he make that clear and not repeat his mistake of trying to perpetuate an inaccuracy?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady must be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) for having tabled the question, which enabled her to reply. I am delighted to have that gloss on what she said earlier and I shall go back to see what she said in the first instance.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the effect of the introduction of a national lottery on the pools industry in Merseyside; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Key: It is not possible to say what effect the national lottery might have on the pools industry in Merseyside. This will depend on the success of the lottery, on the sources of its revenue and on the management of the pools companies in responding to any changes in their market.
    Ms. Eagle: I am surprised by the Minister's response. He did not acknowledge the report that his Department received, which estimates that the national lottery will lead to 1,000 job losses on Merseyside. Does he accept that many in Merseyside fear that up to 6,000 jobs will be lost? What is his comment on that?
    Mr. Key: It is pure speculation. I cannot comment on a confidential report, which we shall not publish for the reasons that my right hon. Friend gave to the Select Committee on National Heritage. The community on Merseyside has responded remarkably to changes in the past and I see no reason to suppose that the pools industry will not continue to innovate in the way that it has in the past few weeks, after some 40 years of playing the sleeping beauty, and that there will be increasing success in other employment on Merseyside.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many staff will be employed at the administration centre for the national lottery; and what consideration he has given to basing this centre in south Dorset.
    Mr. Key: The national lottery will create a good many more jobs than just in its core operation. People will be able to run games under sub-licences by agreement with the main operator and all the games will generate new printing, marketing and retailing business. The location of the administrative centre will be a matter for potential operators to consider, but it is likely that the other operations will be scattered throughout the kingdom. It is not possible to say how many staff will be employed at the administrative centre of the main licence holder, as this will depend on the decisions of the operator.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply—and very informative it was. Will he say when he envisages a company being set up to run the lottery so that I can take my constituents to see it and explain what a wonderful place south Dorset would be to base such a company, both for the wonderful work force that we have and for the wonderful working and living conditions that we can provide?
    Mr. Key: I compliment my hon. Friend on the way in which he has already made representations to my Department, as have a number of other areas in the United Kingdom as far apart as Cornwall and Scotland. The timetable will depend entirely on whether the Labour party can heal its divisions, support the national lottery and get it on to the statute book quickly.

    Calcutt Report
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the findings of the Calcutt report.
    Mr. Brooke: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Walsall, North.
    Mr. Marshall: It is good to renew my acquaintance with the Secretary of State across the Chamber. Does he accept that although many of us are appalled from time to time by the arrogance and lack of sensitivity of some sections of the tabloid press, that should not be used as an excuse or reason to curb the legitimate activities of the press in exposing hypocrisy and wrong-doing in society, especially if it is perceived as protecting the highest in society?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to introduce value added tax on newsprint in the forthcoming Budget?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he began his question. Sir David

    703
    Calcutt's report, which we published on 14 January, made it clear that the investigation of crime and of individuals in the context of the nature of the job that they do would be perfectly proper defences against the additional offences that he suggested. However, he also made it clear in the report that his concern was the privacy of everyone in the land and that there were a considerable number of cases in which the privacy of private individuals not engaged in the type of jobs to which the hon. Gentleman referred was also being intruded on.

    Libraries
    Ms. Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met representatives of metropolitan district councils to discuss public library services.
    Mr. Key: I spoke in Wakefield on 21 January at the annual meeting of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities art, recreation and tourism committee, whose remit covers public library services. The then Secretary of State for National Heritage discussed library services among other issues with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities when he met its representatives on 27 July 1992.
    Ms. Quin: Although my authority of Gateshead has managed against the odds to retain excellent library services, is not it a fact that during the lifetime of this Government shops are opening ever-longer hours while public libraries seem to be open less and less? What will the Minister do to assure metropolitan districts and others that their library services can expand in the future?
    Mr. Key: The number of libraries has expanded by about 1 per cent. in the past 10 years, but library services are changing—they are not static. I wish that people would grasp the nettle in that respect. I have had to learn from professional librarians and the best councils that library services are changing rapidly. It is no longer merely a question of ensuring that their doors are open from nine to five, six days a week; libraries have to meet the demands of the people who want to use them, not only for book services but as resource centres. That often means that libraries will open flexible and different hours—open for some and shut for others. What matters is that there is a flexible response to meet the overall need and maintain overall standards.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great strengths of the library service nationwide in the past few years has been to increase the provision of specialist services, especially in music and children's libraries? Will he join me in welcoming the constructive steps taken by librarians throughout the country, and certainly in my constituency?
    Mr. Key: I gladly do so and I also acknowledge that professionals in the library service have met the challenge, often in the face of criticism from their own authorities.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent discussions he has had with the pools promoters concerning the introduction of the national lottery.
    Mr. Brooke: I met representatives of the pools companies on 9 December last year.
    Mr. Hughes: Whatever the merits or otherwise of a national lottery, does the Secretary of State appreciate that Britain has 3 million people out of work? It now appears that several thousand more jobs in the pools industry are at risk, including 1,000 in Cardiff. What plans do the Government have to alleviate the position?
    Mr. Brooke: I totally understand the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman asks his question. Although it is difficult to calibrate the precise consequences, I believe that one of the consequences of the national lottery will be a considerable expansion in the construction industry because it is envisaged that the majority of the projects on which the money will be spent through the distributors will be capital projects.

    Tourism
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the latest estimate of the number of tourists visiting Britain.
    Mr. Key: In the first 10 months of 1992, there were an estimated 15.4 million visits to the United Kingdom by overseas residents—8 per cent. more than in the equivalent period of 1991.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that those are encouraging figures and that they have probably been accelerated by currency movements since 16 September? Does he also agree that if we are to attract more tourists to London, it is essential that we improve public transport within London, especially the Northern line?
    Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is right. Some 70 per cent. of all tourists coming to this country start their visits in London and then move outwards. Transport is one of the items discussed by the Cabinet committee on London, a member of which is my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, who, I am delighted to say, is in the House today.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Citizens Charter
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the effect of the introduction of the citizens charter on people of pensionable age; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): The citizens charter calls on public services to take account of the needs of all their users, including pensioners. Where appropriate, charters include specific standards for pensioners. The Benefits Agency charter, for example, contains a standard for dealing with claims for retirement pension.
    Mr. O'Brien: How does the Minister explain Government policies on the financing of local government which result in further cuts in warden services, meals on wheels and home help services? How does he equate the cuts in those services with the promise made by the Prime

    705
    Minister, when he presented the citizens charter, that there would be an improvement in services to everyone? Will the Minister explain?
    Mr. Jackson: Whatever the resources provided—the amount of resources provided to support pensioners has increased substantially under this Government—they can be best applied if they are properly managed. The citizens charter is all about improving the management of public services. The people who most depend on public services are those who have most at stake in the citizens charter.
    Mr. Fisher: What would the Minister say to a pensioner who looks through the citizens charter first annual report and who finds scarcely a single mention of the words "pensioner" or "pension"? Is not that yet another example of how the Government ignore the needs of 10.5 million pensioners? In addition, pensioners in this country have lower incomes than pensioners in any other European Community country. What exactly will the Minister do, through the citizens charter, for pensioners or for other groups, such as the 1.5 million people with disabilities? They are totally ignored by the citizens charter.
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Gentleman, speaking for the Labour party, is in no position to lecture us about pensioners. Pensioners' total net incomes under this Government have increased 10 times more than they did under the previous Labour Government. The citizens charter is for citizens, and pensioners are citizens. Pensioners resent being put into a special box by the hon. Gentleman and by people who think as he does. Pensioners want to be treated alongside others. They are users of public services as others are. They may use a given public service more extensively, so to that extent they will benefit from improvements in the delivery of that service. We have to think of the charter as a citizens charter, not as a charter for special interest groups.
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what new citizens charters he intends to introduce.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): We plan to publish a new charter for further and higher education, for Scottish and Welsh heritage and for the Northern Ireland buses and courts services. Existing charters will be revised to raise standards on a continuous cycle.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Chancellor know that more people are robbed and cheated by their own banks and insurance companies than are burgled and mugged by the criminal fraternity? May we have a charter that will protect people against exorbitant bank charges, against fraudulent home income bonds and against poor-value endowment policies and personal pensions? When does the Chancellor intend to act to protect people against the greed, incompetence and dishonesty of banks and insurance companies?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman goes much wider than my brief. The citizens charter is about the management of public services and that is a big enough task for now.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that other Governments are now following our lead? Will he
    706
    consider introducing a new charter—an adopters charter —for couples wishing to adopt, as many couples currently face far too many bureaucratic obstacles?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I can certainly accept the first part of my hon. Friend's comments. At the conference just before Christmas, representatives from a number of countries were interested in our approach and we had much that was positive to discuss. On his second point, I know, from my experience as Secretary of State for Health, that my hon. Friend is a considerable expert and has been a campaigner in respect of adoption. I do not believe that a specific charter would necessarily be the right way forward, but I should be happy to discuss it with him.

    Charter Programme
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the total cost of the charter programme; and what proposals there are for more charters.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The charter applies to all public services and is reflected in their individual expenditure programmes. Centrally, the charter unit spent £1.6 million in 1991–92.
    Mr. Banks: When is the Minister going to accept that this is a complete waste of public money? The charters are just a public relations exercise: it is rather like putting make-up on a corpse. The best way to make public services work is to invest in them and not to issue glossy pamphlets which are nothing more than a PR puff for the Downing street train spotter.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is perhaps the definitive member of the chattering classes. The citizens charter is of more interest and of more use to those who rely primarily on those services. That is why we are putting such political force behind achieving those improvements. The hon. Gentleman might direct his London weight to improvements closer to home—perhaps in some of the services provided by Labour Lambeth council.
    Mr. Tracey: May I take my right hon. Friend further on that point? Will he send in advisers to suggest an appropriate charter for the unfortunate people in Lambeth who have, it seems, been so ill-treated recently by their local authority?
    Mr. Waldegrave: A number of Opposition Members, including most honourably the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey), would support what my hon. Friend said. Members of the Tribune group are also much committed to that. Tribune recently wrote:
    "Labour local government is lacklustre and incompetent. In a few cases it is simply corrupt and nepotistic. This is nothing new."
    That is the view of the Tribune group, members of which are present on the Opposition Benches at this very moment.
    Ms. Mowlam: I think that we will leave the question of lacklustre when it comes to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Would not it be more appropriate to consider whether there may have been any conflict of interest or morally dubious practices in respect of the market testing part of the citizens charter and consider also the London conference, to which the Chancellor has just referred,

    707
    where KPMG Peat Marwick, which hosted the reception, also received at least 36 contracts last year from Government Departments in respect of market testing? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a commitment today that, in the interests of open government, in his forthcoming paper he will publish the names of those companies which applied for contracts and at what price they were awarded? Surely the British public have a right to know.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I do not know whether the hon. Lady is making a serious allegation of fraud. The contracts were all properly placed according to all the rules of contracting. Those matters are entirely open. If the hon. Lady wishes to pursue the matter, perhaps she had better consider what she says a little more carefully.

    Science (White Paper)
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what meetings he has recently held with representatives of the engineering industry to disucss the scope of his forthcoming White Paper on science.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I have had a wide range of meetings with engineering interests and have also received a large number of excellent submissions from representatives of the engineering industry, copies of which have been placed in the Library. I shall be publishing a White Paper in the spring which will address not only science but technology and engineering, too.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the importance of engineering to the national economy, his White Paper on science should emphasise the role of engineering research?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend and the White Paper will cover that ground in, I hope, a thorough way.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: In the year of the 150th anniversary of the Brunel tunnel under the Thames—the first tunnel under the Thames—from Rotherhithe to Wapping, will the Secretary of State make sure that the Engineering Employers Federation gets maximum support in its objective of maximising the number of young people who go into engineering and are excited by engineering as good training and a good career thereafter? The federation is to run a course and a programme of events in London in the autumn. Will the right hon. Gentleman give it full Government support?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I certainly honour the centenary and a half to which the hon. Gentleman refers, although I hope that some of our modern engineering projects are slightly better financed than some of those of that great engineer. There is good news that the number of engineers is increasing—by about 2 per cent. for those on engineering first degree courses over the past five years. That is a recovery from the previous dip. I will certainly study the action in the autumn to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

    Citizens Charter
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans his Department has to publish more public service performance indicators as part of the citizens charter campaign.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: Extending performance indicators across the public sector into matters such as local government and the NHS is at the heart of the citizens charter commitment to give people more information about the way in which their public services are working.
    As a result of the citizens charter, people now have access to information on the performance of schools, local authorities, the NHS and British Rail.
    Mrs. Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that publication of those performance indicators has resulted in a sea change in the amount of information that local people receive about their council services? Does he agree further that the reason why Labour has been so critical about the proposals is that they have shown up the fact that Labour local authorities, not just Lambeth, but my council, Derbyshire county council, too, provide poor services at high cost?
    Mr. Jackson: The league tables of performance of local authorities will, of course, be critical in enabling people to make good choices and sensible decisions about not only what kind of services they want but what they will do when they go to the ballot box.
    Mr. Pike: Would not the many millions of people, particularly women and elderly people, who feel trapped in their homes in the evening feel better about the Government's performance indicators and charters if there were more police on the streets, more street lighting and more manning at railway stations so that they could go out at night and be able to enjoy their lives to the full? Is not that the type of indicator that we should have for the people of this country?
    Mr. Jackson: The issue is not just the level of resources provided, but the way in which they are managed. If we look at the way in which Labour local authorities have spent money, we will see that of the top 20 community charge-levying councils, 17 are Labour controlled and the other three are under no overall control, yet they all show up badly on performance. That is what we need to focus on.

    Scientific Research
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his estimate of the value of the private sector contribution to scientific research within the universities.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: In 1990 British education institutions received around £300 million from non-Government sources in support of research and development, about half of which came from business.
    Mr. Coombs: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the Economic and Social Research Council's report entitled "Turning New Ideas into Business Success"? What role does my hon. Friend envisage for the private sector, in conjunction with universities and other places of higher and further education, in ensuring that the new ideas for which this country is so famous are turned more successfully into prosperity for our people than was the case in the past?
    Mr. Jackson: I like to think of my hon. Friend as the Member for the research council because its headquarters is in his constituency. We have looked at the ESRC report

    709
    on the innovation agenda—it is an interesting paper—and we shall draw conclusions in the White Paper, but it has been one of our themes in the 1980s and through the history of this Government to promote stronger mechanisms of interaction, which is one of the themes of the innovation agenda, between people who use technologies and the people who are developing them. It is not a one-way process of inventing ideas and then transferring them into the marketplace. We need to have a marketplace sending signals back into the communities that produce ideas. That is very much the theme of that paper, the theme of our policy and the theme of our thinking on the White Paper.

    Public Servants (Secret Society Membership)
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will require public servants to disclose publicly membership of secret societies.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: No, Madam.
    Mr. Mullin: May I put it to the Minister that there is absolutely no point in standing at the Dispatch Box mouthing platitudes about the need for open government if he is not prepared to lift a finger against the greatest secret society, which has an iron grip on many of our most respected public institutions?
    May I put it to him further that nothing undermines public confidence in public institutions so much as the knowledge that many public servants are members of a secret society, one of whose aims is mutual advancement?
    Mr. Jackson: I am sorry to disturb the even tenor of the hon. Gentleman's prepared supplementary question. I do not regard it as a platitude to say that we are against unjustified invasions of privacy. I think that that is the point here. I point out to the hon. Gentleman, perhaps in a more constructive way, that we already have rules that require individuals in the civil service to avoid any conflicts of interest. There are rules already in place in the civil service code. When civil servants become aware of a conflict of interest, they must remove it and, if appropriate, report it to the senior officer. We are looking again at the civil service code to see whether those provisions need to be sharpened.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend have any information about whether the Labour party has any secret societies, especially in local government?
    Mr. Jackson: One of the interesting things about secret societies is that one never knows who the members of them are.

    Edinburgh Summit (Science and Technology)
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action he has taken on measures on science and technology agreed at the Edinburgh summit.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Following the agreement on future financing that the Community reached at Edinburgh, member states were able to agree, under my chairmanship of the Research Council, to a top-up of the third research and development framework programme of 900 mecu.
    710
    That will give stability to European Community research in the period before the fourth framework comes into effect.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Chancellor confirm that, in those negotiations, he insisted on a budget for European science and technology of £500 million less than the original proposal? Does he believe that that is a great achievement for someone who is supposed to be advancing science and technology across Europe?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The finally agreed figure was 700 mecu lower than the highest figure proposed by the Commission. Spain, Germany and a number of other countries did not believe that the figure was realistic at all and nor did we. A reasonable compromise was reached which will protect European science. We value European science and the United Kingdom does well out of it. It was a sensible compromise.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister aware that the Government's unilateral decision to cancel the fast reactor programme and pull out of the European collaborator programme was a slap in the face for the development of the European initiative and simply passed a long-established British technology to the Japanese? is he proud of that?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I know of the hon. Gentleman's commitment to the project. I believe that the right decision was taken.

    Citizens Charter
    Mr. Ottaway: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent contacts he has had with academics and research groups, in the United Kingdom and abroad, to discuss the principles of the citizens charter initiative.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: My right hon. Friend and I, and the citizens charter unit, regularly meet a wide range of academics and research groups. The dialogue helps to ensure that the charter stays at the forefront of public service reform.
    Mr. Ottaway: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Has he noticed that, despite the banter from Labour Members, many on the left have warmly welcomed the principles of the citizens charter? The Guardian, referring to the publication of exam results, said the other day:
    "Parents have more information than they had before. No democrat should regard this as a reverse."
    Does the Minister agree with that?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is right. In general, the Government strongly welcome new thinking from the academic community which can help to foster new ways of providing public services. For example, the influence of Messrs. Gaebler and Osborne on the theme of reinventing Government is a positive force in the United States and is having a big impact on the new administration there. We were delighted to welcome Mr. Gaebler to our European Community citizens charter conference last month and Dr. Osborne will be coming here shortly.
    My hon. Friend made particular reference to people on the left. There are home-grown think-tanks of academics, some of them leaning to the left, who have been useful and

    711
    have made interesting comments. For example, Anna Coote from the Institute for Public Policy Research said of the citizens charter:
    "There is much to applaud in the charter. It is genuinely trying to shake the public sector out of a complacency induced by decades of monopoly supply."
    Mr. Winnick: Without wishing to put forward too bold a proposal, when the Minister is discussing charter initiatives and the rest, would it be possible to have another charter for the 3 million or more unemployed people in the United Kingdom to be able to work? What about their rights? A genuine charter, not simply cosmetic nonsense, for the unemployed would be useful.
    Mr. Jackson: People who are unemployed benefit from the operation of the charter because they make extensive use of Government-provided public services. All those services are operating according to charter standards. The mechanisms of the charter exist to help people to obtain better public services. That is what it is all about.
    Mr. Duncan: Is my hon. Friend aware that, increasingly across the European Community, administrations are examining their decisions by comparing them with government across Europe? Does he agree that many countries in the Community, such as Germany and France, want to visit London to see how the citizens charter operates? Will he do all that he can to ensure that our experience is shared with them? [Laughter.]
    Mr. Jackson: Despite the jeering from Opposition Members, my hon. Friend is right. The experience of the
    712
    1980s was that we led the world in privatisation. The experience of the 1990s will be that we shall lead the world in public service reform. The conference in London to which I referred was attended by people from throughout the Community and the world, who were extremely interested in what we were doing to improve the management of public services.

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
    VETERINARY SURGEONS (QUALIFICATIONS)
    That the draft Veterinary Surgeons Qualifications (EEC Recognition) (Amendment) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Scottish Hospital Trust Scheme 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

    RAILWAYS TARIFFS
    That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (International Railways Tariffs Agreements) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Patnick.]
    Question agreed to.

Point of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you yet received from the Government the terms of reference for their inquiry on the Ouseley report, which showed that Labour councillors in Lambeth had been found guilty of fraud, corruption, negligence and intimidation? As those councillors have managed to turn that area into a political cesspit, should not we have the terms of reference of that report at once?
Madam Speaker: Order. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is, no, I have not.

Orders of the Day

  National Lottery etc. Bill
  [The Third Report from the National Heritage Committee on the National Lottery etc. Bill, HC 389 of Session 1992–93 is relevant.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I must tell the House that there is a great deal of interest in this matter and that, therefore, I have had to limit speeches between the hours of 6 pm and 8 pm to 10 minutes. I hope that those hon. Members who are fortunate enough to be called outside those hours will exercise voluntary restraint on the length of their speeches.
  I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  3.31 pm
  The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Peter Brooke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I am delighted to be here today to assist the House in its consideration of the National Lottery etc Bill, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary presented on 16 December. My father spoke on the occasion of the introduction of premium bonds more than 35 years ago—an occasion of some controversy when there was some criticism of the Government for introducing a form of state gambling which would rot the moral foundations of our society. Whether or not this has been the outcome is for others to decide. Those loving grandparents who buy premium bonds for their grandchildren may be a little disconcerted to be reminded of the controversy which the bonds created when they were first proposed.
  Premium bonds went on to become a runaway success and something of an institution. The Bill before the House today proposes the establishment of a further institution, the first national lottery in the United Kingdom since 1826. That lottery fell into disrepute, chiefly because the main focus had turned from the lottery itself to bets placed on its outcome. We hope that our lottery will be well-regulated. We have sought to make specific provision to prevent the kind of abuse which beset its predecessor.
  The Bill's provisions have attracted widespread, popular support in the country, both in the response to the White Paper presented by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker)—out of more than 200 responses there were only 17 objections—and in the reaction since the Bill was published. In fact, one of the most common reactions was, "At last—but why have we alone of all the western countries had to wait this long before being allowed the opportunity to have a lottery which will benefit the people of this country?"
  In establishing the national lottery we are, of course, establishing a major new industry. That is clearly a benefit in itself. But this new industry will be operating firmly within the framework of what I might call the vision of the national lottery—an enterprise the primary aim of which is to raise money for activities which will improve the quality of life of the citizens of this country.
  In much of the business that we undertake in this House, we must be mindful of wider perspectives. In the case of the national lottery there is a clear European perspective. If we did not introduce such a Bill with such

  715
  obvious public support as the one before us today, we believe that the general public's desire to play the lottery would still be satisfied—eventually by playing foreign lotteries, whose sole purpose is to improve the quality of life of the citizens of other countries. Those lotteries would continue to be unlawful, but with modern telecommunications it will not be possible to stop people participating. The choice therefore is not between one lottery and none, but between benefit from the lottery in the United Kingdom and benefit abroad. Hon. Members are being asked, therefore, to approve a measure which will ensure that the public thirst to participate in lotteries is harnessed to good effect through enhancing the national life of the United Kingdom.
  The national lottery will benefit five broad categories —charities, arts, sport, the heritage, and a new fund established to celebrate the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium. These are clearly all areas that involve the achievement of excellence, the opportunity to participate and the extension of choice in leisure and voluntary activity. They add to people's lives and thus the well-being of the nation as a whole.
  Mr. Tony Banks: What assurances can the Secretary of State give the House that the money from a national lottery, if one is instituted, will not be used to replace central Government funding for a number of the areas that he has designated? If the Government no longer publish their forward plans for funding the arts, how can we ever know whether they have taken the national lottery money into consideration when making a settlement for the arts and other areas?
  Mr. Brooke: The subject of additionality will obviously interest the House and I shall come to it if the hon. Member will bide with me.
  Using the lottery money in that way, we can reinforce a sense of national pride in the citizens of the United Kingdom. We can create new public facilities—in inner cities or in rural areas—which will encourage citizens' involvement in activities that will broaden their outlook and experience.
  Hon. Members may be aware of the example being set by Chris Eubank who, by making Moss Side his training base, hopes to lead by example and persuade the young people there that the opportunity to participate in sport offers an alternative to the world of drugs and crime. That is precisely the sort of benefit that the lottery is intended to bring to the nation. Sports facilities in inner cities, better arts facilities, preserving the nation's heritage, allowing wider access to facilities and generating additional wealth through the encouragement of tourism—the lottery will fund all those.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. Friend is no doubt aware that the lottery would not only help with other activities in rural areas, but could fling a lifeline to village shops if they were allowed to sell tickets.
  Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I shall come to the method of selling tickets.
  Mr. David Alton: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; I realise that he has been generous in giving way. He has mentioned the inner cities. He will be aware that in cities such as
  716
  Glasgow, Liverpool and Cardiff people are concerned about the implications of a lottery for jobs. We are gambling with people's jobs in those areas without any evidence that they will not go out of existence as a result of the introduction of a national lottery. At the minimum, can he assure the House that organisers of the national lottery will not be able to do anything that the pools industry is not allowed to do and that it will have the same opportunities to advertise and to offer the same types of promotion and prizes?
  Mr. Brooke: I give the hon. Gentleman the same assurance that I gave to the pools promoters when they visited me on 9 December. The Government will listen carefully to the arguments put forward on each of the concessions that they are requesting rather than respond to a blanket request.
  Mr. George Howarth rose—
  Mr. Brooke: Knowing the hon. Gentleman's constitu-ency, I think that he wants to address me on the subject of the pools. I shall come to that case in a little while and guarantee that I shall give way then.
  The charitable and voluntary sectors are an important part of our national life. They encourage the participation of large numbers of citizens and carry out vital work in all areas of life—whether it be in villages or in inner cities. Those activities are important both in terms of their final outcome and the way in which they involve large numbers of people in a creative and fulfilling way. Those activities will also be funded by the lottery.
  Any new proposal naturally raises worries about its impact. In particular, the pools companies have been lobbying all who would listen. Their concerns are reflected in the reasoned amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). It would be wrong to view the lottery from the perspective of the pools companies and a pity in that, as I hope to demonstrate, it shows a remarkably narrow viewpoint and fails to address what the national lottery is all about. It is also a pity as it shows a woeful lack of appreciation of the public support for the Bill.
  Mr. George Howarth: If the case that I think that the Secretary of State is about to try to establish—that the lottery will not affect the pools companies—is to stand up to a credibility test, why does he not publish the GAH group report, commissioned by his Department, so that we may have an objective, independent assessment of the likely impact?
  Mr. Brooke: The arrival of any new institution in our national life is bound to affect people, and I recognise that the pools industry will be affected by the national lottery. I do not share the pools promoters' view about the scale of that effect. I think that the House is fairly familiar with the GAH report. We commissioned consultants to draw it up and they talked to those around the world who run lotteries. The consultants were given confidential information on condition that it would remain confidential.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brooke: I shall give way in a moment, but I think that the spirit in which I am making the speech is clear to the House. I should like to spend a little time dealing with pools matters as I believe that it will assist the House.

  717
  Introducing a new industry has always aroused fears in those who imagine that their livelihoods might be under threat. Change will always engender fear among those who have operated in a stable, unchanging environment for a number of years. It might also encourage those who have been looking for a chance to change the regulatory framework under which they work to achieve long-cherished ambitions. It provides a perfect occasion for the skills of the lobbyist to come to the fore and to divert the attention of the House away from the central objective.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the Secretary of State comment on the inquiry that Littlewoods commissioned Coopers and Lybrand to carry out? The inquiry found that several thousand jobs would be lost and employees would be retrenched outside Cardiff and Liverpool. In my constituency, 600 jobs are certain to go as a result of the National Lottery etc. Bill.
  Mr. Brooke: All such assumptions and hypotheses assume that we live in a wholly unchanging world. Since I met the pools promoters on 9 December, they have already made significant changes to their arrangements which postdate the Coopers and Lybrand report.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Is the Secretary of State aware that pools industries in a number of countries have gone to the wall and many jobs have been lost? Pools companies and others who know the industry in detail have estimated that thousands of jobs will go to the wall. Is the Secretary of State also aware that this nation has one of the highest levels of gambling, and there is talk of £2 per head being spent on gambling? Will the Secretary of State include that statistic in his thoughts on poor families?
  Mr. Brooke: I have seen the observations made about the experiences of other countries. When I have read those accounts—which are all particular to specific countries and situations—it has seemed to me that the pools promoters pay insufficient tribute to their own skill, longevity and the impressive role that they currently play in our national life.
  Therefore, it would be a pity were the House to lose sight of the real purpose of today's debate. We are here to debate an opportunity. We are here to debate a measure that will create a new multi-billion pound business that will benefit our national life. We are talking of an enterprise that might create about 1,000 core jobs in its central operation, with many others in associated service industries, which will help to underpin the incomes of thousands of retail businesses throughout the country—as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) said—and provide many exciting projects for the construction industry.
  Mr. Barry Jones: The Secretary of State came under strong pressure, as did the Under-Secretary of State, during Question Time when dealing with employment, or the lack of it. In Cardiff, more than 20,000 are out of work. How many are jobless in the Liverpool area?
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: About 70,000.
  Mr. Brooke: I am familiar with the figure which was helpfully provided by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing). As I said during Question
  718
  Time, the nature of the opportunity for the construction industry that will be afforded by the capital projects—the erection of buildings—is not taken into account in the calculations.
  Sir Malcolm Thornton: Before we leave the important subject of the impact on employment in a particular area, it is only right to say that reference has already been made to the GAH report. I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm—leaving aside any confidential information which may have appeared in this report—that the conclusions of the report were that, in spite of the advantages which possibly the United Kingdom pools have over their European counterparts, the impact is assessed—this is without any changes—as a reduction in revenues of 17.5 per cent. overall. It is estimated that job losses will amount to 1,100. I am aware of what my right hon. Friend said about the improvement in job prospects arising from the national lottery, but I do not think that the two things are mutually exclusive. Will he confirm that these are the conclusions that came from the report?
  Mr. Brooke: The quotations from the GAH report, which appeared in The Guardian on 27 November, referred to numbers such as my hon. Friend has quoted. They were obviously a particular quotation from the report. They were, to a degree, quoted out of context in that the figures in the GAH report—in this respect I do not think that I am offending confidentiality since it was the view of the consultants—applied if the organisers of the pools themselves did nothing to respond, which we know they have already done. The focus of the debate should be on the real opportunity which we now have, and which we must now seize, irrespective of party affiliation, to provide maximum benefit to the quality of life. We owe it to our constituents to get this measure right and to give them what they clearly want.
  Mr. William O'Brien: The Minister has referred to quality of life. Does he realise that there will be injury to the quality of life of many who rely on local charities if no provision is made within the Bill to defend local charities? The scratch card was introduced by local charities, and it seems that it is now to be taken over by the national lottery. There is nothing in the Bill that provides a real safeguard for local charities, which suggests that they will be damaged. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the interests of such charities will be safeguarded and that there will be no reduction in the quality of life of those who depend on local charities?
  Mr. Brooke: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman had an exchange with my hon. Friend during—
  Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A few moments ago the Secretary of State was kind enough to give way to me. I took the opportunity to press him on the report which his Department commissioned from the GAH group. Some moments later the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) quoted directly from the report. The Secretary of State declined to publish the report when I pressed him earlier. The hon. Member for Crosby, as I understand it, quoted directly from the report, and the Secretary of State then referred to The Guardian but confirmed the points that the hon. Gentleman had made. In the light of your earlier rulings

  719
  on this point, Madam Speaker, should not the report now be put on the Table? Should not it be made available to right hon. and hon. Members during the debate?
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I think that the Secretary of State wants to make a point of order.
  Mr. Brooke: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I want the House to be clear about what we are discussing. I have said that we will not publish the GAH report. In particular, I said that in the aftermath of the report in The Guardian on 27 November, which quoted isolated parts. My hon. Friend quoted from The Guardian quotations, and I was responding to that.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask you to read the Hansard report of the debate because I believe that I heard the Secretary of State confirm that the contents of the report were as published in The Guardian? Furthermore, I believe that I heard him then qualify that document. Would you please check Hansard, Madam Speaker? It would be most unreasonable if the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) were to go amiss and if it were not to be studied by the Clerks of the House with a view to the document being placed on the Table of the House.
  Mr. Wareing: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I heard—and I hope that you did, too—the Secretary of State say that he did not think that he was breaching confidentiality and then quoted a view expressed in the report, not in The Guardian version of the report. Is not there either a convention or a reference in "Erskine May" that provides that when a report is referred to in a debate in the House it must be published or at least placed in the Library?
  Madam Speaker: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, it must he a direct quote by the Secretary of State. I shall certainly look carefully at Hansard to see precisely what has been said on the matter.
  Mr. Brooke: I have undertaken to listen to the legitimate concerns of the pools companies and to consider amendments to the Bill as they are tabled. The Bill is designed to take such amendments and I am prepared to be persuaded by arguments of high quality. I have to say that I am yet to be convinced—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) knows me to be a generous and fair-minded man. I am not minded to give way on concessions that hang on the Bill as a flag of convenience.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: An interesting point is whether the money that is taken in taxation on the pools investment automatically and by definition goes to good causes, because the Government decide how to spend it. Is not there some rough equivalence between the money that goes to good causes through the taxation of pools and the money that might otherwise go directly to good causes through the national lottery?
  Mr. Brooke: It is true that the pools promoters have argued that taxation is money that goes to good causes. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is endorsing that. The comparison is not absolutely precise.
  The pools companies refer most often to employment and have managed to worry their employees, even to the extent of asking—
  Mr. William O'Brien: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Secretary of State was about to answer points that I raised in an intervention when he was interrupted by points of order. Is the right hon. Gentleman now able to answer my points?
  Madam Speaker: It is not very often that I get so many genuine points of order. I can well understand that sometimes we get a little confused in the debate across the Floor. I am sure that the Secretary of State has it in mind to answer the hon. Gentleman's points.
  Mr. Brooke: I apologise to you, Madam Speaker, and to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that, as a consequence of the points of order, I did not immediately respond to the hon. Gentleman's points.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Genuine points.
  Mr. Brooke: Yes, genuine points. As the hon. Gentleman knows from his exchange with my hon. Friend earlier today, there are provisions in the Bill to protect the position of small lotteries. If he chooses to enlarge his remarks in his speech later in the debate, I am sure that my hon. Friend will respond further.
  Mr. John Greenway: Many right hon. and hon. Members who have misgivings about the Bill will be greatly encouraged by my right hon. Friend's remark that the Government will listen carefully to reasoned amendments. Will my right hon. Friend share with us his thoughts about clause 12 and the proposed regulations, which deal with lottery marketing and advertising? While some of us have already suggested that there should be even competition in the marketing of pools, bingo, and the lottery, we are equally gravely concerned that the Government should not go too far down the road—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot allow interventions that constitute a speech.
  Mr. Brooke: I regret, Madam Speaker, that when a right hon. or hon. Member intervenes I am not readily able to anticipate the length of his intervention.
  Madam Speaker: Order. I will take care of that.
  Mr. Brooke: I know that you, Madam Speaker, agree with me that it is most uncharacteristic of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) to misbehave in the way that you, Madam Speaker, thought that he might have done. I will address specifically my hon. Friend's question about clause 12 when I deal with the clauses in general.
  The pools companies suggested to their 70,000 part-time collectors that they should write to their Members of Parliament asking for a change in the regulations to allow sales in retail outlets. Employees might reasonably fear, despite the companies' assertion to the contrary, that such a change could itself pose a threat to their jobs in the long run.

  721
  The pools appear to be a well-managed operation. They have already started to change their rules—which they would not have done if it were not for the prospect of a national lottery. To suggest that they cannot adapt their management or marketing strategy within the existing framework of regulation is to underestimate their considerable resourcefulness, to which I can personally pay tribute.
  As the House may know, my Department commissioned a report, to which I have already referred, based on confidential information supplied by lotteries world wide. It examined the key determinants for a successful lottery and also touched on the likely effects on the pools industry. I will not, for the reasons that I gave, publish that report, simply because the information supplied for it was given on the understanding that it would not be published. However, I will refer to certain assertions made by the pools companies on the basis of particular leaks of that research.
  The report considered—and here I am going back over ground that I covered in answers to my hon. Friends—that, only on the hypothesis that the pools did nothing to change the management of their operation, their turnover might be affected in such a way that the pools might lose 1,100 jobs in their central operations nationwide. However, we have all seen that the pools are well able to adapt to change, to preserve their own interests.
  The report did not take into account either the existing intentions of the pools, with or without the advent of the lottery. Given the pools' tendency to cut their work force in recent years and a drive to increase mechanisation that was in place long before the lottery was suggested, I wonder whether the pools companies themselves would be able to guarantee existing levels of employment if there were no lottery. I am not aware of such an undertaking. In fact, it seems that the pools themselves have been seeking for some time, through voluntary redundancies, to reduce their work force. It might have assisted the House if the pools, in their lobbying, had made clear their own strategies in relation to employment.
  Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend mentioned the impending mechanisation of parts of the pools' operation, which I understand will lead to the loss of some jobs. Is it not true that, in the 20 years to 1971, pools companies lost 12,000 jobs and that in the 20 years since 1971 they have lost a further 6,000 jobs? With technology, logically they will lose more.
  Mr. Brooke: I have seen figures similar to those quoted by my hon. Friend, though they were not necessarily precisely the same. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend's point is well taken.
  Some right hon. and hon. Members may find the argument that the pools do not have a level playing field quite seductive. I counter that by reminding the House that we are talking about adjacent playing fields for different games rather than the same field. If the pools were, as it were, playing the same game on the same field, perhaps the odds would be tipped in their favour. They have loyal players and established distribution networks; their position is strong against any newcomer—especially one that, like the lottery, will have to start from scratch and appeal to everyone.
  In countries with lotteries, the profile of those who play almost directly matches the profile of the population
  722
  overall. It goes far wider than the profile of those who spend on other gambling, including the pools. Spending on lotteries is drawn from marginal disposable income. The more successful the lottery, the broader the range of expenditure from which it will attract funds.
  Lotteries do not attract the serious gambler; the odds are too long. They attract those who want the chance to win, and to know that the money that they pay will go to good causes. Lotteries are not compulsive or addictive in the way that other games of skill and chance can be: they do not encourage excessive participation. There is no current product in the United Kingdom market place quite like that of the national lottery. That is why I warn hon. Members against looking too closely at what may seem to be existing analogues. Instead, I urge them to look beyond, to what the lottery can achieve for everyone.
  Mr. Frank Field: In what way would the operation of the pools have to change, to place them on the same level playing field rather than an adjacent one?
  Mr. Brooke: I was talking about the concessions that the pools operators were seeking, because they wanted exactly the same rules as would apply to the national lottery. During my discussions with the Select Committee, there was considerable debate about whether there was a difference between the pools, as a game of skill—
  Mr. Tony Banks: It is not a game of skill.
  Mr. Brooke: Let me finish my answer to the hon. Member for Birkenhead.
  It was suggested to me in the Select Committee that the pools were not an exercise in skill but an exercise in chance. If that is so, why have they not been liable to the provisions of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976, which is very tightly drawn and would have greatly reduced the sphere of activity in which the pools could have featured? If the pools were a game of chance, as is being implied, they should have been subject to the Act ever since 1976.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brooke: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who made a specific point during Question Time.
  Mr. Simon Burns: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he share my amazement at the lobbying efforts of the football pools operators? As I said earlier, they have enjoyed a monopoly in this country for many years, running what is basically the equivalent of a national lottery. Now they are seeking simply to protect their own interests and to maintain the status quo. They do not like the idea of anyone else running a similar operation that will raise money for good causes—unlike their own game, which raises money for football and profits for themselves.
  Mr. Brooke: I am grateful—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Burns: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I strongly resent the implication that I have been paid to intervene on my right hon. Friend. I have no financial interest in any company. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
  Madam Speaker: Order. Let us make some progress. [Interruption.] Order. I accept what the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has said, but I did not hear the remark to which he referred. Let us make some progress,

  723
  and let us have some order. [Interruption.] Order. I have just told the hon. Member for Chelmsford that I did not hear what was said, although I accept what he himself said. If I did not hear what was said, I cannot ask an hon. Member to withdraw it.
  Mr. Brooke: I was about to deal with the specific content of the Bill—
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Of course you are quite right, but the hon. Gentleman over there knows that he made the remark. He should do the decent thing and withdraw it.
  Madam Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman refers to "the hon. Gentleman over there". As I did not hear the remark, and as I do not know to which hon. Member the hon. and learned Gentleman is now pointing, I cannot deal with the matter.
  Mr. Brooke: I have sought to give way generously. As I shall deal next with the provisions of the Bill, perhaps you, Madam Speaker, will allow me to give way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), who has been trying to intervene.
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: The Secretary of State compared the pools with the national lottery and other forms of gambling. Does he not recognise that the lottery will not be harmless entertainment but another form of gambling?
  Mr. Brooke: I have not sought at any stage to deny that the lottery will be at the softer end of the gambling spectrum. The Bill before the House is—
  Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for detaining the House, but the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is under the impression that I accused him of being paid to lobby in favour of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman says that that is not so, I unreservedly withdraw what I said. The reason for my confusion, however, is that I understand that the hon. Gentleman works for several lobbying organisations.
  Several hon. Members: Oh!
  Madam Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Burns: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that the hon. Gentleman has in front of him the Register of Members' Interests. If he looks at my entry there, and at previous editions, he will see that I have never been a parliamentary consultant or a lobbyist for any organisation.
  Madam Speaker: I think that that clears up the matter nicely. Perhaps we can now make progress.
  Mr. Brooke: The Bill before the House is an enabling Bill. It establishes the legality of the national lottery, sets up a regime of licensing and regulation, and establishes the mechanism for distributing money to good causes. It is an innovative and forward-thinking Bill in many respects. The framework it establishes is intended to give maximum flexibility so that the regulator can respond quickly and effectively to changing developments. The lottery will be run by a single private sector operator. The successful company will be licensed by the Director General of the
  724
  National Lottery—Oflot—who will issue a licence to run the lottery under clause 5 of the Bill. But games will change over time, so there is a separate system for licensing them—the clause 6 licence. This will ensure maximum operational flexibility and will enable Oflot to regulate the rules of proposed games and ensure that they will be more practically able to ensure the maximisation of proceeds.
  The rest of part I variously provides for the conditions which may be satisfied before a licence is granted and powers of revocation and enforcement. Key powers for the Secretary of State are contained in clauses 11 and 12. Clause 11 deals with matters on which I can direct the director general with regard to the licence, both in what the licence should contain and what should be taken into account when deciding whether or not a licence should be granted. I am minded to outlaw certain types of game which might be said to lead to potential exploitation of the consumer or might not be subject to sufficient controls —such as telephone games, or games using national insurance numbers, or games which encourage excessive play. I am also minded to outlaw the discounting of tickets and limiting rollover, which will help to avoid abuse.
  Clause 12 sets out the areas on which I can regulate the lottery. These will affect people who play the lottery or who sell tickets—those who are not covered by the licence. Under this category, I intend to set a minimum age of 16 for those who can buy or sell tickets, to outlaw the selling of tickets in pubs and betting offices, to specify the information which must appear in any advertisement for the lottery, and to prescribe how the lottery logo should be displayed. Part I also makes provision for a report to be made to me by the director general each year and I am required to lay this report before Parliament. Clause 16 makes the taking of bets on the outcome of the national lottery a ground for the revocation or non-renewal of a bookmaker's permit.
  Part II deals with the distribution of proceeds. We must be quite clear that, although this is not Government money, it is money provided by the public, so it must be used in the best possible way. So far as possible, we plan to use existing bodies in order not to duplicate expertise or run counter to existing well-laid strategies.
  Clause 20 sets out the proportions to go to each sector —20 per cent. each. These proportions can be amended subject to affirmative resolution, as set out in clause 25, and I intend that the allocation should be considered once a Parliament. With the exception of the millennium fund, no category can disappear completely; it must receive at least 5 per cent. of proceeds. On 31 December 2000, money will stop going into part of the distribution fund that is intended to fund millennium projects—unless I substitute a later date, which again would be subject to affirmative resolution. This is in case it is necessary to accommodate any projects that overrun and might require more time or money for completion.
  Mr. Derek Enright rose—
  Mr. Tony Banks rose—
  Mr. Brooke: I give way to the hon. Member for West Ham.
  Mr. Banks: I have not been called West Ham for a long time. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman; it takes me back. What is the Government's objection to bets against the outcome of the lottery? I do not understand

  725
  that. If we are going to get into gambling, why not extend the whole area of gambling? Has the right hon. Gentleman ever filled in a football coupon, and does he intend to buy a lottery ticket?
  Mr. Brooke: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question was contained in the opening stages of my speech, in which I said that the last lottery disappeared in 1826 simply because interest had shifted. I am sufficiently cautious that I shall not write into the Bill a freedom to do what killed the Bill 167 years ago.
  The Bill establishes five equal accounts as a distribution fund into which money is paid. Money for arts and sport is automatically divided further between different distribution bodies. In the case of the arts, this will go to the Arts Council of Great Britain, which covers England, Scotland and Wales, and the Arts Council for Northern Ireland. The Bill proposes that the money should be divided according to a standard formula based on population. For sport, the money is divided between the sports councils for the four nations. It will eventually be divided even further to reflect the creation of the United Kingdom sports commission to deal with strategic UK-wide projects. Its share might be about 15 per cent. The percentages will be changed once the commission is established.
  Mr. John Maxton: Will the Secretary of State consider ensuring that the money goes directly to the Scottish Arts Council, the Scottish Sports Council and Scottish Heritage rather than it having to go through United Kingdom organisations?
  Mr. Brooke: As the hon. Gentleman knows from our previous exchanges, money goes directly to the Sports Council. In the case of the arts, it is intended that money will go to the appropriate body in Scotland on a basis which, I hope, will be at least in line with population. We have not specifically written in percentages because it is quite possible that Scottish demand will exceed the population element.
  Mr. Enright: Under the canons that the Secretary of State has just set forth, will it be possible out of the lottery for the disused hippodrome in Hemsworth to be converted into a swimming pool?
  Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have had previous local exchanges. It might be in the interests of the whole House if I dealt with the rest of the Bill before considering individual projects.
  Clause 29 provides for the investment of moneys by the national debt commissioners. The interest from these investments will go into the accounts for the bodies themselves. The bodies will draw down the money at need and may parcel up withdrawals as it suits them.
  Clause 24 is intended primarily to give me powers to direct the distributing bodies in the broadest terms on how the money can be used—for example, mainly capital or partnership funding—and how it should be accounted for. The distributive bodies will be responsible for choosing projects for national lottery funding. We expect them to concentrate on projects that would not have been funded from public expenditure.
  In planning future expenditure the Government will need to bear in mind the overlaps between the areas benefiting from the lottery and those receiving support from existing expenditure programmes. The Government
  726
  do not intend, however, that the money provided for the lottery should substitute for that provided in other ways. The proceeds will not be brought within the control total and the Government will not make any case-by-case reduction in conventional expenditure programmes to take account of awards from lottery proceeds.
  Mrs. Llin Golding: Will the Secretary of State explain why the sale of tickers is to be prohibited in betting shops? I do not understand the reasoning behind that.
  Mr. Brooke: In answer to a question from her colleague a little further down her row, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, I explained that the lottery was at the softer end of the gambling spectrum. We are not in the business of increasing in other respects the amount of gambling which occurs as a result of its introduction.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Brooke: Yes, but my hon. Friend must understand that I have given way many times.
  Mr. Carlisle: On the basis of existing public expenditure on sport—perhaps my right hon. Friend will be able to give the House some figures, if not now, later—he will appreciate that there will be a lesser tax take on the pools where, as has already been explained, about 37.5 per cent. is going into football anyway. Has he taken that into account, and is it absolutely certain that the ring fencing of the fund which he described will not be broken by the Treasury, which will possibly take less money because of the national lottery and therefore reduce tax revenue on other forms of gambling?
  Mr. Brooke: It may be helpful if I tell my hon. Friend what I was about to say because that would have certain virtues of economy in terms of the House's time.
  There has been some suggestion of enshrining additionality within the legislation. I would be most intrigued to see how those putting forward that view would propose it might be achieved, other than by making sure the use of lottery money is transparent at all stages and by ensuring that distributors develop procedures that distinguish between projects funded by the lottery and others. I have already made it clear that that is our intention.
  Part of the financial direction that I will give will ensure that lottery money is accounted for and handled in a way that is entirely and transparently different from ordinary programme expenditure. It will be issued in addition to existing financial memoranda which relate to programme expenditure. I realise that clause 24 has caused anxiety in some quarters as appearing to be too sweeping: it is not my intention to exercise the powers in this way. Clause 24 is merely designed to ensure that money which is public money, in so far as it is held and is spent on behalf of the public, should be properly used and should be seen to be properly used. There is no intention that I should use the clause to direct the use of lottery money towards individual projects. I will consider how the intention behind the clause could he clarified and look forward to hearing others' views on this.

  727
  I think it should be fairly clear why we have chosen the bodies we have in the arts and sports world. In other sectors, the decisions may seem less self-evident. It might assist the House if I were to elaborate on our thinking.
  On heritage, we have decided to use the National Heritage Memorial Fund—the fund has proved itself a great success over the past 12 years and many hon. Members from both sides of the House can take a personal pride in that success. They may recall how it was conceived in a Select Committee of this House, and how it was delivered in the National Heritage Act 1980 with the support of all parties. It is a superb example of a truly parliamentary initiative, and it is a success on which we now intend to build.
  The fund has the advantage of already having powers to acquire land, buildings and objects of outstanding historical, cultural or scientific interest, and the Bill seeks to extend its powers to build new buildings to house heritage items, and to allow facilities to be paid for which will enhance the public's understanding or enjoyment of the heritage. They also encompass the natural as well as the built heritage. This will better reflect the needs of the heritage sector across the board. The Bill also expands the numbers of trustees from 10 to 14 to reflect its expanded role. We are quite clear that the existing work of the fund should continue, and that its role with regard to the lottery should be additional and distinct.
  We considered using the NHMF rather than bodies such as English Heritage very carefully indeed, but English Heritage covers only England and deals only with the built heritage. In Scotland and Wales the equivalent bodies—Historic Scotland and CADW—are executive agencies of Government, while the equivalent in Northern Ireland is a Government Department. None of these bodies covers the countryside, so we would have needed to use the Countryside Commission and other bodies. Using the NHMF simplifies matters considerably. We also needed to be clear that the distributor could not itself be a beneficiary of the lottery.
  The NHMF will, of course, need to work closely with bodies such as English Heritage and the Countryside Commission, as well as with the Museums and Galleries Commission, among others. Constructive working relationships are already being established and the Department will do everything it can to support those relationships.
  The structure of the proposed charities board has been established in the light of work by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Association of Charitable Foundations. I pay tribute to both bodies for their efforts. Their advice has been extremely helpful and I hope that, directly or indirectly, our proposals will largely address their concerns. Many of their proposals are concerned with detailed practice and procedures, and I am sure that when constituted the new board will also find their views helpful.
  The underlying principle behind the proposed board is that it should be as efficient and autonomous as possible, with the ability to ensure an even geographical and sectoral spread of lottery money to beneficiaries. The board will consist of 16 members and a chairman, appointed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. Of the 16, three will be appointed in respect of
  728
  England, of Northern Ireland and of Scotland and Wales. The Secretaries of State for those last three countries will advise the Home Secretary on their particular representatives. The committees will have devolved decision-making powers, and the board will be able to form other committees as it sees fit. It will be able to co-opt expert but non-executive advisers and to appoint its own staff.
  We considered whether we should set up separate boards for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as suggested by the NCVO, but concluded that that would lead to increased bureaucracy and inflexibility. We believe that our approach gives maximum power to the board itself to make its own decisions on allocation. That is surely the right approach.
  We intend that proceeds allocated to charities should benefit those which do not qualify under the categories of arts, sport and the heritage. The Home Secretary will have a general power to direct the board on the purposes for which the money may be distributed, the conditions to be satisfied before money may be distributed and the accounting procedures that must be adopted. He will not, however, intervene in the day-to-day operations of the board or in individual decisions. The board will lay an annual report before Parliament, and it will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
  Charities have expressed a number of concerns about the likely effect of the national lottery on their overall incomes. While I understand their anxiety, which is perhaps natural in a climate in which fund raising is not always easy, I think that there is no evidence to suggest that charities will inevitably suffer as a result of the lottery. The lottery will be marketed as a lottery, not as a charitable enterprise. The principal attraction of playing will be the prospect of prizes. The feeling that the lottery will also be helping good causes is secondary and non-specific. International experience suggests that the national lottery will not succeed if its marketing is based on this week's good cause, so the charities' own territory will not be encroached upon directly. I am also confident that those who regularly support charities of their choice will continue to do so with the advent of the national lottery.
  Mr. Alton: The Secretary of State has referred to the international experience. Does he accept that, after Lotto was introduced in Ireland, all the major charities suffered? Some 16 of them wrote to the Taoiseach saying that the position had reached crisis point and that the third world charity Tocaire had suffered considerably as a result of the introduction of the lottery.
  Mr. Brooke: It is fortunate that my next paragraph relates to Ireland.
  Evidence from Ireland is often cited, but I have to say that the evidence is contradictory and I would not advance it as conclusive evidence in one direction or the other. I hear from the charities themselves that some charities' incomes fell. Yet I read a report by DKM Consultants which showed that the biggest 20 charities' real incomes rose by around 30 per cent. in real terms and that overall charities' incomes rose by 19 per cent. in real terms. That was in a time of recession when in the United Kingdom the charitable household survey published by the Charities Aid Foundation showed that individual charitable giving had decreased by about one third. Significantly, much of the sense of a decrease in donations was based on a belief

  729
  amongst the charities surveyed that their incomes would have increased by 40 per cent. if there had been no lottery. Therefore, we must be careful about concluding too much from the Irish experience.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is not it a fact that charitable giving has declined in Northern Ireland over the same period, although there is no national lottery there?
  Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. If that is so, it is a matter of distress to me because the people of Northern Ireland have a notable reputation for charitable giving.
  What we can do is make it quite clear that charities will benefit to the same extent as other beneficiaries from the lottery and that it is in their interests that the lottery is as successful as possible. Part III also amends the law governing small lotteries so that the charities themselves can operate lotteries which are larger and are regulated in a more streamlined way than at present, with an appropriate tightening up of regulations to reflect new turnover levels.
  Clause 36 establishes the account in the distribution fund for millennium projects, which I shall call the millennium fund. It will also receive 20 per cent. of lottery proceeds. This clause discharges our manifesto commitment to establish a fund
  "specificially dedicated to projects which will commemorate the start of the twenty-first century and will be enjoyed by future generations."
  Clauses 36 to 39 and schedule 6 make provision for the establishment of a Millennium Commission to administer the fund. The commission's members will be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen. I shall say more about the commission in a few moments.
  Let me emphasise that we do not intend to restrict the initiative of others who may already be planning their own millennial celebrations. I see the millennium fund as largely promoting projects which lie beyond the scope of individual organisations. There are some notable precedents: the Great Exhibition of 1851, which was a remarkable celebration of the greatness of the arts, manufacture, industry and commerce in this country; and 100 years later the Festival of Britain planned as a commemoration of the Great Exhibition, and described by its secretary general as
  "A tonic to the nation".
  Both left their architectural legacies—the splendidly innovative Crystal palace by Joseph Paxton, sadly now destroyed; and the Royal Festival hall, designed by Sir Leslie Martin and Sir Robert Matthew.
  Mr. Tony Banks: And thanks to the London county council.
  Mr. Brooke: I acknowledge that Sir Leslie and Sir Robert had LCC associations.
  The great museums in south Kensington were funded from the profits made from the Great Exhibition.
  These cultural landmarks should help us define what the millennium fund should achieve. We must look ahead, and consider what our legacy should be to future generations. At this stage, no ideas are ruled out. As our manifesto stated, examples of possible millennium projects include trade fairs and improvements in the natural environment as well as new buildings. Already I have received many suggestions for how the fund should be
  730
  spent. We shall make sure that the whole nation has the benefit of them. We shall promote schemes in each country of the Union.
  I am excited by the potential of the millennium fund. It offers 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 or 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. The regenerative impact on the construction industry, and therefore on the country's economy as a whole, will be considerable in the period leading up to the year 2000.
  I believe that it is important that people feel that they too have a say in the use of the fund. Therefore, I envisage that a significant sum should be set aside each year for smaller-scale initiatives suggested by the public. There will also be a bursary scheme, specifically for young people and those recently retired but also available to others.
  It will be for the Millennium Commission to decide which projects, whether large or small scale, and which bursaries should be supported out of the millennium fund. The commission will also decide how to elicit ideas and test their viability, as well as the basis on which it will make its decisions.
  The commission will have nine members, of whom two will be Government members. I expect to be one, and hope to chair the commission. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for agreeing to nominate a member. We shall consult widely before putting forward to Her Majesty nominations for the remaining membership of the commission.
  In considering the appointment of the other six, the Government will want to ensure that the members selected are truly independent and are not appointed as, or seen as, representatives of particular organisations or interests or advocates of individual causes which might benefit from millennium projects. The Government will want to ensure that, as well as being appointments on merit, the representation covers the countries of the United Kingdom and is reasonably balanced as to age, gender and ethnic origin. They will want to ensure that the commission has available among its membership skills and experience in the worlds of business and finance, in heritage and architecture, and possibly of education and the environment. Members will initially be appointed for the planned lifetime of the commission, but the Government would be prepared to consider recommending an appointment on a shorter fixed term if the preferred individual was available only on that basis. It is never easy to reconcile all the desirable aims that I have outlined in the appointment to such a body, but I hope that the approach I have suggested will commend itself to the House.
  Clauses 38 and 39 provide for the commission to submit an annual report to Parliament and to keep proper accounts. Schedule 6 sets out detailed provisions in relation to the commission.
  I hope that I have been able to assist the House by giving way and by setting out the intention behind the Bill and the main provisions contained therein. The Bill represents an opportunity to provide substantial additional funds for areas which are of vital importance

  731
  for the quality of life of the citizens of the United Kingdom. It also presents a unique opportunity to establish a major new industry within the United Kingdom. It is in the interests of the enterprise, and of our eager constituents, that the lottery should be up and running as quickly as possible.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.29 pm
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House insists that the National Lottery etc. Bill, in the form proposed, is unacceptable on the grounds detailed in the Third Report from the National Heritage Committee; notes in particular that no safeguards have been offered in respect of protecting employment in the pools industry in areas of high unemployment on Merseyside and in Cardiff, Glasgow and London; and is concerned that essential information on which to base judgments on the likely effects of the lottery, contained in the report by the GAH Group of Management Consultants, commissioned by the Government, has not been published."
  The Bill has divided what could have been a united House. Early-day motion 986, with 125 signatures, shows the scale and the nature of the division. The House is divided not on the principle of a national lottery but chiefly on the Government's failure to protect the large number of jobs in the private sector that will be lost when the public sector takes over. That must be seen as the unacceptable face of nationalisation.
  The Bill carries the imprint of a public sector borrowing requirement and preoccupied Treasury mandarins desperately trying to convince the Secretary of State of his capacity for original thought. Indeed, they have even managed to convince him that doing the pools is a matter of skill. That statement has made the Secretary of State the laughing stock of the British betting industry and of hon. Members. Furthermore, he seems to believe that unemployment in Liverpool, Glasgow, Cardiff and London is only an aberration. A House almost united has been turned into a House gravely divided. Why? It is because, yet again, Ministers have botched it up. A perfectly reasonable proposition has been wrecked by Government insensitivity.
  We want adequate funding for the arts, sport, national heritage and charities and a proper level of resources guaranteed over time so that the future can be planned, access can be increased, excellence safeguarded and innovation encouraged, but not at any price. The contribution which the arts and sport make to our national culture and to the enrichment of our lives is fully appreciated by the Opposition, but it is grudgingly recognised by the Government who have steadily reduced their support in real terms, in particular for the arts. Every day in our post my hon. Friends and I receive evidence of councils trying to wrestle with their appalling budget problems for 1993–94 and the resulting massive cuts in arts and sports spending.
  Mr. John Gorst: If the Opposition were to be elected to government, would they amend the Bill, or would they accept it in whatever form it is passed today?
  Mrs. Clwyd: That will depend entirely on what amendments are agreed in Committee. I cannot possibly commit the Opposition to any intention until we see what happens in Committee. That is obvious to everyone.
  In the voluntary sector, thousands of charities, large and small, bring people together to support the causes that they believe in. That is a solid base for a decent society which is better developed here than elsewhere and is the envy of many others. The House, I am sure, will join me in paying tribute to those who run arts, sports and voluntary groups and the efforts of organisers and fund raisers, both unpaid and professional.
  We are greatly concerned about the proposed form of the national lottery. I shall spell out those concerns in detail.
  In the White Paper on the national lottery, the Government acknowledged that the pools were the form of gambling most likely to be affected by the introduction of the national lottery and promised to study the impact, undertaking also to consult widely with charitable interests and to pay careful attention to what they said. We question how adequately that promise has been fulfilled.
  There is widespread anxiety throughout the House about the effects of a national lottery on employment in the pools industry. That anxiety has already been widely reflected in interventions. The football pools are one of Merseyside's largest and most stable employers. No fewer than 4,630 people work for Littlewoods and Vernons in Liverpool and Birkenhead. There are also 730 jobs in Glasgow, 640 in Cardiff and 500 in London. In addition, some 80,000 people work part time as self-employed pools coupon collectors. The commission that they earn, which is small but important—about £20 a week on average—is an important source of income to them. Does the Minister recognise that the only wage for thousands of families in the Merseyside area comes from a member of the family who works in the pools?
  When I met workers at Littlewoods in Liverpool a week ago and talked to people who had worked there for some 29 years—grandmothers, mothers and daughters—it reminded me very much of the mining industry where generations have worked in coal. I sincerely hope that the Minister does not have the same fate in store for workers in the pools industry as the Government have for the workers whom I represent who previously worked in the coal industry.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Like the hon. Lady, I have visited Littlewoods pools and was impressed by the number of people who were employed. Many of the workers came in only on Saturday mornings to deal with the volume of mail and to sort things out. Can the hon. Lady confirm that the figures that she gave originally, not the 80,000 part-time workers whom she said were collectors, are for full-time jobs, or are some of them part-time jobs as well?
  Mrs. Clwyd: Yes, I am glad to confirm that they are full-time jobs.
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Does my hon. Friend accept that, while there may be a difference between full time and part time, part-time work is equally valuable, especially when the wage that it brings in is of value to the family?
  Mrs. Clwyd: My hon. Friend makes a good point. In the United Kingdom, we know that part-time work is the

  733
  only work available for many women. Indeed, many women do not register as unemployed and therefore the unemployment figures for areas such as Merseyside are misleading. I pay tribute to the importance of part-time work for many families in Liverpool and elsewhere.
  At a time of high and rising unemployment, no one would wish to make decisions that might adversely affect large numbers of established jobs without the fullest possible information. It is that information which has been denied to the House by the Minister.
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: Does my hon. Friend accept that the policy of the pools industry has been to maintain employment as much as possible and that it has under-mechanised, compared with what it could have done? That situation will not prevail if the pools industry is subjected to cut-throat, wide competition, and it will be a factor in reducing employment.
  Mrs. Clwyd: I am glad to confirm my hon. Friend's point. As I walked around the Littlewoods factory I saw evidence of mechanisation and I had a discussion with the managers about it. They confirmed that mechanisation has taken place in the past 20 years and that further mechanisation will take place, but at the same time they have been careful to protect as far as possible jobs in the pools industry in Liverpool and elsewhere. It is an important point that the managers at Littlewoods are looked on by the workers in the factories as considerate employers.
  Mr. Richard Tracey: I put it to the hon. Lady that that is an unfortunately negative attitude towards the future of the pools. I compare the United Kingdom and our attitude towards the game of football with the attitude in Italy where there is similar high interest, even fanaticism, about football. Both the pools and the lottery exist in Italy. In the United Kingdom, market research has shown that 92 per cent. of the people who currently play the pools would be interested in doing both the lottery and the pools and that only a few people would consider stopping doing the pools in favour of the lottery. Surely that points to a good future for the pools.
  Mrs. Clwyd: Unless we see the Government's evidence to the contrary, there is no evidence to support what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
  The Government's own investigations have been kept secret. How can the Secretary of State possibly describe the report as confidential when hon. Members on both sides of the House have quoted from it, as has the Secretary of State? If he is not afraid of showing what the report has found, there can be no possible reason for not allowing Members of Parliament a view of it. If the Minister gives the explanation that the report is commercially confidential, I do not understand why he cannot go back to the people who gave evidence and ask to be released from the promise of confidentiality, which I believe should never have been given in the first place.
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) compared the position in Italy with the proposal for Britain. Is my hon. Friend aware that, although in Italy there is a national lottery and football pools, there are only four or five lottery sweepstake draws each year? The Bill proposes weekly draws, so the amount of competition is not comparable.
  Mrs. Clwyd: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, but I wish to return to the independent report. It is the only report commissioned by the Government. Therefore, we should be able to see its findings. According to leaks in The Guardian and elsewhere, the fears expressed by the pools industry have been wholly justified by the findings of the report.
  For example, the report questions the Government's claims that billions of pounds will be made available to help arts and sport without serious consequences elsewhere. It concludes—this answers the point of the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), as it does that of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing)—that, even though the British pools industry is looked on as an institution and playing is a habit passed down from generation to generation, there will be a reduction in revenues of 17.5 per cent. over three years and 1,100 job losses. The Secretary of State must answer that point this afternoon.
  I am not surprised that the Secretary of State refuses to publish the report, especially as it apparently offers five changes which could be introduced to safeguard the pools industry. I ask the Minister again to publish the report. I am sure that he could recant on his previous assurances that we would not have sight of it. Will he let the House properly assess the impact of the national lottery on jobs in areas that are already badly hit by the Government's policies?
  Mr. Alton: I thank the hon. Lady for the way in which she has put her points and I agree with her entirely. Does she agree that it is significant that we have not heard this afternoon from any Ministers at the Department of Employment? The Government clearly have not weighed the employment argument in their dead-set determination to press on with the national lottery at all expense.
  Mrs. Clwyd: Yes, indeed. It is interesting that the Government only speculate on the number of jobs that the national lottery could provide in place of the pools jobs. But the pools jobs are established jobs. We prefer to put our faith in established jobs rather than in the Government's promises of what jobs might be provided at some time in the future.
  I noticed that the Secretary of State did not make much of the report of the Select Committee on National Heritage, which makes some interesting points. It suggests that the majority of job losses will occur in Merseyside, an area which already has 15.3 per cent. unemployment overall and male unemployment of 21.2 per cent. In parts of Liverpool, Glasgow, Cardiff and London, one person in four is unemployed. So it is hardly likely that people in those areas will give up their jobs without cast-iron guarantees from the Government that they will be either protected or replaced by other jobs. What further plans does the Minister have to maintain existing jobs and to create new ones in those areas? What thought has he given to establishing the headquarters of the office of national lottery in an area such as Merseyside? Perhaps he will give us an answer this afternoon.
  The Minister has expressed his anxiety about the unemployment consequences for the pools industry, but that is not enough. Opposition Members and some Conservative Members understand too well the tragedy of having no job and the effect on the whole family of trying and failing time after time to get a job. I assure the

  735
  Secretary of State that we shall want much firmer commitments from the Government on jobs than he gave us today.
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Does the hon. Lady accept that I and my colleagues would be much more persuaded by her arguments if she were talking about something other than a purely commercial operation? She talks about job losses. All of us—especially those of us from areas such as Birmingham—appreciate her point. But we are weighing the public good of extra opportunities. The hon. Lady should take the positive step of saying, "Here is extra money and extra opportunity for the public well-being, not private or commercial well-being."
  Mrs. Clwyd: I find the hon. Gentleman's intervention extraordinary. If he really cared about providing jobs, he would agree that a job in the hand is worth more than a job in the bush. He talks about the possibility that the national lottery will provide jobs elsewhere to compensate for the loss of jobs in the areas that I have specified. I cannot take seriously his intervention.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed the view in previous debates that there should be a level playing field for the national lottery and the pools industry. It is a view that I share. However, reacting to the Select Committee report last week, the Secretary of State said:
  "I do not believe that the pools and the National Lottery should operate on a so-called level playing field."
  He has confirmed that today.
  Let me remind the House what the Select Committee said. It recommended
  "that the Lottery and the pools should be treated equally with regard to advertising on all media; in the marketing of their products; in the ability to roll over jack pots; and in the way the pools are promoted to clients who do not wish to exercise the use of skill and judgement."
  I am not in favour of advertising gambling on television, but there must be freedom to advertise for all or a ban on all. It is absurd to maintain the fiction that the lottery is not gambling or a game of chance and that it is fundamentally different from the pools, even though 90 per cent. of pools players use lucky numbers.
  We should not ignore the fact that a minority of our fellow citizens conscientiously oppose a national lottery, as they do all forms of gambling. It is true that gambling to excess adds to the difficulties already faced by some households. Those difficulties include mortgage repossessions, personal debt and high and rising unemployment —all brought about by the Government's policies. The Government must ensure that the national lottery is not promoted in a way that leads to excessive gambling.
  We accept that the problems facing arts funding are so large as to require joint responses from the public and private sectors. We have stressed repeatedly, since the publication of the Bill, that money raised from the national lottery should not be a substitute for Government funding for the arts, sports and heritage.
  Mr. Toby Jessel rose—
  Mrs. Clwyd: I shall give way when I have completed this point.
  736
  The Minister has been pressed by the Opposition and the Select Committee on National Heritage to give a clear guarantee that Government funding will not be cut in those areas as a result of the lottery. Indeed, we have tabled an amendment to help him to do exactly that. We have gone further, by arguing that the establishment of a national lottery should not be a substitute for necessary increases in Government spending on the arts, sports and heritage. The money must not be seen as a substitute for public spending. It is crucial that that principle is strengthened in the Bill. Is the Minister prepared to do that?
  Mr. Jessel: A quarter of an hour ago, the hon. Lady said that Government arts funding had steadily reduced. She must be aware that during each of the past three years there has been a substantial increase—last year it was 14 per cent. and in the previous three years it was 9, 10 or 11 per cent.—and was well ahead of inflation, although there has been a hestitation this year because of world recession. She must agree that it was somewhat misleading to the House to talk of a steady reduction. Will she withdraw that remark as I am sure that she would not want to mislead the House?
  Mrs. Clwyd: I thought that I had given way to the Minister, but clearly I was misled. Before the hon. Gentleman asks me to withdraw that comment, perhaps he would like to consider the Treasury Select Committee report published on 16 December, which points out that, in real terms, using the Treasury's gross domestic product deflator, the spending of the Department of National Heritage will fall by 5.4 per cent. in 1993–94, compared with expenditure this year. The Committee went on to tell the House that Government spending on the performing arts will fall in real terms by more than 10 per cent. in total during the survey period, compared with 1992–93.
  As I said, local authorities are being forced to cut their spending on the arts and sports because of the squeeze that the Government have put on their budgets. We believe that without that commitment to additionality, the national lottery becomes a sort of voluntary taxation scheme—buy a ticket and cut the budget. In the present chaotic state of Government finance—where the Conservative party is lost without a map in a financial maze of its own making—the temptation to cut money for the arts, sport and heritage and to transfer the burden to the lottery will be great. The Treasury should not be permitted to raid the coffers of the lottery to cover up its complete failure to manage the economy.
  I see that the former Secretary of State for National Heritage, the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), is giving his right hon. Friend some advice —presumably on how to answer my questions when he sums up the debate.
  A useful document fell into my hands—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. There is too much conversation behind the hon. Lady, which seems particularly discourteous to her.
  Mrs. Clwyd: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that it was not meant as such. I think that the hilarity was caused by the previous intervention.
  A useful document has fallen into my hands—the Conservative party research department's brief for Members. It states:

  737
  "Wherever possible, lottery money will be given on a partnership basis, with donations from the private sector or local authorities augmenting input from lottery funds. In this way the Lottery will help even more good causes. However, those groups who are unable to provide matching funds from their own resources will not be at a disadvantage when bidding for funds".
  I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. Can he explain precisely what it means? Will cash-strapped local authorities be expected to put up large amounts of money to match lottery finance for arts and sports projects?
  One remembers how the Government behaved over the argument with the European Community on additionality. We have every reason to suspect that they will be less than honest in protecting core funding from central Government to the arts, sport and heritage.
  Under the Bill, the Secretary of State assumes large powers over lottery regulation and the allocation of lottery revenue. We have asked for an assurance that once the lottery is operating he will not use those powers to make sudden or sweeping changes—for example, in the share-out of funds—without returning to the House.
  The Minister has given no undertaking to rethink the extent of the powers that he has assumed under the Bill. We argue that Parliament should be able to influence the use of those powers and we believe that the directions that the Secretary of State can give to the distributing bodies, under clause 24, should be used to increase access and involvement in arts, culture and recreation, with a special commitment to equal opportunities in participation and employment.
  Mr. Brooke: I do not think that either of us would wish to mislead the House. In my speech I said that the allocations of 20 per cent. for each of the five categories are on the face of the Bill and would be subject to affirmative resolution. I expected Parliament to express its opinion on whether the proportion going to each cause was right.
  Mrs. Clwyd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation. We are firmly of the view that the national lottery charities board, set out in clauses 32 to 35, should be broadly representative, socially and geographically. The Government have a well-known passion for quangos—usually containing a clutch of their relatives and supporters. Will the Minister assure us that membership of the national lottery charities board will consist of people widely respected among charity workers and not contributors to Tory election funds? Will he ensure that membership of the board includes the people whom voluntary organisations seek to serve, such as disabled or mentally handicapped people?
  The Opposition have serious anxieties about the effect of the national lottery on the level of funds donated to charities. What further action will the Minister take to ensure that the status and role of charities is not marginalised in our society? Research by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations estimates that in 1990–91 local authorities reduced funding to voluntary organisations by £29 million. Unfortunately, that is likely to continue while pressures on local authority spending are maintained. Will national lottery proceeds for charity be taken into account by central and local government when deciding on discretionary grants to voluntary organisations? Perhaps the Minister would care to enlighten us about that.
  738
  We want the millenium fund to be broadly based. Its projects should not be narrowly metropolitan and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his assurance about that. It should aim to widen access to the arts and culture in the nations and regions of Britain. Any attempt to use the Millenium Commission as a slush fund for the Tory party and its friends to pour funds into marginal constituencies for political advantage will be carefully monitored.
  We also want to know what guidelines the Secretary of State will lay down for the director general when selecting the franchise holder. What sort of guarantees of probity will be demanded? Will the director general clarify in advance what he expects from the franchise holders, particularly in terms of an acceptable level of turnover for administration, promotion and control of the circumstances in which lottery tickets can be sold? The Secretary of State has given us the benefit of some of his thinking on those issues this afternoon.
  We believe that taxation on the national lottery should not be set at a level that stifles the lottery's principal purpose—to raise money for new projects in the arts, sports and heritage. We believe that the maximum proportion of national lottery revenue to be devoted to tax and administration should be no higher than 15 per cent.
  In the past, the Opposition have supported the general principle of a national lottery as a means to raise new money for the arts, sports and heritage projects. Clearly, new theatres, sports centres and swimming pools can raise the quality of life for everyone. Historic buildings and monuments could be restored and many charities could receive a welcome boost of cash—that is the theory. However, we have grave doubts, which have not yet been satisfactorily answered by the Government. We have genuine concerns and deserve a full and honest reply from the Conservative party.
  5.1 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: It will not come as a surprise to the House to learn that I warmly welcome the Bill. It implements, in almost precise terms, the proposals that I laid before the House in a White Paper last March to introduce a national lottery. I warmly welcome the speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in proposing the Bill. I also welcome part of the speech by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd).
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Not much.
  Mr. Baker: No. When the hon. Lady dealt with the details of the lottery, she was positive and helpful, but she was searching for a principle on which to oppose it.
  Having listened to the debate, I have been struck by the amount of discussion on employment considerations in Merseyside, Glasgow and Cardiff. However, the national lottery raises much broader and more national considerations. I shall later deal with the pools and what I believe should be done to help pools companies to deal with the competition of the national lottery.
  I am proud to have been the Home Secretary who committed the Government to introducing a national lottery. I was somewhat surprised that it took so long to come about. In 1987, the Rothschild report clearly set out the case for a national lottery—to raise money for good causes. The Bill will substantially increase the sum of human happiness. We rarely have the chance to vote for

  739
  such a Bill. It will improve the quality of life for many hundreds of thousands of people across our country. It draws its inspiration from Denry Machin who, in the final pages of Arnold Bennett's novel "The Card", when asked in which cause he believed, said he believed in the cause of cheering people up. The Bill will create a great deal of cheer around the country—[interruption.] The Government need a Bill to cheer people up. I believe that the Bill will enhance the Government's reputation.
  The Bill will provide money for the arts, sports, charities and those causes on which hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to spend more money. Successive Governments have always found it difficult to provide the amount of money that we should all like to see spent on such causes. I pay tribute to the Labour party which, in the 1960s, pulled together expenditure on the arts and formed the first Ministry for the Arts under the first Minister, Jennie Lee, whom I remember. I believe that she made a significant contribution to the cause of cheering us all up. That was only a beginning, which successive Governments have built on and extended to cover sport as well.
  Successive Governments have found it difficult to provide the sort of money required. During my ministerial career I was responsible for the heritage budget and the sports budget. Both budgets were increased while I was responsible for them—as the House would expect—but not to the extent that I would have liked. I had a reputation in the Treasury of not knowingly being underbid.
  Mr. David Mellor: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Baker: I have the confirmation of a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
  I believe that the money available from the lottery will benefit the country. I agreed with those parts of the speech by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley in which she recognised that. I suspect that, had Labour won the last election, we would not today be debating a national lottery Bill. I suspect that we would have had to rely on the courage of a private Member such as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) to introduce a private Member's Bill. I hope that the House will proceed with the National Lottery etc. Bill.
  How much money will be made available? There have been various estimates. I noticed that there were discussions about the reports of accountants and consultants. My advice to the House is not to give them too much credence, as they are all projections. I suspect that, during the two or three weeks in which we shall debate the future of many of our coal pits, many Opposition Members will say that the reports that have already been published are not worth the paper that they are written on. We shall have to make an assessment of how the pools will be affected based on the best available evidence.
  The amount of money that will be made available has been estimated at £1 billion, £2 billion, £3 billion and, in some cases, as high as £4 billion in gross take—a substantial amount of money. How much of that money will be available to the good causes? I agree with the hon. Member for Cynon Valley in her hope that the Treasury and the Government will err on the side of generosity. The standard practice in existing lotteries around the world
  740
  seems to be that between 48 and 50 per cent. of the overall take is used in prize money. Of the remaining 50 per cent., the amount spent on administration and commission for the people who sell the tickets can be as much as 15 per cent., which leaves 35 per cent.
  I notice that, during some of the lobbying that we have heard, people have said that all the take should go to the good causes. I should like to see that in an ideal world, but we do not live in an ideal world. The Treasury exists and will want a take. I hope that it will take as little as possible. I dare say that it is asking for 20 per cent.—I have no idea whether I am right as such facts are not leaked. It may be asking for 20 per cent. and it may settle for 15 per cent. —I hope that it will settle for 10 per cent., which will leave 25 per cent. available for distribution.
  If the Treasury wants to try to take more money out of the available pool, it might consider placing a levy on some of the bigger prizes—for example, 5 per cent. on prizes of more than £5,000.
  Mr. Graham: Why should the Government take anything if they are going to gain major benefits to help with sports and other activities? Why do they not leave all the money?
  Mr. Baker: There is a case for such a policy, and I have heard it argued, but we live in the real world and the Treasury will want to take some tax. That seems to be the pattern with other lotteries, and I base my recommendation on that realistic assessment.
  Whatever effect the Bill may have on the pools, it is undoubtedly a job-positive measure. Not only will jobs be created in the administration of the national lottery, but the national lottery funds will generate a spend of possibly as much as £1 billion in the arts and sports. That money could be used for building new sports stadia, supporting creative sports and artistic activities and improving our national heritage. The new jobs will be spread throughout the country. Some estimates put the number of new jobs as high as 80,000 a year. On the whole, the measure will be job-positive.
  Mr. Alton: What is the right hon. Gentleman's best estimate of the loss in revenue to the Exchequer caused by the inevitable reduction in the £300 million received by the Treasury last year from the pools industry?
  Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman is assuming that there will be a rapid and dramatic reduction in pool betting. I shall take up that assumption in a moment.
  Some of the charities seem to be concerned that they will lose money if the Bill is enacted. I do not believe that that will happen. Indeed, the outcome of the Bill could be an additional source of revenue for them. Those who choose to have a flutter on the national lottery—£1.50, £2 or £1 a week—are not likely to divert such moneys from charitable causes. The Government have made some sensible changes to the law that relates to smaller lotteries, from which many small charities derive.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the Government will be able to review the position. The proportion of moneys that will go to each of the five beneficiaries is set out in the Bill, but it could be varied from Parliament to Parliament according to order. If it could be shown that charities were suffering—I do not

  741
  think that that would be possible—the House would have the opportunity to vary the moneys going to charities by means of dispensations.
  The position of the pools does not constitute a case for not having a national lottery. Some of the pools argued that a few years ago but that has now stopped. The effect on the pools tends to be exaggerated. I accept that it is a matter of conjecture, but I spoke to the pools and to various individuals within the companies.
  The pools have enjoyed a privileged position for many years. In effect, three companies have had a monopoly in pool soft gambling. I am not surprised that they are not welcoming competition with open arms. There is talk of a level playing field, but is it reasonable to have a level playing field between pools that are operated for profit and a national lottery that is operated for good causes? I am not so sure that it is. With hard and soft gambling there is virtually no level playing field when it comes to the various things that make up gambling enterprises.
  My right hon. Friend used rather a good phrase when he referred to adjacent playing fields. That is true, for example, of the laws relating to dog racing and horse racing. There is different legislation. On and off-course betting is treated differently. With soft gambling, there is different legislation for bingos and small lotteries. In other words, there is no consistency.
  Part of the case that has been advanced by the pools is reasonable. The organisations have asked, however, for a series of changes which would, in effect, make them a separate national lottery. I do not believe that that status should be granted to them. On the other hand, it is reasonable to make some concessions. One such concession that would be reasonable is the sale of coupons in retail outlets. That seems sensible. For the reasons that I have given, I do not believe that there is a case for the same tax treatment. One system is operated for profit and the other for good causes. Should there be some relaxation on advertising? I think that that would depend upon the terms of advertising that are agreed by the Secretary of State.
  I understand the concerns of hon. Members about employment considerations, but there is a positive aspect. The positive job creation possibility of a national lottery is much greater than the possibility of job losses. I think that the possible losses are exaggerated.
  Mr. Wareing: Where?
  Mr. Baker: That will be a matter for the Secretary of State and the director general of the national lottery. As it is a national matter, the impact could be spread across the country.
  For all of the reasons that I have outlined, I warmly welcome the Bill. It will considerably improve our capacity as a country to improve the quality of life of not only a few people but of people throughout the country.
  Mrs. Wise: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Baker: I am just about to conclude my remarks.
  The Bill will improve the quality of life of those who participate in sport. When it comes to the distribution of moneys in sport, I hope that the bias will be towards support for young people who participate in sport. That is one of the great advantages of a national lottery. The same applies to those who participate in the arts and in the
  742
  appreciation of our national heritage. As I have said, the Bill will increase the sum of human happiness. I hope that we shall all support it.
  5.14 pm
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: It is obvious from the questions that have been asked and the various points made that a major missing piece in the jigsaw is the report that was commissioned by the Government—it cost £55,000 of public money—to try to ascertain what would happen if the Bill were enacted. The report of the GAH group was leaked.
  I was a member of the Select Committee on the National Heritage that considered a national lottery. The members of that Committee strenuously questioned the Minister, who refused to give us any details on the ground of commercial secrecy. Why did he take that view? The franchise has not been granted. Those who are applying for it should have copies of the report. If they can have the report, why cannot hon. Members? Why cannot the public read it? After all, it was they who paid for it. There is a conspiracy of silence.
  The Government propose to set up something that would have a turnover of about £1,500 million a year. That is getting on for the turnover of British Coal. There is all the fuss about British Coal, but in this context its turnover is only about £1.8 billion. If the Bill is enacted, the Government will set up a new industry with a turnover of £1,500 million a year, yet there is nothing before the House except the Bill. That is because some of those who are seeking the franchise are likely to lose their shirts.
  I met one of the leading contenders for the franchise. I shall not name him—we did not meet in confidence—because it would not be fair to do so. I asked him how his company would go about launching the national lottery if it secured the franchise. He said that it would have 10,000 outlets. He told me that that was all it could have in the first year. That means that each outlet would have to take £2,800 a week in £1 bets. If we take the local grocer—Mr. Patel—a newsagent or whatever, those businesses do not take £2,800 a week, never mind £2,800 in £1 bets, but that is the sort of turnover that the Government are expecting. I suspect that the Government took the turnover of the national lottery in Ireland, multiplied that by the population of the United Kingdom and decided that that would be the turnover of the proposed national lottery. In taking that approach they forgot, it seems, that Ireland does not provide anything like the scope for the pools that is available in the United Kingdom.
  Let us consider how £2,800 a week might be gathered. First, it must be recognised that the system will have to be computerised. There can be no slippage in a national lottery. Anyone who runs a raffle or something of that sort will know that one collector in 1,000 will be tempted not to put in the money that he has collected. That collector will put the money in his back pocket or say, "I will have this bet myself." We cannot have that in a national lottery. It seems that it will cost £7,000 to instal in a shop a computerised system that will enable a member of the public to get a bet on the big jackpot half an hour before it takes place. A receipt will be given and the bet will have to go down to London or wherever to the headquarters of the national lottery. It will have to be recorded because the system will be taking bets right up to the time of the draw —let us say 8 pm on a Saturday night when Princess Di

  743
  draws the big jackpot, or when Jeremy Beadle is on. It will be necessary to have people like that to hype it up and promote the system. That is what the Government are talking about introducing.
  Let us say that there are 10,000 outlets with a computerised system that costs £7,000 apiece. That means that those who launch the franchise will have to spend about £70 million to £80 million, if my arithmetic is right. It will be a massive injection of cash. Unless they have seen the report, they have no real prospect of getting that money back.
  When it comes to collection, there is talk of paying commission of 6 per cent. to the guy who runs the newsagency, for example. As I said, I do not think that he will take £2,800 a week. It will be more like £100 a week. That means that for six quid a week he will look after the machinery, take the money and hand over the tickets. The commission of pools collectors is 15 per cent., not 6 per cent. These facts decide the structure of lotteries, whether we are talking about pools or a national lottery.
  The pools business depends on 75,000 door-knockers. Every Friday night the collectors knock on doors and they will ask, "Mrs. Brown, are you having your two quids worth?" Mrs. Brown will then have her flutter, which often will be based on dole numbers, birthdays or whatever. The collector will then move on to the next house. That is how the money is collected. The pools organisations fear that if the collectors start to do something else, such as issuing national lottery tickets, their business will collapse in a couple of months, along with the jobs of the collectors.
  These matters have been examined by the secret report. The public's money was used to enable investigations to be carried out to ascertain the long-term effect on jobs. Those engaged in producing the report have considered the number of outlets that will be required, mechanisation and the way in which cash will be collected, but these matters have never been explained publicly. None of the findings of the report have been put before the House. We are about to set up a mammoth industry without any of the details and the facts being provided. It is not good enough.
  The pools companies are right to demand a level playing field. They should be allowed to have roll-up prizes. Under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, if the pools companies take in £2 million this week, they must pay out £2 million this week. The same applies to bingo. If Granada takes a certain amount of bingo money tonight, it must pay out that money tonight. The money cannot be rolled over.
  The pools companies cannot hold back 10 per cent. for a big jackpot every three months. That would be an absolute bonanza. Why are they prohibited from doing that when the national lottery will be allowed to do it? The Government are supposed to believe in free enterprise and the free market, yet they are virtually setting up a nationalised industry, to which they will grant enormous advantages at the expense of private industries.
  What is wrong with the pools companies advertising on television? There is no logical reason for stopping them doing that. Why are they not allowed to have the same sales outlets? There is no logical reason for that. The Government and the potential franchisees are scared stiff that if the pools companies obtain a level playing field and freedom to operate they will take the national lottery to
  744
  the cleaners. Those are the secrets in the report. For political reasons the Government dare not take a chance on the national lottery being a flop. If it is, they will again have egg on their face and they do not want that.
  Perhaps I should declare an interest as I am a director —unpaid—of Sheffield Wednesday football club. Indeed, it costs money to be a director of a football club. I should explain how the Football Trust came about. When I first came to the House, Denis Howell was the Minister responsible for sport. The very first Committee of which I was a member considered the Horserace Betting Levy Bill. The then Labour Government decided to take 8 per cent. tax on every bet and give the money to the tracks. No one was going to the tracks, so they could not afford prize money. That meant that people could not afford to run race horses or breed them. Horse racing was going down the pan because of the introduction of betting offices and television. The betting offices were set up so that the Government could tax them.
  When I was a lad a bookie used to stand on every street corner in every working-class area. He would wear a big mack with a pocket that went all the way around. He stuffed the bets in that pocket and then paid out that evening in the billiard hall, the pub or whatever. The bookie's runner would watch for the punters and they would go off down the street and hide in somebody's toilet.
  Selwyn Lloyd was very smart and said, "There is a lot of money to be made. If we legalise that sort of betting we can bring in at least £500 million." That was a mammoth amount of money at that time, so that was what the Labour Government did. It worked marvellously. Then, the Labour Government said that if they could do that with horse racing, they could do it with football.
  In the Ibrox disaster 65 people were killed. In later years, 95 people were killed at Hillsborough. There was a fire at Bradford and 57 people died. The Heysel stadium is not in Britain, but 37 more people were killed there. In just over 10 years of football disasters more than 200 people were killed. After the Ibrox disaster, the pools companies were scared stiff that a levy would be imposed on them just as it had been imposed on horse racing, so they volunteered to hand over some cash. They went to Denis Howell in 1974—I was his parliamentary private secretary at the time—and volunteered to pay for improvements to football grounds. Since that day, they have provided the money for 70 per cent. of all football ground improvements. That is part of the reason for the current row. It is not just about jobs at the pools companies, but the mammoth number of jobs created through building work on football grounds.
  Following the Hillsborough disaster, Lord Justice Taylor said that every football stadium had to be all-seater. That involves a mammoth amount of work. The former Secretary of State for National Heritage, the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), exempted the two lower divisions. We were grateful for that because there was no way in which the costs of that work could be met. The Government said that the work to make the stadiums all-seater had to be completed by 1994, so there are just two more summers in which that work can he done. It cannot be done in the playing season because the cranes cannot go on to the pitch.
  That necessary safety work is being paid for indirectly by the pools companies. If the pools are knocked sideways, the money spent on the necessary safety work at football grounds will disappear. That work creates hundreds of

  745
  thousands of jobs. For example, Arsenal is building a new stand costing £2.5 million, as is Manchester United. Leeds is spending £2 million and Sheffield Wednesday £1.5 million. The list is endless. An enormous amount of building work is under way because 200 people have been killed in a decade. That is one reason why many of us are saying strongly that the pools companies should not be hampered. We are concerned not just about the Liverpool jobs, but about many other jobs and a great deal of development. The Government's policy is inconsistent. They have ordered the football clubs to build all-seater stadiums while saying that the funding for that will be cut off at source.
  There are many questions that the Secretary of State has not answered. We asked them in the Select Committee and he hid behind the cloak of confidentiality. How can the report be kept confidential? Any potential franchisee making a bid will need to lay out about £80 million to install computerised paying-in equipment in shops and so on. They are not allowed to operate the lottery from pubs, which will cost them a lot of money. How could any franchisee take on the job without seeing the report? If potential franchisees can see the report, the House is entitled to see it. We should see it before we make up our minds about the Bill. It is not too late to show it to the Committee. It is imperative that before the House makes a major decision it is allowed to see the report.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. David Mellor: I am pleased to join my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on introducing the Bill. It is not a trivial matter to introduce a national lottery. It requires an enormous amount of work not only to get the legal framework right, but to implement it and to ensure that proper arrangements exist to administer and regulate it. That has required an enormous amount of effort in a very short time from a new Department. I congratulate my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and all those who have worked for them on the Bill
  Although I am starting my speech before 6 pm, I intend to honour the 10–minute rule because so many other hon. Members wish to speak. I also bear in mind that Sir Patrick Hastings, a leading defence counsel, once said, "If you have to address the jury for more than 10 minutes, you have too much to explain away." I shall try to be brief.
  I commend what my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley said because he mentioned a number of points that concern me. I was one of those who were sceptical for a long time about a national lottery. I was certainly not the first to be converted to the idea. My eventual reason for supporting it was not just that Albania had shuffled off into the ranks of national lottery countries and we were therefore the only country in Europe without one. I had a rather more substantive reason based on my experience as Minister for the Arts, Secretary of State for National Heritage and Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The Government had honoured their commitments to a host of potential beneficiaries of the lottery—for example, the Government are spending three times as much in real terms on the arts than was spent in the days of Jennie Lee, commendable though that start was. There will always be huge areas of our sporting infrastructure, arts and heritage that cannot be developed by conventional Government
  746
  funding. I am an unashamed advocate of state funding and I am proud of the fact that in the two years that I was either Minister for the Arts or Chief Secretary to the Treasury the grant to the Arts Council increased by nearly 30 per cent. I always felt that there was a need for an even greater quantum leap.
  I suspect that those previous two years were not of great assistance to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I dare say that the Treasury argued, "The arts did so well in the last two years, now that the going is getting a bit tough they should suffer a little now." Whatever we say about the detail of the Bill, most of us are here to debate it because we care about certain aspects of our national life and want them enhanced and advanced.
  I have reached the settled conclusion that only a national lottery can achieve that, but, before we embark on that course, we must look at the small print and need to be rigorous in our thinking about one or two aspects.
  I make no apology for repeating two points—one of which was rightly raised by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and followed up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, because here is where the bodies are potentially buried. I want my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to know that he has considerable support from the Conservative Benches in his efforts to beat off some of the host of unenlightenment within the Government's ranks.
  In a speech as Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for the Valley of the Moles—that always sounds more interesting than Mole Valley—delivered these ringing and entirely appropriate sentences:
  "I must emphasise that this will be additional funding. The Government do not intend that the money provided from the lottery should substitute for existing expenditure programmes."—[Official Report, 6 March 1992; Vol. 205, col. 563.]
  The only basis on which I—as someone who cares about the arts and sport—could possibly commend to the many bodies that want the national lottery that it will be a good thing for this country is if that undertaking is honoured to the letter. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State repeated the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, but there was an interruption at that point.
  I hope that it will be made clear that both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister have beaten off any attempt by the Treasury to behave like barrack-room lawyers and put an entirely false gloss on the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley. Having been a Treasury Minister, I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends have a jolly difficult job to do.
  Those who care about the arts and heritage will be buying a pig in a poke unless it is made clear that national lottery income will not be subtracted from existing state commitments. I appreciate that if a body is looking for a large increase in arts funding from the Government, it is plainly material—when weighing up other priorities—whether or not that interest is already receiving money from the national lottery, which may be a reason for any increase in state funding not being so great. It is important that the Government do not attempt to slough off responsibility by having a national lottery.
  The lottery will only be worth something if it provides a quantum leap forward for the interests in question. Otherwise, I do not think that we need it.
  Mr. Burns: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Mellor: I will be in trouble with my 10 minutes. It is not that I will not give way, but many right hon. and hon. Members want to make a contribution—and I want to try to keep at least one promise as a politician.
  As to taxation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set it out very well. Of the proceeds from the lottery, 50 per cent. will go in prize money. That is the international average and there is no reason to go below that figure. A further 15 per cent. will go on administration. That is pretty good—if the figure can be kept down to that, we shall have done pretty well. My rudimentary 0 level in mathematics produces a total of 65 per cent. leaving 35 per cent.
  If the Treasury honours the undertakings on public expenditure made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley when Home Secretary, I would not disagree with the Treasury having a revenue base. However, there is no point to our putting before the public a national lottery that is intended to raise money for good causes and then expect the public to swallow the fact that the principal good cause is the Treasury. For all that the Treasury believes itself to be a socially beneficial organisation, the truth is that many people would take some persuading of that.
  I hope that the issue is not being shrouded in Budget secrecy—a concept that I believe is long overdue for change, now that Treasury omniscience is perhaps no longer as credible as it once was. I hope also that the question of the tax base will be open to collective discussion. If the tax is 20 per cent. and, after all the fuss and bother of helping good causes, the contribution falls to 15 per cent.—3 per cent. of the total take for the five categories—many will begin to wonder whether it is worth pushing this boulder uphill just to achieve that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I say that in clear terms and I am glad that I am not alone in marking those cards. I hope that my view will be shared not only by my right hon. and hon. Friends but across the House.
  I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)—for whom, as he knows, I have a high regard—about the work of the Football Trust. As someone who cares about football, I know how much good it has done. I mention also the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, which has proved valuable. Provided that the pools companies' proposals take the form of an agrave la carte and not a table d'h"ocircte menu—in other words, one can pick a dish or two without having to sample the whole lot—I am sure that, in the sensible accommodations that we make in the House, it should be possible to reach some form of agreement.
  I enjoy the warmest friendships with a number of people in the pools industry and I believe that it will flourish as part of the warp and weft of the British way of doing things. However, I do not believe that the pools can be put on the same level or platform as the national lottery. The whole idea of having such a lottery is that it is something special. It is not meant to be a way of assassinating the gatekeeper or the controls of gambling so that other forms of gambling can come through and be subject to the same concessions.
  Those of us who appreciate irony, as I have had to do in my career, now know that the champions of private
  748
  enterprise are to be found on the Labour Benches, while my right hon. and hon. Friends are arguing for some public good. It is a funny old world. I am not original in saying that, but it is a funny old world.
  Let us not take matters too far. By all means let us stick up for the pools, but they cannot be equated with the national lottery. It would be an awful shame if the great vision of a national lottery were borne down by a tidal wave of special pleading for the pools, however firmly based, by certain regional interests.
  When I was originally rather resistant to the idea of a national lottery, it seemed to me that so many people would want to benefit from one, and that so many vested interests would not want it to be an all-singing, all-dancing show, that we would end up with some half-hearted effort. It would be like the prototype steam vehicle. To keep it safe and to ensure no other interests were damaged, a man had to walk along in front, carrying a red flag.
  If there emerges from this parliamentary process a half-hearted, apologetic scheme that has been so amended and subject to so many restrictions that it cannot do the business and raise money, let us not bother with it. After all, we have all those exciting nights ahead on the Maastricht Bill, so why trouble ourselves with another exercise in futility? We have already spent hours debating, on Maastricht, something that the public have forgotten about—but that is another story. Since I do not intend to participate in that debate, why should I not say so?
  If we will a national lottery, let us will an effective mechanism that will raise hundreds of millions of pounds —perhaps even billions. It will then be something of which we can be proud and which will make better provision for the cultural and sporting fabric of our society. We all know that that is long overdue—and if the Bill will achieve that, I am all for it.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am particularly glad to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), who is the third right hon. Member to speak from the Conservative Benches apparently intent on lifting the spirits of the nation with a Bill to enhance our funds.
  I remind the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) that a similar idea crossed the mind of Nero, who was the last Roman emperor to introduce a lottery. One can exaggerate the excitement that is felt outside, throughout the country, at the prospect of another source of that which the Secretary of State described as another deposit for marginal disposable income, at a time when marginal disposable income sometimes means the difference between being hungry and not. That is particularly harshly felt by those out of work. I cannot improve on what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) about the complete lack of amusement on Merseyside that greeted the Bill's publication and its presentation to Parliament; but I doubt that there is any joy either on the streets of Cardiff, Glasgow or London, where many thousands of workers may be at risk of losing their jobs.
  The Secretary of State described the Bill as forward looking. That claim is pretty rich. The right hon. Gentleman himself pointed out that the House last considered this matter seriously in 1826, and I suppose that the heyday of the national lottery was the 18th

  749
  century: the possibilities of abuse were considerable then —possibilities that no doubt led the Secretary of State to go about the process in such a bureaucratic way. The Bill provides for the establishment of at least three new quangos for the purpose of distributing the unaquantified funds, as well as a regulatory agency.
  The Bill is a powerful source of patronage for the Secretary of State, who will have not only the power to appoint people to all those bodies but the power to intervene and decide how the funds are to be spent. Let us not hear much more about the Government's protecting the arms-length principle. In clause 24—which has already been mentioned—the Secretary of State takes explicit power to direct funding bodies' spending, and to wind up those bodies if they do not do what he tells them to do.
  When the Department of National Heritage was set up, many people expressed the fear that it would become involved in precisely this kind of intervention in spending. I strongly supported the notion of a Cabinet Minister's having responsibility for the arts, and speaking up for them against other Departments that might be supported more powerfully in the House. This, however, may be the thin end of the wedge. Is the Secretary of State going to meddle with the priorities of arts spending? The powers conferred by the Bill are very sweeping.
  Mr. Brooke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclennan: I shall follow the example of the right hon. and learned Member for Putney, and not give way. Although I may prove to be the only Liberal Democrat who is called to speak, I want to be as brief as possible.
  The Bill is unfortunate evidence of a willingness to meddle. The Secretary of State said that it would set up a major new industry; I question that. Certainly, it will create a number of jobs associated with the distribution of lottery tickets, and it may supplement the income of some small shopkeepers to a valuable extent. I am bound to add, however, that, when a Government are driven to describe the establishment of a lottery as a major new industry, we realise how far this great trading nation has fallen from its peak.
  The most striking feature of the Secretary of State's speech, however, was not what he said but what he did not say. We heard not a word about the amount that the lottery is likely to raise. Surely we are entitled to know how much the good causes referred to can reasonably expect from this new social departure. We should bear in mind the involvement of people such as Lord Palumbo. I am reminded of the dogs in the Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale, whose eyes grew as large as saucers at the very thought of the gold that was about to drop into their laps. Those good causes have a right to know the Government's best estimate, at least. That, of course, may be one of the matters touched on by the inquiry whose activities have been kept from the House's attention so sedulously—an inquiry initiated by the Government.
  This does matter. I had the advantage of talking to at least one of the companies that will no doubt bid for the franchise, perhaps in partnership with a number of others. The estimate given to me was £500 million in the first year: a not inconsiderable sum, certainly, but a great deal less than the amounts mentioned by Ministers earlier—for instance, the sums mentioned before the election by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley.
  Mr. Jessel: What about in later years?
  Mr. Maclennan: That is a matter of speculation. The amounts are likely to increase; but the question is put into perspective by the arithmetic outlined by the right hon. and learned Member for Putney, which suggest that only about 15 per cent. of £500 million would be left to distribute. He is right to focus on the uncertainties surrounding the value of the lottery—matters on which only the Government are adequately informed.
  National lotteries cannot be said to have been great money spinners the world over. In some countries they have provided a useful top-up for taxation—they are, in any case, a form of voluntary tax—but they have not been able to bear a very large burden. The Secretary of State, indeed, failed to refer to the issue of taxation—not only the amount, but the mechanism. It is crucial to an evaluation of the virtues, or otherwise, of the proposal to know the Government's attitude. They would not be giving away a Budget secret: we have no idea how much the lottery will raise, in terms of quantity, but there need be no Budget secrecy about percentages. If the Secretary of State told us that the amount raised would be only 5 per cent.—which is at the lower end of what the arts and sport worlds would like—we might view the matter very differently. It seems more likely that the amount will be about 20 per cent., which would reduce the value of the sum distributed to a questionable level.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Putney referred to additionality. That crucial issue has not been laid to rest by paragraph 41 of the White Paper, which the Secretary of State mentioned earlier. The Secretary of State knows that the Treasury will never give a lasting undertaking of that kind; it will be a reason to reduce the core funding of sport, the arts and other good causes. Indeed, it may explain why the right hon. Gentleman did relatively badly in the autumn spending round, compared with the right hon. and learned Member for Putney. Perhaps the national lottery is already overhanging his Department, accounting for the reduction in spending—not just in real terms, but in cash terms—made available to the arts since he became Secretary of State.
  Like the right hon. and learned Member for Putney, I was originally deeply sceptical about the proposal; I remain deeply sceptical. I believe that people's desire for the large sums that are expected to be generated has clouded their sense about the prospects. Hope has defeated their judgment. I am afraid that this enabling Bill, widely drawn, does little to set at rest the scepticism and doubts that my colleagues and I have about it.
  We are concerned about the social impact of lotteries. The evidence is not conclusive but there is certainly good evidence in the United States that expenditure on lotteries is broadly flat across the different income groups. Therefore, it is felt more keenly by those on low incomes. I suspect that that is one of the reasons why the churches have spoken with such strong voices against the very concept of a lottery as a means of raising money.
  One does not have to accept, however, that view of lotteries in general to doubt the wisdom of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Mole Valley said that this measure is job-positive. It will certainly not be job positive on Merseyside, where the football pools are bound to be affected by it. The Government have admitted that. It is not job positive, either, in the sense that money that is put into the national lottery would otherwise have been spent or saved. At best, the effect will be neutral across the economy as a whole. Spare marginal disposable income is

  751
  normally spent on goods and services, which provide jobs. The argument that this measure could be job-positive is threadbare. It should not detain the House for a moment.
  The virtue, if any, of this measure is that it would enable great projects of state to be undertaken which would not otherwise be undertaken. It is interesting to note that the two examples in support of the Bill to which the Secretary of State referred did not depend upon lotteries. Both the Great Exhibition of 1851 and the Festival of Britain of 1951 did not depend upon lotteries. They were a reflection of popular will. The Festival of Britain reflected the Labour Government's determination that this country should put its best foot forward, with the support of the taxpayer, in a progressive, not regressive, way. The benefits of that expenditure are to be seen to this day.
  I regret the fact that the Government have introduced the Bill. Whatever merits there may be in a lottery, the Bill is too open and leaves too many questions unanswered. It will have a devastating effect on employment in areas of high unemployment. It offers too little to those who are intended to be its beneficiaries. Charities have rightly expressed deep concern about the Bill. The national lottery will compete with their activities in exactly those areas where they cannot be protected. I do not know how the charitable organisation that is to distribute the funds will operate, but the people who go round with their tins collecting money on behalf of small charities will not benefit from those funds. The Bill does not deserve a Second Reading.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Richard Tracey: After the dour speech by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), it is probably just as well that the suggestion has been made that a national lottery will cheer people up. I believe, together with 75 per cent. of the British people, that the time has come for a national lottery. This country has already had a national lottery. The British museum was built with the funds from a national lottery. I hope that those on the Opposition Benches who have sympathy for museums will remember that point. However, that lottery came to an end. It is our duty to bring back a national lottery as we approach 2000.
  Research shows that there are about 170 lotteries in 130 countries. We must not lag behind all those other nations, including the United States. We must have a national lottery. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) referred to the fact that even Albania now runs a national lottery. [Interruption.] Those hon. Members with Merseyside constituencies jeer at what I say, but why should we lag behind Albania?
  Mr. George Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tracey: No. I want to have my full 10 minutes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to say more later.
  The 1978 Royal Commission on Gambling said that it believed that it was an extremely good idea to raise funds for good causes by means of a lottery. I have already referred to the fact that, according to market research, 75 per cent. of the population want to participate in a national lottery. Some Labour party Members appear to
  752
  be going against the grain of public opinion. However, the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) were, with me, sponsors of the private Member's Bill that was introduced a few months ago by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). Unfortunately, they are not here today to express their views. It surprised many of my hon. Friends and I that after what the Labour party said earlier last year it did not include a national lottery in its general election manifesto. Perhaps there are lessons to be drawn from that.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Perhaps that is why the Labour party did not win the election.
  Mr. Tracey: My hon. and learned Friend may be right about that. The British public will have drawn their own conclusions.
  Several speakers have already pointed out that it is unlikely that any Government would be able to provide, from public resources, all the money that hon. Members want to be provided for sport, the arts, the national heritage and charities. Conflicting claims are put to the Treasury for money for health, education and so on. They push further down the queue the claims for money for the arts, sport and the national heritage. I have experience of that problem. When I was Under-Secretary of State with special responsibility for sport I visited countries where lotteries and pools existed side by side. Magnificent stadia were constructed with those resources. I saw swimming pools, running tracks, velodromes and gymnasia that had been built with money that had not been provided by the state.
  Let us not forget that Manchester is bidding to host the Olympic games. The fact that some hon. Members have said today that a national lottery is not needed will be taken by some people to mean that this country will be unable to provide the facilities that will be required if Manchester is to host the Olympic games. A national lottery is essential to fund the facilities that will be necessary.
  Other hon. Members will no doubt speak more eloquently than I can about the need for expenditure from the lottery on our heritage. In other countries, a lottery has funded arts facilities, of which the Sydney opera house is a classic example. Such facilities can never be funded only by the Government from the national Exchequer or by worthy organisations such as the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. The size of expenditure is such that it can be met only by a national lottery.
  As a former sports Minister, I have much affection for the pools and for the work that they have done with the football grounds improvement trust and the Football Trust. I should not wish to see the pools jeopardised by a national lottery. I do not believe that the pools will be jeopardised, because market research shows that 92 per cent. of people who contribute to the pools wish to contribute to a national lottery. Only 8 per cent. said that they would withdraw their contribution to the pools and spend it on the national lottery.
  For the benefit of Labour Members who have taken rather a negative view of the national lottery, I shall conclude with the comments of somebody who was respected by Opposition Members as a spokesman on sport, the noble Lord Howell. He said:
  "I appeal to my hon. Friends to stop saying … that it is either pools or the lottery but not both. That is a mistaken

  753
  approach. It is political advice and I hope that the House will see the common sense in accepting the Rothschild royal commission's recommendation of 14 years ago and proceed to a national lottery which the sports, arts and heritage of this country desperately need if we are to expand and promote their interests."—[Official Report, 17 January 1992; Vol. 201, c. 1246.]
  It is a pity that the noble Lord is not with his colleagues this afternoon to say those words once again.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we continue, I remind the House that the 10–minute limit on speeches will start now and last until 8 o'clock.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Not long ago I spoke in opposition to the National Lottery Bill, a private Member's Bill, and my opposition has increased since. Since that time, hundreds of thousands of people have been made unemployed, yet today the Minister said that the Bill will create jobs.
  I am sponsored by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which represents most of the workers in the pools industry. It estimates that the industry directly employs 6,500 people and more than 70,000 people part time in places such as Merseyside, Strathclyde, Cardiff and London. Given the level of unemployment in those areas —I can speak passionately about the problems that unemployment has inflicted on Strathclyde and the poverty that our people are suffering from because of the Government's policies—every job is worth fighting for.
  I would hold up the attitude of the pools companies to many employers as a good model. The Littlewoods factory in Scotland recently burnt down, but within a short time its 650 workers were relocated to a factory in my constituency and were able to continue to earn their living. They have now returned to a new building in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), and I am delighted to say that they are fully employed in that area of deep depression. Those jobs are more than welcome. The industry employs 6,500 women, who receive a reasonable wage: the minimum is just under £5 an hour. That money is most welcome to families in Strathclyde.
  Britain is one of the worst gambling nations in the world. It is unbelievable that the Government wish to use the lottery to raise revenue. If people outside believe the Minister when he tells them that buying a lottery ticket is not a gamble, they must be nutters, but my constituents are not nut cases; they know what gambling is.
  It is suggested that ordinary people who are living in poverty, many of whom live on benefit, will aim for the pipedream of being the one in 6 million who win. What a way of getting out of deprivation and poverty. Some estimates suggest that they will spend £2 from the pittance that they receive in benefit. The Government are encouraging those people by offering them a pipedream that is unrealisable. Two pounds buys four tins of beans in Asda at 75p. The local shop in my area sells a dozen eggs for 78p and two loves of bread for 78p. That is a good breakfast for a poor family—eggs, beans and bread. The Government want to encourage people to buy a lottery ticket—but for what?
  I am not opposed to arts, culture and sport, which are important, but the Government should fund them through direct taxation rather than taking the cheap, shoddy road
  754
  of a lottery. The Government should not take pot luck and gamble with people's futures, and they certainly should not gamble with the jobs of the 6,500 people who are employed directly in the pools industry. I have heard many comments today, and we can all play the numbers game, but the numbers game that matters to me is the 6,500 people who are employed in the pools industry.
  There is no question but that the Bill will lead to substantial redundancies. More than 1,000 redundancies are suggested in the Government's secret report. It is such a secret that everybody knows about it! I wish that the Government had given it to us so that we could have discussed it further.
  The Bill is back-door nationalisation. The Government say that they believe in privatisation, yet they are nationalising a private industry, but for what I honestly do not know.
  Someone sent me the Scottish Sports Council's document, "A Golden Opportunity for Scotland". What a deep insult that is to almost 650 people who are now facing the dole because of the proposed lottery. I have examined that document and its contents did not surprise me because most quangos have Tory placemen anyway. That frightens the life out of me because in Scotland most of us who are Labour, Liberal or even SNP minded are not on any boards, so the quangos carry on in their merry way, promoting Tory policy.
  The document mentions a golden opportunity, a bonanza for the arts and a restorative revenue for our heritage. People in my constituency do not live in castles; they do not go to the ballet and cannot afford to go to the opera—they find it difficult enough to survive in this day and age without seeing unnecessary revenue going to support such activities. I have nothing against Windsor castle—it is terrible that it burnt down but £50 million is to be spent on it. I am not against the Lord of Argyll receiving a pittance, but heritage money is being spent on places that already receive money. Quangos consist of Government placemen, so they do not represent the democratic view and do not offer the democratic right to be heard.
  I sincerely wonder what we shall get when the lottery quangos are established. Shall we see Jimmy Tarbuck, the comedian of the Tory party, Kenny "blow 'em and nuke 'em" Everett, or Ken Dodd who is such an expert on money matters? Shall we have one of the greatest fiddlers in Great Britain, the superb Yehudi Menuhin—I do not mean that as an insult—or will Gazza the great footballer kick it off, as he is also a Tory? Will Tessa Sanderson be throwing the javelin? I am sure that the Prime Minister would love to have Clive Lloyd, the cricketer, doing a wee spot, and Bruno punching a few dots here and there to help the draw. Perhaps Cilia Black could host a blind date to win £1 million—she was the woman who said that the Tories would put the "great" back into Great Britain. Is the national lottery the way to do that? What an insult!
  Many organisations have written to me on the subject. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations said:
  "Low income households, on the experience of the Irish National Lottery, are likely to have a higher than average participation rate and unless the allocation formula reflects social need the National Lottery may take disproportionate sums."
  That means that the low-income folk will be the most involved. USDAW knows its business and states:

  755
  "The National Lottery is wrong in principle. We believe that the introduction of a National Lottery is undesirable in principle both as a regressive form of consumption tax and an impulsive and potentially addictive form of gambling."
  So far all we have heard from the Government are the so-called benefits of the lottery. Meanwhile, Ministers have refused to publish their own research, which shows that more than 1,000 jobs will be lost following its introduction. The pools companies themselves have estimated that about 4,000 on-site jobs will be lost in the first year and a further 750 in the second year, leaving only 1,175—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the trap has operated.
  6.14 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I have listened carefully to the debate and have noted what has been said. Time is short, but I refer to the fact that we have been told that a national lottery will increase the income of charities. Some hon. Members were holding up the Irish hospitals sweepstakes as an example, telling us of the benefits to the Irish Republic. However, that flies in the face of the facts. There is evidence that, back in the 1930s, the Irish hospitals sweepstakes caused many hospitals hardship because they resulted in a decline in charitable giving which contributed to running costs while sweepstakes money was available only for concrete projects. In response to the Government, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations said that recent evidence from Ireland, where the national lottery has been running since 1987, suggests that 10 per cent. of money spent on the lottery was at the expense of charities' fund raising, with a further 60 per cent. decline in the sale of charitable lottery tickets. If the introduction of a national lottery here had similar effects, there could be a loss to charities of between £267 million and £395 million.
  I resent it being said that giving to charities was declining in Northern Ireland because, in fact, giving is increasing in Northern Ireland although we are in a terrible recession. It is nonsense to say that charities will benefit greatly from the lottery. Charities are raising a hue and cry because they know that it will tell against them.
  We were also told that the lottery would be a good way of giving, but if only 25 per cent. of what is given goes to charity, that is not such a good way of giving. Certainly people in Ballymena where I come from would not think that it was a good way of giving. I see that the Secretary of State is smiling because he has some experience of how Ballymena thinks—it is called the Aberdeen of Northern Ireland and I am proud to represent it.
  We are also told that we cannot raise the necessary money through taxation, but the lottery is a tax—let us get that perfectly clear. It is a tax across the board. I refer again to Ireland—which people participate most in lotteries there? The answer is, the unemployed, because it holds before them something which they can never attain. It is terrible that the Government should apparently be placing the possibility of great riches within people's grasp. By doing so, the Government foment discontent with one's present standard of living. Far from promotng harder
  756
  work, it will encourage consumer debt which, at the moment, stands at £56 billion in the United Kingdom. What will it be when the lottery is established?
  To me, however, they are peripheral points. I am opposed to the principle of gambling. I do not believe that one should offer people something that they could not attain by exercising the proper work ethic. After wide experience in pastoral work for more than 40 years, I know something of the results of gambling. Last year I said:
  "The desire and aim to get money without doing the equivalent of necessary work strikes at the heart of the well-being of mankind. The man who works for what he gets is happy and contented. He is not shadowed with the frustration, disappointment, tension, agony and remorse of the gambler. A trade and occupation are ennobling things. They bring out, to the best advantage, the talents and energies of the individual. Anything that debases those talents and energies and puts them to a wrong use is not good for a person"
  or for the nation as a whole. I continued:
  "Gambling tells against domestic happiness. The charms of the home do not satisfy the person caught up in this craze: he wants louder laughter, something to win or lose and excitement to drive the heart faster, fillip the blood and fire the imagination."—[Official Report, 17 January 1992; Vol. 201, c. 1243.]
  It is terrible that we as a nation are going to sponsor gambling, to spend money to create the appetite for gambling and to encourage people who perhaps have never indulged before. I think that it was the Secretary of State who said that everyone could have a flutter. Some of those who have fluttered have broken wings and some of us have had to pick up the broken wings and the broken homes.
  We are certainly going down the wrong road when we reverse what the nation decided almost 200 years ago. It is a retrograde step and I will not vote to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I hope that when the Minister sums up later, he will do two things. First, will he confirm that there is an intergovernmental agreement within the European Community to prevent the legitimate sale of other countries' lottery tickets? Secondly, will he explain how 1,000 jobs would be created in the lottery when the West German lottery is run by 140 to 150 people?
  For good reasons, there is disquiet among hon. Members of all parties about the Bill. There is the threat to jobs, there is the danger to charities and there is the anxiety, felt by many, about the Government's promotion of gambling. The Government argue that the lottery is a good thing and that it will create a bonaza for good causes while causing minimal problems in other areas, such as the pools industry.
  Underpinning the Government's case has been the argument that a national lottery is merely harmless entertainment. It is so harmless that over the past 300 years countless hours have been spent in the House debating the merits or otherwise of lotteries. The debate began in 1698, it resumed in 1716, it resulted in the Lotteries Act 1823, it resumed in the various debates in this century, including the debate on the National Lottery Bill last year, and it continues today.
  Throughout those debates, Governments have seen a lottery as a source of revenue and as a means of controlling

  757
  gambling without stimulating any new gambling. Opponents always question the ethical probity of lotteries and see them at best as a form of regressive taxation.
  I have read through the debates and I was reminded of the contortions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on black Wednesday. Bearing that in mind, it is worth paraphrasing the question that was put in the House by William Parnell during the debate on the national lottery on 4 May 1819. Do Ministers themselves gamble? If not, why do they recommend to others that which they have rejected?
  A lottery is, without doubt, gambling and I am glad that the Secretary of State confirmed that today. Research has shown that the lottery will be funded primarily by the C2, D and E social classes. A report by London Economics shows that those at the bottom of the socio-economic scale have one third less participation than average in sport and only half the average participation in the arts. Conversely, socio-economic classes A, B and C1 have one third more participation than average in sport and twice the average participation in the arts. Research in Ireland shows, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, that it is the unemployed who disproportionatley subsidise the lottery. It it is the poor paying, in effect, for the distractions of the rich.
  It is appropriate to read a quotation from George Orwell's "1984" which was sent to me in the post. The quotation reads:
  "The Lottery, with its weekly pay-out of enormous prizes, was the one public event to which the proles paid serious attention."
  I assume that we are the proles. The quotation continues:
  "It was probable that there were some millions of proles for whom the lottery was the principal, if not the only reason, for staying alive. It was their delight, their folly, the anodyne, their intellectual stimulant."
  Orwell's idea is not as fanciful as it seems. Anyone who has seen Spain during the draw of E1 Gordo—the big one—knows how people can be besotted with a lottery when huge prizes are involved. Hon. Members should go to Australia and watch prime time Saturday night television when Australia's National Lotto prize is drawn. It is the focus of society. Similar phenomena are observed anywhere where there are huge prizes. It becomes a preoccupation. That does not mean that we are philistines or anti-gambling. The point is that Governments should not stimulate more gambling.
  Illusions should not be fostered by any responsible Government. The notion that people can be distracted from the realities of their lives by such disingenuous promotion is worrying. The Government have repeatedly used the definition of a lottery being harmless entertainment.
  There is no doubt that a national lottery as envisaged would destroy thousands of jobs, mainly women's jobs, in the pools industry. In country after country, it has been shown that the pools industry cannot co-exist with a national lottery. In the minority of cases in which it has, the reason has been that the Government have allowed both a level playing field, including in terms of the tax regime.
  Research was commissioned by the European Commission—not by the pools industry—and carried out by Coopers and Lybrand. I have confirmation of its findings from the manager, Mr. Frank McFadden. The report concluded that the introduction of a national lottery in the United Kingdom
  758
  "would effectively kill off the football pools within weeks."
  The lottery would directly affect the jobs of more than 4,600 people in my area and the jobs of another 2,000 elsewhere. It also affects the 70,000 part-time collectors, the printers, the suppliers and others. It is not only those involved in the pools industry who fear for their jobs. 'We must bear in in mind the fears of the Betting Office Licensees Association, the Lotteries Council and many charities who fear for the future of their employees if the national lottery is introduced, especially in its present form.
  All that we can get from the Government are vague promises about jobs. The lottery will be operated by a few hundred people at the potential cost of thousands of jobs. The way in which the Government could cater for the pools industry would be to offer the level playing field of the same trading conditions for the pools as for the national lottery. We all know why the Government are reluctant to do that.
  I have no doubt about the reason for the Government's reluctance. We have only to look at the Rothschild submission to the Government on the national lottery to see that there is no way in which the pools and the national lottery could co-exist. The Rothschild submission refers to a more intrusive, but lighter regime. It means favoured treatment for the national lottery for it to be able to compete against a well-established and efficient pools industry. I can only conclude that there is a straight choice between the pools and the lottery.
  It is ironic that the Government intend to intervene on behalf of nationalised gambling and are willing to ignore the wishes of private enterprise in this case. The Government can take that step only by characterising the lottery as harmless entertainment and by characterising the pools as gambling. That device is also lifted straight from the Rothschild report.
  It is clear that the income of charities will be devastated by the lottery. The research in Ireland has been referred to by other speakers today and it was used in the submission by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. The research shows that 10 per cent. of the money spent on the lottery is at the expense of the income of charities. A £1.5 billion lottery turnover would cost charities £150 million. Yet that same £1.5 billion turnover, untaxed, would provide £525 million for good causes, of which £105 million would be for charities. That is a net loss of £45 million. Only an outrageous optimist envisages no taxation on a lottery.
  Let us suppose that the taxation rate was 20 per cent., as mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). Let us take a notional £1 investment in the national lottery. Incidentally, no country in Europe has a tax rate below 25.7 per cent., which is the figure for France. The average tax rate is 29.5 per cent., so we are being generous in assuming that the rate would be 20 per cent.
  Of that £1, 50p would go back into prizes. Some 15p would go on operating costs and some 20p would go in tax. That would leave 15p of the orginal £1 to be divided among five good causes. Somebody who made a donation of £1 to the national lottery to make a donation towards his favourite charity would end up by giving it 3p. That is not a fair deal. It is far better that the money should go to a charity of people's choice without being reduced and without the reduction, which I foresee, in personal

  759
  commitment to charitable giving. Such giving will be reduced to the level of gambling and that gambling will be done with a stacked deck.
  Given that the Government will tax lottery income, how will other sources of funds be affected? What will be the effect, for example, on the local authorities' discretionary support for the voluntary sector? As they are squeezed more and more by central Government, is it not sensible to understand their view that perhaps the voluntary sector would be a prime area for cuts?
  As I have now run out of time, I will conclude by referring to a written reply that appeared on 16 March 1992 at column 789 of Hansard in which the Prime Minister confirmed the view of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs that demand for gambling should not be stimulated. However, the White Paper demanded that the national lottery should be widely advertised and socially acceptable.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Toby Jessel: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) said that the national lottery would kill off the football pools within weeks. With respect to him, I do not believe that for a moment. I, for one, would take tickets in a national lottery; but I never bet on the football pools. I am sure that the same would apply to millions of our fellow citizens.
  I strongly support the Bill, and I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage on taking this important and positive action which will bring tremendous benefits to the arts, heritage, sports and charities.
  I want also to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who basically worked the whole thing out with his White Paper a year ago. I also congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who introduced a private Member's Bill which had a tremendous impact on the House. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton will not mind if I bracket with his name that of our former colleague and former Member for Hyndburn, Ken Hargreaves.
  My interest lies first and foremost in the arts and heritage. I believe that we must, as a country, build on our strengths, and the arts and heritage are one of the great strengths, not only because they fulfil and enrich the lives of our people, but because of the volume of employment that they generate, partly as a result of people visiting this country from abroad.
  People visit the United Kingdom, not for our weather, but for our arts and heritage; for our theatres, opera, ballet and concerts; for our museums, art galleries and art auctions. They come to visit our historic houses and royal palaces such as Hampton court, which is in my constituency. They come to visit our cathederals, abbeys and churches—
  Mr. Wareing: And Kneller hall.
  Mr. Jessel: And, indeed, they come to hear military band concerts at Kneller hall.
  760
  They come to see our villages, historic towns and our countryside. They come also to see something of our monarchy, ceremonies and our tradition.
  When people visit this country, they spend money on the arts and heritage. They also spend money in hotels and restaurants. They spend money in the shops and on internal transport. Those activities are labour-intensive; and a huge amount of employment, income and tax yield is generated for the Government. I do not believe that Opposition Members have attached sufficient weight to those important factors.
  I reject the suggestion that the gambling aspect is detrimental to the national character. I notice that Opposition Members have said nothing about gambling on the pools being detrimental to the national character. They cannot have the argument both ways. Opposition Members cannot complain that the national lottery will damage the national character through gambling and then say that they will support the football pools because of the employment that is generated without referring to the fact that the football pools are a form of gambling.
  I do not believe that the national lottery will sap the morale of the country. I want to quote the words of an Opposition Member as recorded in Hansard:
  "I believe that this proposal will affect a great number of our people throughout the country on sincerely-held religious and moral grounds … Now Britain's strength, freedom and solvency apparently depend on the proceeds of a squalid raffle."
  Those were the words of Harold Wilson referring to the proposal of Harold Macmillian in the 1956 Budget to introduce a premium bond. Another Opposition Member, Mr. Simmons, said:
  "I regard the Premium Bond as a record low for any statesman of stature in this country. It is an appeal to the least desirable instinct in the community, the instinct of getting something for nothing."—[Official Report, 18 April 1956; Vol. 551, c. 1026, 1083.]
  That was said 36 years ago. Since then, we have seen one of the most self-confident and expansionary phases in the history of Britain—the 1980s—when the arts and the whole of our national life flourished as it had never done before.
  I do not accept the argument about gambling. It is a Victorian argument that a man, without the necessary strength of character, might gamble away his wages and destroy the living standards of his wife and children. That related to betting on horses when one could wager all one's salary or wage. It is most unlikely that anyone will do that in respect of the football pools or the national lottery.
  There is a serious argument about employment in Liverpool, not only because of the number of jobs involved in Liverpool and on Merseyside and, to a lesser extent, in Glasgow and elsewhere, but because—and this point has not been made so far by Opposition Members —the families who run the football pools, such as the Moores who run Littlewoods, have given Merseyside and, not least, the arts an enormous amount of support which has benefited the whole community. They have done that on a philanthropic basis.
  For example, the Moores and Littlewoods have rescued the Liverpool Playhouse which is highly important to the arts. My wife, who was an actress, tells me that the Liverpool Playhouse has been the nursery of many of our greatest actors and actresses. The same family contributed a great deal to the new Tate gallery in Liverpool.

  761
  However, I cannot see why the offices of the national lottery and their machinery should not be located in Liverpool as partial compensation. One most recognise that automation is increasing and the number of jobs involved with the football pools was already declining. We must also consider the national aspect mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley and the volume of employment that the lottery would generate.
  So far, no one has referred to the spending that would occur as a result of the prize money. Some of the money would be saved, but many prize winners would spend their money. That, in turn, would generate employment, income and a tax yield to the Government.
  We must look at the widest possible picture. I strongly support the Bill, and I hope that there will be as little delay as possible before it reaches the statute book.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Bryan Davies: I broadly support the concept of a national lottery. As most advanced countries and all other members of the European Community have already introduced national lotteries, if we do not introduce a lottery here, it would be only a matter of time before national lottery tickets from other countries were available in Britain.
  Nor do I shrink from nationalising a part of the nation's gambling industry. As some of my colleagues have pointed out, the Government are in an odd position in that they are involved in a nationalisation measure. I rejoice in that. There is a great deal to be said for the development of part of our gambling that is directed towards good causes in which there will be public debate and a contribution from the wider community about the direction of those resources.
  I can think of only one form of gambling which is responsive to public pressure, and that is the pools industry, with its support for football grounds and, in response to the Taylor report, the improvement of safety at grounds. That certainly has been beneficial—I would be the last to speak against it—and it shows the relationship between the pools and the industry which gives rise to the employment in the pools.
  The national lottery gives an opportunity for a quantum leap in public support for the arts, sports, the national heritage and the millennium fund. We should recognise the extent to which the country is ill served at present in terms of capital for the arts and sports, for example. One of the great weaknesses in recent years with the bids that have been put forward by Birmingham and London, and now by Manchester, which I fervently hope will be successful, for the Olympic games in the year 2000, is that the initial sporting capital that we are relying upon is abysmally low.
  To take an obvious example, the British national football stadium is now 70 years old. Wembly stadium was built in 1924 to host the Empire games. Although there have been modernisations since then, that indicates that this country has been notoriously slow to update its sporting and artistic facilities and that we have failed, in terms of public support, to provide them.
  It has already been pointed out that a comparison might be drawn with the 1851 Great Exhibition arid the 1951 exhibition. I hope that the millennium fund will be directed at the creation of significant buildings. We have some of the greatest modern architects in the world. All
  762
  too little are they employed to design great public buildings. In recent years they have concentrated upon buildings in the private sector or the redevelopment of British Rail stations. I commend Liverpool Street and Charing Cross stations as fine examples of modern architecture. All too often, because architects have been in the private sector and because mammon has been dictating the terms, those buildings, far from being showplaces for the nation, are to be found in city streets in which it is difficult to obtain a true perspective of them. Vast numbers of people, not least hon. Members, from other parts of the country are too unaware of the achievements of British architects in recent years.
  I hope that the millennium fund will give us the chance, first, to have major building projects which employ such talent, and, secondly, to get away from the terrible concentration only upon the capital city. One of the great tragedies of the past decade or so, the period when considerable oil wealth was siphoned off into the private sector through the beneficence of the Government, is that so much of the concentration of that wealth has been in City finance. The City of London has had opportunities for such development and the rest of the country has frequently been neglected.
  I hope that we will have a full, major debate on the way in which resources will be used for the millennium fund. I trust that other parts of the country—for example, the regions, not least the north-west— will have opportunities for major building projects of real stature, which will be of great advantage to the nation and will be part of our national heritage.
  The Secretary of State will have recognised the basis upon which the reasoned amendment was tabled and will know as a result of our questions to him in the Select Committee on National Heritage that there is enormous anxiety among Opposition Members about the impact upon the football pools industry of the introduction of the national lottery. I do not think that the present distinctions that the right hon. Gentleman draws between the two will hold in terms of public acceptability.
  There seems to be an entirely spurious proposition that the national lottery will just be a game of chance, that it is not gambling, that gambling is about the application of one's brain to a game of skill in which one's intellect is engaged in making predictions about the results of certain sporting events, and that football pools fit into that category because one must predict the outcome of football matches. The Secretary of State and all those who argue in that way are living in a time warp.
  Ever since the treble chance was introduced 40 years ago, it has been quite clear that the prediction of results has given way to the random selection of eight score draws out of 58 possible matches. It is completely a game of chance. That is why the big wins are made only when everybody else gets it wrong. By definition, the reason why everybody gets it wrong is that one cannot predict through skill, intellect or rational judgment. Pure chance produces the major dividend on the national pools.
  What is more, the national pools continue to flourish throughout the summer. I have never met anybody who is interested in football in this country who has shown any capacity to understand the Australian football leagues and the Australian football results. The final nail in that coffin was delivered a few years ago when, in order to avoid the potential loss of income due to the disastrous effects of harsh British winters, the football pools introduced the

  763
  pools panel—a band of extremely worthy individuals. In fact, the chair is a personal friend of mine. He happens to be an Arsenal supporter, which shows how much he knows about football, but I will leave that point. It is abundantly clear that if one is laying bets upon the potential forecasts of a gathering of individuals loosely connected with the football industry actually producing results for the treble chance, clearly that is, in everything but name, a lottery.
  My conclusion is not that we should abandon support for a national lottery but that we should play fair by the football pools industry. We should give the football pools industry what it asks for—a level playing field. If the national lottery is to be advertised on television, I see no reason why the football pools industry should not have the same rights. If, however, it is decided that it would be demoralising to the nation for such advertising to appear on television, that must apply to the national lottery as well.
  I do not see why the football pools industry should not be able to match the national lottery in terms of potential prizes in order to retain its attractiveness. Nor do I see any reason why it should not have the same rights to provide its coupons through retail outlets in the way that is envisaged for the national lottery.
  My other great anxiety—the Secretary of State will know about it from the concerns of members of the Select Committee—is the concept of the word that I shudder to use, but we all seem to be trapped by it—"additionality". It is marginally better than "subsidiarity", I suppose, in the sense that it means a little more, but nevertheless it is an extremely crude concept which is obviously central to the benefits that the national lottery will bring. If the Sports Council and the Arts Council are to distribute resources that are allocated by the Department of National Heritage and the Treasury, and if there are to be resources from the national lottery, we will have to lay down in the framework of the Bill a clear indication of how that process will work. Otherwise what we fear will happen—there will be a substitution of one form of expenditure for the other.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I welcome the opportunity that the national lottery uniquely provides to mobilise substantial extra sums for the arts, for the heritage and for sport. I also welcome the millennium fund. I hope that the effect of it will be to make us more cheerful as we approach the forthcoming millennium than our ancestors are reported to have been as they approached the previous one. If we should, however, decide that the end of the world is at hand, no doubt we shall draw some comfort from the thought that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be judged more lightly on judgment day for having sent the rest of us to perdition with an endowment.
  I should like to say a word about additionality, although some of my hon. Friends might think that I am already a lost soul for descending into Euro-speak. I very much welcome the pledge of my right hon. Friend that the proceeds of the national lottery will not be a substitute for current Government spending. Hon. Members will be watching to ensure that that is so and helping my right hon. Friend to achieve that objective. However, in truth,
  764
  we shall never know whether public spending on certain activities will grow by less than it otherwise would have done had there not been a national lottery.
  I urge upon my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, an act of forbearance and suggest that he refrain altogether from taxing the lottery. I know how keen he must be to find every additional source of revenue. He must be concerned about the possible loss of pools revenue. But, realistically, he will be limited in what he can take from the lottery to some 5 per cent., or 7 per cent. at the most. Experience in other countries has shown that at least 48 per cent. of turnover will need to go to prizes if people are to buy enough tickets. The Minister must allow not less than 12 per cent. for the costs of promotion and administration. Unless 35 per cent. is spent on good causes, the prospectus of the national lottery—that it is a grand design intended to achieve a quantum leap in funding for those good causes—will prove to be a deception. That leaves only 5 per cent. or, at the most, 7 per cent. to be taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor directly from the lottery. It will certainly not be the 15 to 20 per cent. which has been bandied about. About 5 or 7 per cent. would keep the Chancellor in phase with the level of taxation in other European countries.
  However, in his remarks to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations conference, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary observed that the intention was that the lottery should be "good fun". My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State unbuttoned himself before Christmas so far as to describe the national lottery as "an exciting project which will capture the imagination of the nation". The lottery will not be such fun or as exciting if the tax man appears at the party like an undertaker.
  I urge the Government to consider seriously the possibility that the Exchequer would do better if the Chancellor refrained from taxing the lottery directly. More people will want to buy lottery tickets if the lottery is tax free and a vigorous flow of money into the lottery will stimulate and finance economic activity—construction and employment—all of which will yield tax downstream. If the Chancellor were to go in for such an act of apparent self-abnegation, it might be possible for as much as 40 per cent. to go to good causes. I suggest that the Government settle for that amount, which would be a good bargain all round.
  I should like to say a word about the impact of the national lottery on charities. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary rightly emphasised that everyone involved in charities should look on the national lottery as an opportunity which, if properly taken, will yield great benefits for charities. His qualification was right and the opportunity must be properly taken by the Government.
  My hon. Friend's decision that charities should be among the principal beneficiaries of the national lottery has been widely welcomed. It is good that the Government listened and responded to the case which was made. But genuine anxieties remain on the part of charities.
  I hope that Ministers in the Department of National Heritage and the Home Office will be vigilant to ensure that additionality operates in the field of public expenditure on charities and voluntary organisations. Central and local government are important providers of funds to charities and voluntary organisations. Increasingly, statutory agencies are working in partnership with charities and voluntary organisations to provide

  765
  services and address the multiplicity of needs in our society. Even as it is, before the lottery and under the present pressures of public expenditure, there is a significant erosion of public support for charities and voluntary organisations. It is crucial that departments, whether in central or local government, do not get away with reducing further their support for charities and voluntary organisations on the basis that other money may be forthcoming from the national lottery.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will be alive and sensitive to the probability that the advent of the national lottery will divert money from charitable giving. It will be hard to assess the scale of that effect because nothing happens in a vacuum. Other extraneous effects such as recession and, indeed, economic recovery will have an influence on the totality of charitable giving. But common sense tells us that the impact of the lottery will displace some spending on charities as on the pools.
  It is right that the Government should monitor those two matters in the context of the national lottery: the development of public funding for charities and voluntary organisations and of private contributions to them. The Government should recognise their responsibility. They need a flourishing charitable sector in the pursuit of many of their policies. They will be the creator of this juggernaut, the national lottery, and it is only right that they should accept responsibility in relation to its consequences. I hope that the Government will stand ready, if necessary, to provide further compensation—I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend use that word in this context—possibly by introducing further relief for charities from VAT and by entitling charities absolutely to relief from the business rate.
  I am grateful that my right hon. Friend introduced clauses in part III of the Bill which enlarge the scope for small charitable lotteries. He is well aware of the concern of many charities which are significantly dependent on the proceeds of small lotteries that their revenue will be hit by the arrival of a giant national lottery which enjoys all the advantages of massive publicity and the allure of enormous prizes.
  My right hon. Friend proposes to increase the prize limits and the permissible turnover for society lotteries and local lotteries. To an extent, he proposes to relax the rules on advertising. Those concessions are welcome, as far as they go, but I put it to him that they do not go far. Why should he set any limits on the turnover and prizes of small lotteries? If small lotteries are duly registered, if they are required to provide proper accounts and if a minimum proportion of their turnover is required to go to good causes, they should be free to compete. I am left with a suspicion that the Government are using their power of legislation to rig the rules in favour of the national lottery. I should like the national lottery to leave more space for small lotteries. In that context, I am sorry that my right hon. Friend envisages that the national lottery should use scratch cards. Scratch cards are a convenient and productive device for small charitable lotteries. The national lottery will be able to use the latest and most expensive technology. It would be fair and sensible if the national lottery left the field clear for small charitable lotteries to use scratch cards.
  Rather than close opportunities for other charitable lotteries to raise funds, I would prefer my right hon. Friend to look further at the manner in which charitable lotteries are regulated. It must be said that the regulation of
  766
  lotteries by local authorities is patchy. By doubling the levels at which society lotteries must register with the Gaming Board, there is a risk that the scale of abuse will double. I ask the Minister why the Gaming Board or the Office of National Lotteries should not regulate all lotteries.
  I hope that it will be possible to find an opportunity in the legislation properly to regulate so-called games of skill. The Institute of Charity Fund-Raising Managers has provided some disturbing evidence of rackets in the operation of prize competition draws by commercial companies which claim to work on behalf of chari ties. "Games of skill" whereby questions are posed, such as "If today is Monday, what is tomorrow?", escape the net of lotteries regulation. Such games of skill should be brought within an equivalent secure regulatory regime.
  I have spoken about ways in which money will be raised through the national lottery and other lotteries. I should like to say a word about distribution. The Government are creating a great engine of fund raising which will be accountable to Parliament for the propriety of its operation. It is appropriate that the Government should have a policy about the use of the proceeds. I take issue with those who argue in favour of the purest application of the arms-length principle. It is legitimate that the Government should take a view in response to public debate, and I support that.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: What amazes me in this debate, which in a sense began during Question Time today, is the apparent lack of doing homework on the part of the Government and the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State reminds me of the little boy who gets his exercise book out, does his homework, goes along to school the following day and then when he returns home refuses to show his exercise book to his parents because he got all his sums wrong. That is what happened with the GAH report.
  I do not believe any of the nonsense about commercial probity—that the Government must be careful. If the report told us that the sums are correct, it would have been produced to us. Sums have been made out by the pools firms and by Coopers and Lybrand. The gross remittances to the football pools companies—their income—which stood at £880 million in 1991–92 are likely to be reduced to £442.3 million by 1995–96.
  That reduction will affect the contribution by the pools companies to good causes. We have heard much talk about good causes being assisted by the national lottery. Let us examine the amounts which the football pools have contributed to good causes in recent years. In 1991–92, £21 million was provided for the Football Trust, mostly for improvements to stadiums and seating accommoda-tion. By 1995–96, that will fall to £11.1 million. The Foundation for Sport and the Arts received £20.3 million in 1991–92 from the football pools. In 1995–96, that will fall to £11.1 million. Let us not forget that the pools pay out the large amount of 37.5 per cent. of their takings through the pools betting duty. According to a recent parliamentary reply, in 1991–92 the pools contributed to the Exchequer no less than £319.5 million. That is almost half the pools turnover during that period.

  767
  The lottery will be expensive, with some 50 per cent. going on the prizes. That will leave very little: 35 per cent. will be left to be distributed, not to good causes but between good causes and the national Exchequer.
  I reiterate what I said about the so-called competition between the football and national lotteries in other countries. The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) claimed that Italy was a good example of a country with football pools and a national lottery. The position is not comparable because the Government envisage that the national lottery in Britain will compete with the football pools for 52 weeks of the year. In Italy, there are only four or five draws of the national lottery each year, so the Italian football pools have to compete with the national lottery for only four or five weeks a year.
  All the evidence is that considerable sums will be lost to both the football pools and charities. The Jubilee Policy Group showed that the pools companies stood to lose £325 million a year. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations estimated a loss of £428 million to charitable organisations. Those figures are the results of research carried out by people who did their homework. It is a pity that the Government have apparently discussed the matter with the pools promoters only once—on 9 December.
  The greatest impact of the national lottery, especially in the eyes of Members of Parliament who represent Liverpool constituencies such as myself and my hon. Friends, will be the job losses that it will cause. Of the 4,997 jobs provided by the Littlewoods organisation alone, 1,833—14 per cent.—are at the Walton Hall avenue office in my constituency. But considerable unemployment would be caused in other parts of Merseyside. Birkenhead is one. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in his place. I hope that perhaps he will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Vernons and Zetters are likely to go out of business altogether, according to Coopers and Lybrand. Of course, the Government are used to businesses going bankrupt; what do two more matter? It matters to my constituents. The position is appalling. Almost 5,000 people are employed in the pools industry on Merseyside now but it is estimated that by 1996–97, only 1,175 people will work for Littlewoods pools.
  If the Government want to refute my figures, let them produce their evidence. Let the little boy come home with his exercise book and show his parents—the House of Commons—what they have a right to know. They have a right to know the evidence on which the Government have determined their case.
  The job losses in Liverpool and elsewhere will be among not only those directly employed by the pools firms. The Secretary of State talked about the indirect employment that would be generated by the national lottery. Littlewoods, Vernons and Zetters also create employment in the advertising, banking services, construction, electrical supplies, paper manufacturing, postal services, printing, stationery and office equipment industries. It is estimated that 1,025 jobs are indirectly generated by the pools industry in Britain.
  We have had enough redundancies on Merseyside. In recent months, more jobs have been lost at Ford, Pilkington and the oil depot at Stanlow. Cammell Laird
  768
  has been debated in the House. Another company in my constituency, General Electric, has been forced to offload 95 people as a result, not of technological changes but the recession, largely because of the Government's policies.
  What can the Government do to compensate? When he spoke before the National Heritage Select Committee, the Secretary of State said that the lottery would create no more than about 1,000 jobs. It is appalling that the Government do not take into account the job losses which are likely to occur in the pools industry.
  Why on earth should the pools organisations not advertise on television and radio, if the national lottery is to be allowed to do so? Why should not the pools companies sell their coupons in shops? Why should not they be allowed to pass on their jackpot from one week to another if there is no outright winner? Why should the pools be discriminated against in tax rates? I have been given no answer so far to those questions.
  The Secretary of State talked about creating millionaires and museums when he launched the Bill. I can tell him that there will be precious few millionaires among the pools employees in Liverpool, but perhaps the pools industry, like so many other industries in Britain under the Tory Government, will be deposited in a museum
  7.8 pm
  Sir John Hannam: I welcome the introduction of the national lottery as a means of raising additional resources for the maintenance of the basic structure of our arts, heritage and sports systems. I have been involved for some 13 years with the Royal National theatre, across the river. For some years, the difficulties which we have experienced in raising the necessary resources to repair, modernise and maintain the building have brought home to me the difficulties that our universities, sports stadiums, heritage buildings and museums throughout Britain face in finding funds for renovation and upkeep.
  I welcome the measure but, having had some experience of the recent attempt to launch a nationwide lottery scheme aimed at raising funds for charitable schemes, I have two warnings. First, there will be a time lag before the money raised reaches the billions that we have heard mentioned in the debate today. Secondly, I am concerned about the impact on existing charity fund raising, which could be quite serious. Following on from the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-onAvon (Mr. Howarth), I have some comments and suggestions for changes in the Bill to help to alleviate the damage that could be caused to many organisations that raise money through small lotteries.
  It is generally accepted that the national lottery will result in a significant reduction in direct charity giving, and that funds raised will be used principally to finance capital projects. In 1989–90, approximately £235 million was raised in this country from small lotteries. For many charities, existing lottery income forms a key element of the operating budget and cannot be replaced by capital project financing from a national lottery. I received today from the Lotteries Council a list of 120 such clubs—mostly football clubs, including Exeter City football club in my constituency. Many such clubs rely on small scratch-card and similar lotteries for vital revenue each year.
  Other community organisations and charities have received life-saving income from United Kingdom Charity Lotteries—a lottery management company owned by and

  769
  operating lotteries for a consortium of charities, including the Rehabilitation Institute, the National Autistic Society and the Children's Family Trust. UKCL is the country's largest operator of charity lotteries under the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 and has sold more than £40 million worth of scratch-card lottery tickets under the very tight supervision of the Gaming Board since its launch in February 1991.
  The cash benefit to a wide range of charities and clubs already exceeds £10 million and, in my area of activities, my local rugby club has benefited from a £40,000 pay-out, as well as British Youth Opera and Action Research for crippling diseases, which gives some idea of the range. I know that many other hon. Members have participated in local cheque handover ceremonies and can testify to the value of the contribution made by lotteries to the hard-pressed organisations concerned.
  The effect of the national lottery would be especially devastating if the Government proceeded with their stated intention of including a scratch-card element as well as the expected on-line computer-based jackpot scheme. Charity lotteries have pioneered the introduction of scratch-card lotteries in this country, which are ideally suited to charities' needs. Unlike on-line computer-based games, which can only be run effectively on a national scale and continuously, a scratch-card lottery can be run within limited time periods, on a local or regional basis, as may be appropriate for particular charities.
  The national lottery should not therefore have any scratch-card element if it is not to present such a potential for damaging our charities, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will eliminate such a proposal from the Bill.
  Having removed scratch cards, I am afraid that some further steps need to be taken if charitable lotteries are to have a reasonable chance to compete. The 1976 Act governing such lotteries is restrictive and needs more amendment and development than the Bill suggests.
  First, on prizes, whereas the national lottery will provide weekly prizes of more than £1 million, the Bill proposes that the maximum prize in any charity lottery should be limited to £25,000. I see no reason why a charity lottery should not offer up to 20 per cent. of its turnover in a top prize, which is well within the confines of the overriding limit of 50 per cent. of ticket sales provided under the 1976 Act. Of course, prizes should be linked to turnover and the frequency of the lotteries. Unless a lottery is permitted to have a sizeable turnover, it cannot hope to produce attractive prizes.
  The Bill proposes to limit each society to £5 million worth of lottery sales a year. I do not cavil at that target, but unfortunately the Bill also arbitrarily requires that to be achieved through a minimum of 20 district lotteries, thus raising the running costs and reducing the scope for prizes. I see no reason for that. A society or charity should be able to hold a smaller number of larger lotteries with a turnover of up to £1.25 million—in other words, four lotteries within the confines of the £5 million ceiling. Provided that the prize limits are also amended, that would allow a top prize of £250,000, which, while falling well short of the national lottery weekly jackpot, would allow charities to offer attractive occasional prizes. It is impossible for any operator to run 20 instant lotteries a year, which one would have to do to reach the annual limit for each society. Throughout the world, no more than four, or at the most five, instant lotteries are run annually
  770
  by any operator. A reasonable number would be four—one each quarter—and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will accept such a proposal.
  Advertising is a subject of great concern to the football pools promoters. One can understand that the national lottery will need substantial publicity and paid advertising if it is to be successful and that has been anticipated in the Bill. However, charitable lotteries still operating under the 1976 Act will continue to be subject to a code developed by the Independent Television Commission, the ITVA and the Home Office—a code that massively restricts their ability to advertise.
  United Kingdom Charity Lotteries is not even allowed to inform the public on television of the chances of buying a winning ticket. The Bill needs to be amended to clarify that. Although general codes of advertising conduct must obviously apply, no special code will limit the manner in which either the national lottery or charitable lotteries, under the 1976 Act, may advertise in any media.
  Expense limits are another concern. The present allowance of 25 per cent. of sales is proving nearly impossible for many charity lotteries. They are worried that, with value added tax absorbing a larger proportion of their expense allowance, and with higher promotional expenses required in the light of competition from the national lottery, they will be squeezed out of existence unless expenses can be raised to a higher proportion of sales.
  If the amendments on prizes and turnover are accepted, they will allow charities to operate more cost effectively. However, to be fair to them, the ceiling should be raised, or the allowance should apply to expenses before VAT, which would enable them to continue their operations.
  I do not think that restrictive practices have been mentioned in the debate, but in other countries they have resulted in national lotteries effectively denying other organisations access to distribution. It is essential that the Bill prohibits the national lottery operators from attempting to bind retailers, distributors or other service providers to exclusive arrangements. Our charities, which are already finding fund raising difficult, should not be squeezed out of existence by the national lottery. The draft Bill does a good job of making the national lottery a heavyweight contender in the market place, but it throws lightweight charitable lotteries into the ring with their hands tied behind their backs.
  Clubs and organisations that serve the community will be looking to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to ensure that their vital fund-raising activities are not endangered by the national lottery. As a supporter of the national lottery, I am confident that the Government will listen and act on my recommendations, which will enable me to give my full support to a long overdue measure.
  7.17 pm
  Mr. David Alton: The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) mentioned his hopes for the Committee stage of the Bill. Along with many other Opposition Members who have spoken, I hope that we shall not reach that stage and that the House declines to give the Bill a Second Reading. That will come as no surprise to hon. Members who have heard other impassioned pleas from people from the Merseyside area, from Glasgow and Cardiff, who are obviously worried about the impact of the national lottery on jobs.

  771
  In Question Time today, the Under-Secretary of State said that he regarded the football pools as a sleeping beauty. He will not be surprised to hear that neither the people of Merseyside, Members representing Merseyside, nor the pools industry regard him or the Secretary of State as the handsome prince in waiting. Given the fact that jobs in the Merseyside community will probably be lost as a result of the Bill, the two Ministers can probably understand why Opposition Members feel so strongly about the impact of the national lottery on the football pools. It is not good enough for Ministers simply to say that, in the past, Merseysiders have shown a great capacity to adapt and change. There is only so much that a community can stand. Currently 71,000 people in the Greater Liverpool area are unemployed. Our community would find it difficult to cope with the possibility of 4,000 or 5,000 jobs disappearing.
  The right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) said that he was working on "the best evidence available" when he discounted the possibility of the pools being unable to coexist alongside a national lottery. However, the problem for the House is that the best evidence has not been available today. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said, the GAH report has been withheld.
  If the Bill is given a Second Reading, I hope that, in Committee, there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to study the detail of that report so that they can come to sound conclusions about the effects of a lottery on the pools industry. If they cannot, how will it be possible to assert, as the Secretary of State has today, that there is no need to provide the pools and the national lottery with a level playing field on which to compete? Therefore, clause 12 will have to be amended in Committee. The same terms should apply to both the pools and the national lottery, or they should apply to neither. I have no great wish to see more television advertising for gambling—whether it be on a lottery or the football pools—but if one type of gambling is advertised, the same opportunity should be made available for the other.
  All the evidence from overseas shows that a national lottery will result in the loss of jobs. Football pools were established in Belgium and when, subsequently, a national lottery was introduced, the football pools went out of business almost overnight. 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."
  They can exist but not thrive. He continued:
  "In case after case, arrival of a lottery has squeezed out Pools Games and the examples of Australia, Belgium and, more recently, Greece all bear testimony to this fact."
  Other hon. Members have mentioned the Coopers and Lybrand report, which makes the same point, so I shall not expand on that issue. It is clear that, if the national lottery becomes a reality in this country later this year, the prospect for the pools industry will be one of decline. That will mean that many of my constituents who work in Littlewoods at Edge Lane, Liverpool, and other people working in the pools centres to which reference has already been made, will face the possibility of losing their jobs.
  If the Bill is given a Second Reading, I hope that, at the very least, the Secretary of State will recognise that in
  772
  districts where people are displaced due to loss of jobs, those people should have first claim on potential jobs arising from a national lottery. Therefore, the headquarters of a national lottery should be in a place like Liverpool.
  We should not gamble with people's jobs and livelihoods. If the House insists on taking that gamble without making available to hon Members the information that they have requested, it is the responsibility of the House to ensure that, at the very least, jobs that result from the national lottery—they will be in the hundreds, not thousands—are made available to those living in the districts that will suffer.
  The national lottery is also likely to have an impact on charities. We are constantly being tantalised by the idea of the unimagined riches that will flow from the national lottery, but no figure today has been put on the rewards. In the past, figures such as £3 billion, £2 billion and £1.5 billion have been mentioned. Sensibly, the Secretary of State today declined to state a figure. Certainly, many organisations fear that their charities will lose money and existing gifts as a result of a national lottery.
  In a letter published on 18 January the Lotteries Council stated:
  "We are, however, greatly disturbed about certain aspects of the Bill in its present form, especially Clauses 42–47 which propose changes to societies' lotteries provisions contained in The Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. These changes will not assist charitable and sporting lotteries to be more attractive, as implied by Heritage Secretary, Mr. Peter Brooke."
  A report published by the Jubilee Centre in Cambridge, entitled "All In a Good Cause", states:
  "The impact of the lottery on existing charitable income, and on the football pools, means that the net benefit to good causes will be much lower than the Government claims. It is possible that charities will end up as losers. The NCVO, for example, estimates the lottery will lead to a loss of income to charities of between £107 million and £395 million. Income from the lottery may well not match these losses."
  We must consider the impact on existing charities of setting up a national lottery.
  We must assess the effect that a national lottery will have on poorer families in this country. Almost inevitably, they will be the ones who will spend most on the national lottery and will be least able to afford to pay. If a school needs a soccer pitch or a community needs an arts centre, surely such facilities should be paid for through taxation or voluntary fund-raising efforts, not by encouraging people to take a chance and spend more money on gambling of one sort or another. That is a regressive form of taxation and surely not one that the House should encourage. We should raise resources on the basis of people's ability to pay, not by encouraging them to take a chance.
  The report "All In A Good Cause" states:
  "The experience of lotteries in other countries shows that pressure to increase revenue can weaken safeguards, leading to significant addictive gambling. The promotion and advertising of gambling by the state is also highly questionable on ethical grounds."
  It is not only our existing charities that will be hit. Sports, arts and the Football Trust stand to lose up to an estimated £100 million a year. We do not know what will happen to the £300 million currently paid to the Exchequer by the football pools. We can estimate that the people who are least able to pay will be hit hardest by the national lottery. It does not seem rational or sensible that poorer people living in districts of Liverpool, Glagow and Cardiff

  773
  and inner city areas in London should be expected to subsidise disproportionately places such as Covent Garden. However estimable it is for national institutions to be adequately financed so that they can see out this millennium and see in the next, and however worthy it is to propose new museums and more funding for the arts, that should be done through national taxation, not by encouraging people to spend money that many of them simply do not have. That will be a punitive form of taxation.
  For those reasons, I hope that the House will not give the Bill a Second Reading. If it should do so, I hope that, in Committee, the Secretary of State will consider many of the issues raised today, not least the undoubted impact that the Bill will have on many people living in regions of high unemployment.
  7.27 pm
  Sir Malcolm Thornton: Contrary to many of my colleagues who represent Merseyside, I am not against the principle of a national lottery. However,I am concerned that the present proposals do not adequately reflect the needs of other organisations such as charities and the football pools.
  I make no apologies for concentrating my remarks on the football pools as Vernons has its headquarters in my constituency. It has just spent about £10 million on new headquarters. It has the most up-to-date technological system of any football pools anywhere. It employs a vast number of people throughout Merseyside, many of whom live in my constituency. I am naturally concerned at the effect that the Bill will have on those employees' future if the Government do not heed the concerns expressed by the pools promoters.
  Vernons was founded in Liverpool in 1925 and has a record of tremendous employment—and stable employment—as does Littlewoods, throughout the city. We want that stability to be maintained. We recognise that technological advances will result in fewer people being employed over the years, but it would be unacceptable if they were seriously disadvantaged by Government legislation a national lottery.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) said, it may be that the news will cheer people up, but I do not believe that they are desperately unhappy about the prospect of a national lottery. It may be that more jobs will flow from it—it is suggested that it will create 80,000. I shall not follow my right hon. Friend down his literary road. Suffice it to say:
  "Oh, the brave music of a distant Drum!"
  I believe that the Bill will be given a Second Reading. I believe also that in Committee the legitimate interests of the pools promoters will be heeded. So too, I am sure, will be the views expressed by my hon. Friends about charities. If we are to have a level playing field in every sense of the term, we must not allow this proposed legislation to tilt that field in favour of a national lottery with the result that accepted and stable busineses are seriously affected.
  I was interested and pleased that the Select Committee's report stated that:
  "Lottery and the pools should be treated equally with regard to advertising on all media; in the marketing of their products; in the ability of roll-over jackpots; and in the way the pools are promoted to clients who do not wish to exercise the use of skill and judgement."
  It has been suggested that the pools promoters are trying to have it both ways. It is a fact that about 90 per
  774
  cent. of those who participate in the pools use their lucky, or unlucky, numbers as the case may he. The promoters have used the phrase "a scintilla of skill". It was fixed odds that required some skill, but the treble chance was always a matter of chance. Therein lies the attraction—the big prize.
  The promoters have already brought in the larger jackpot. In other words, they are already responding. The Government say, "Would they have done that had it not been for the Bill?" I would not necessarily disagree with that argument, but that does not invalidate the need for the Government to recognise the serious problems that will be presented to the promoters if the Bill proceeds unchanged.
  There is much support for the principle of a national lottery. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and others have said, Merseyside does not want to lose if the pools are affected, but it would be an admirable place for the headquarters of the national lottery. I hope that all my colleagues from Merseyside will join me in supporting that principle. Let us obtain the opportunities that would flow to Merseyside on the basis that it would be a first-class place for the establishment of the national lottery.
  Legitimate views have been expressed that, I believe, will not be unheeded by the Government. There will be opportunities for these views to be taken on board during the Bill's passage. The Government can have their national lottery and charities, and the arts and sport can benefit from the obvious advantages that will flow from its establishment. In achieving that end, however, there is no need to destroy businesses that employ many people in my constituency, throughout Merseyside and in many other parts of the country. If the Government take heed of that, they will have my full support in all that they are trying to do.
  I was delighted to read on the Order Paper the proposal —I am sure that it will not find great favour—that the Bill should go to a Special Standing Committee. I am a great supporter of the concept of SSCs. Surely we should have more of them. Having sat on one such Committee in the past, when there was a large measure of agreement, I am aware of the benefits that the members of the Committee were able to derive from the early sittings that took place under Select Committee rules.
  There is general good will for the Bill. That good will is not total, but there is a recognition that things can be achieved. We have an opportunity to take people's legitimate concerns on board. I believe that we shall end up with a good measure that we can all support.
  7.35 pm
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy: I echo the interests that the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) has declared. My interests lie with those of my constituents who work for the pools or who live in families where one or other members of them are employed by the pools on Merseyside.
  I was disappointed to hear the way in which the arguments of football pools workers and those of the Pool Promoters Association were summarily dismissed by the Secretary of State for National Heritage and other Conservative Members. I have much in mind the case that

  775
  has been made about job losses and the fears that have been expressed for the future of the pools industry if the Bill is enacted.
  The football pools game, as it exists in the United Kingdom, is a hybrid of the lotteries and football games that exist in Europe. In the way in which it is played, it is unique to the United Kingdom. It is so close to a lottery Euro-style, however, that it is almost indistinguishable. Both games involve long-odds gambling. Both offer a high win for a low stake, which are the key motivating factors which cause people to play the pools here and lotto in Europe.
  The argument frequently advanced by the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State before the Select Committee and in public that there would be only one national lottery gives the game away to some extent. It is clear that the Government are prepared to see the demise of football pools if that is what it takes to establish a successful national lottery. I accept that it may be possible for a national lottery and the football pools to co-exist, but that will be possible only if they are able to compete fairly. As the lottery and the pools would be competing for the same market, they should compete on fair terms.
  The Coopers and Lybrand report that was commissioned by the Pools Promoters Association and published in May suggests, unlike the report on which the Government rely, that the propensity to bet in the United Kingdom cannot increase very much without adversely affecting the pools. As a Merseyside Member, I point out that entire families are employed in the industry, which has been a source of secure employment for decades. To put that at risk with a gamble without taking steps to safeguard the interests of those who are employed by the pools is shameful.
  There have been several reports on the possible revenue that might be raised from a national lottery. The White Paper estimated a potential revenue of £3 billion. The Sports and Arts Council, the Henley centre, London Economics and Saatchi and Saatchi estimate £2 billion, £3 billion, £1.3 billion and £1.6 billion respectively, while the GAH group estimates a massive £4.2 billion. Those who hope to profit from the introduction of a lottery pick the figure that they hope will be achieved and begin immediately to spend the proceeds. Talk about counting chickens before they are hatched.
  The one point of agreement in all the reports is that the pools will be adversely affected through lower turnover, which will lead inevitably to job losses. The introduction of a national lottery on terms that do not allow the pools to compete fairly may cause the collapse of the pools. The Government cannot be sure that that will not happen. It is not only employment in the pools industry that will suffer. We must consider also the jobs of those in businesses that rely on the pools. For example, N&B Direct Ltd has printed Vernons pools coupons since the early 1950s. That work is 70 per cent. of their business. If Vernons goes under, so will N&S Direct Ltd and 75 more jobs will be lost. Littlewoods estimates that if it suffers large losses, at least a further 800 jobs will be lost in the businesses that rely upon it. As corporate and consumer expenditure decreases, so other areas of the local economy will be affected.
  776
  What will be the Government's response? Rather than significant policies aimed at regeneration and growth, they will infest rundown areas with billboards encouraging people to play the lottery. Perhaps they will use the words, "This could be your ticket out of here." If the House thinks that no Government would be so cruel, I assure hon. Members that those were the exact words on a billboard in inner-city Chicago used to sell the Illinois state lottery as short a time ago as last summer.
  To achieve the £4.2 billion estimated by the GAH group, 65 per cent. of the population have to participate, with games being run initially once a week, but quickly moving to twice-weekly draws and daily prizes. That could be sustained only with blanket television advertising. No other study among those that I mentioned has accepted that that can be achieved. Without similar opportunities to advertise on television, the pools companies will quickly find themselves with a loss.
  The Coopers and Lybrand study said that without fair competition—and bearing in mind the two important incentives that I mentioned of the large prize and the small stake—more than 80 per cent. of pools players would split their stake between the lottery and the pools in the first weeks of the lottery. That could cause a drop in revenue to Littlewoods alone of 30 per cent., which would impact on its first prize, dropping it from £2 million to an estimated £800,000. The downward spiral from there is obvious. If we ignore that, we risk the thousands of jobs in Liverpool.
  That downward spiral can be combated only if the pools companies are allowed to advertise their products on television, to sell their coupons through retail outlets and to roll over their prizes to form jackpots. Treating the two games equally for tax purposes is of great importance to the smaller pools companies, which do not have the revenue to spend on television advertising. If Vernons is required to pay much larger sums than the lottery to the Exchequer, its prizes will be reduced in size and consequently its ability to compete will be lost.
  When I met the Minister last week, he told me that he could not predict the Government's future spending plans and, therefore, could not guarantee that lottery revenue would always be additional to present levels of public spending on the sports, arts and national heritage. Hon. Members would do well to learn from the American experience of lotteries. In Florida, people thought that the state lottery would provide extra money for education. However, since it introduced its lottery in 1986, the proportion of state tax revenue going to education has fallen. What happened? Legislators played a game of their own—when the lottery proceeds rolled in, less general fund money was given to schools. The lottery inevitably became a funding substitute.
  Of course, the Secretary of State will say that that will not happen here, but as I was reminded last week, spending plans are not carved in stone. Who knows what will happen in this country? A future Government might include lottery forecasts in the Budget, as is done in Virginia. Judging by the current Chancellor's success at forecasting, it would not be recommended as a safe bet.
  As we have heard, the idea of raising revenue through a lottery is not new. It was abandoned in 1826, all concerned having finally accepted that lotteries were a discreditable business for any Government to become involved in. In 1819, a petition was presented by the then

  777
  hon. Member for Sheffield, a Mr. Stuart Wortley, which, as reported in columns 1115–16 of the Parliamentary Debates for 22 March of that year,
  "most earnestly and respectfully solicit the House, that no bill in future may pass which shall have for its object the raising of money for the public service by way of lottery."
  The petition was ordered to lie upon the Table; presumably, it still does.
  A national lottery is a poor substitute for a fair taxation policy, and it is no substitute for a proper plan to tackle unemployment and poverty. On behalf of my constituents who, like those in Sheffield in 1819, believe that state-sponsored gambling is not a proper business for Government, I ask the House not to gamble with their jobs, and I urge hon. Members to decline to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  7.45 pm
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am delighted to support the Bill. I am grateful to the Government for picking up the ball that I passed to them and for running with it to the touchline, hopefully to score well with this improved Bill.
  The proceeds of the national lottery will be substantial. The public opinion polls have given us some idea of how much will be raised. They show that 72 per cent. of the population will play, so we need only to compare that with European countries to have some idea of the amount involved. In France, 50 per cent. of the population play the national lottery and in Ireland the figure is 60 to 65 per cent. Spain raises between £3 billion and £4 billion with a roughly similar population to that of Britain. Therefore, there is some sign that the Government are being a little careful in placing the overall gain as low as £1.5 billion. The benefits and advantages are so extensive that those who oppose a national lottery are arguing against a tide of public opinion that they cannot possibly withstand.
  Of course, I understand the concern of those who represent constituency interests, especially the pools companies in the Liverpool area. I want to make a number of points about that. Before they get too cock-a-hoop, the pools companies should realise that it is actually illegal to pay out a prize of more than £12,000 in any game of chance. It is difficult for them to justify their game, as played at present, as anything more than a game of chance. It is hardly a game of skill. They should bear that in mind when talking about a level playing field. Nevertheless, I support the Select Committee's recommendation that there should be a level playing field. There should be one for everything; there should be one for the scratch cards. We should not abolish them to help to make other lotteries more viable. In any case, I do not think that that would be achieved.
  If those who represent Liverpool are right and 1,000 jobs are lost, that must be weighed against the massive increases in jobs that will be created by the national lottery. Job losses in the pools industry will happen anyway as it comes more technically on line. I do not think that those Labour Members who attack the Government for creating private monopolies in other spheres of the British economy should too strongly justify a private monopoly here and be too fearful of competition. That tends to show, first, that they have not studied some of the statistics, and, secondly, that they have no confidence in the pools industry.
  In Britain, we spend about 27p per head on the pools. The people of Europe spend about £1 per head on
  778
  gambling. That means that there will be a substantial amount of new money. Only about one in three people in this country play the pools. If 72 per cent. of the population say that they will play the lottery, it means that a large number of people who do not play the pools will play the lottery. Therefore, the pools industry need not be too worried. In countries such as Italy, where there is a strong football industry, the pools continue side by side with the lottery, flourishing as they always have done.
  While we understand the fears that have been expressed —I would express them myself if I were a Liverpool Member—we must place those fears and concerns in context. We must do likewise with the concern about small charities. Some 56 per cent. of people do not give to charity, so there is the potential to raise a great deal more money for charity through the lottery. I do not believe that when someone knocks on a door and asks for money to repair the leaking local church roof or for the local scout troop, he will get the reply, "I am sorry, I will not give to you because I have already given to the national lottery this week." It does not happen that way. People will continue to give money to local charities. Charities will anyway be one of the substantial beneficiaries of the national lottery, and there is too much concern and fear that small charities will suffer. There is no indication that they are likely to do so.
  As for the substitution of the lottery for Government spending, we have the Government's assurance on that. As far as Government assurances are worth anything, that must be worth something. But I will return to that point before I conclude, because I am a tiny bit fearful that when this wonderful Government is replaced by one that finds it more difficult to make the economy work, there might be a temptation to change that.
  I said that I am in favour of a level playing field, but it must be level for the pools industry as well. It ought to be just a little careful. It does not give anything like as much money to sport and the arts as a lottery would. I say that as a beneficiary of the Football Trust, which recently gave Burton Albion a substantial amount of money, which put Burton Albion on the map—so now, hopefully, I will not be the only person who attends its matches on Saturday.
  The pools industry gives only a relatively small proportion of its income to sport and to the arts. The sum total is about £100 million a year, and most of that comes from a reduction in taxation—yet the sports part of the national lottery will produce several times that figure.
  The argument that the national lottery will encourage gambling is old fashioned; it is yesterday's argument; it is very patronising and authoritarian, and also unrealistic. If we do not have a lottery, a lot of the money will go elsewhere. The Church also has lotteries. It is difficult for religious people to argue today that they do not believe in lotteries. Generally speaking, those who say that others should be forced not to gamble are yesterday's people.
  Against that kind of opposition, the national lottery offers so many outstanding opportunities as to make the case for it absolutely overwhelming. Ours will no longer be the only country in the world that does not trust its people to spend money on a lottery. We will keep large sums of money in this country to the benefit of British causes, instead of letting that money go abroad to other countries, to benefit those countries' causes.
  We will be able to spend money on the arts that we do not spend at present—on local theatres, orchestras, arid museums, and perhaps also on national concert halls.

  779
  Germany has 96 more opera houses than Britain. We will be able to spend more on covered tennis courts, athletics tracks, and sports halls. France has 20 times as many tennis courts, and Germany 20 times as many swimming pools as we do. There are 50,000 swimmers in this country, but if they want Olympic-standard training they can choose from only 12 swimming pools.
  We will be able to spend more money on stopping our crumbling national heritage from crumbling any further as the waves of tourists swarm around it. Within the £3 billion liberated into the economy, there will be a substantial increase in jobs in the construction and service industries, management, training, architecture, tourism, sporting supplies, the musical and theatrical industries, and so on. Other parts of the country suffering unemployment should also be considered, apart from the people in Liverpool who are fearful that they might suffer.
  One of my strongest reasons for supporting the national lottery is that our country has an immense problem with juvenile crime today—so immense that the Home Affairs Select Committee is to make that the subject of its next main investigation. It is generally agreed that one way to reduce juvenile crime—in which the peak age of the offender is 15 or 16—is to get young people to move from mischief making to a leisure interest that is constructive and worth while in the realms of sport, arts, education and other pastimes.
  How much less crime would there be in troubled estates in Manchester, Bristol and London if our young people were given a constructive, alternative activity to pursue in their spare time? Claudio Abbado, the great conductor, remarked:
  "When young people are playing music together in an orchestra, there's no drug problem."
  When there are targeted projects for the young, as there are in Staffordshire, under the police Space programme —which provides activities for young people during school holidays—juvenile crime falls. With so many young people out of work, this is not the time to pass over an opportunity to direct more of our money in to the kind of sporting and arts activities that will lead young people away from the tendency to become involved in crime.
  7.55 pm
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: Numerous speakers have identified three broad categories of concern about the Bill—moral objections to the promotion and exploitation by the state of gambling; the impact on the pools industry; and the impact on charities and voluntary organisations. I have an active interest in all three.
  As a member of the amusement arcades action group, I am concerned about the promotion and impact of gambling. As a Merseyside Member of Parliament, I am obviously concerned about the Bill's impact on the pools industry. As a trustee of the Community Development Foundation, I am deeply concerned about the impact of a national lottery on local charities and voluntary organisations that operate at community level.
  As a member of the amusement arcades action group, I start with a presumption against gambling. That is a moral but also Aristotelian principle. The Aristotelian principle to which I subscribe is that it is better to concentrate one's attention on the likelihood of the impossible than the possibility of the unlikely. In citing
  780
  Aristotle, I draw to the attention of the Secretary of State the virtues of the Aristotelian maxims of practical wisdom and moderation in presenting his Bill.
  I acknowledge that not all right hon. and hon. Members share my moral principles, but I hope that many share my social concern for the problem gambler, and for his or her family, who will be affected by that addiction to gambling. I have no wish to be melodramatic and I freely accept that the problem gambler is not typical. However, for his or her family it is a total problem.
  The Government have a duty, and it is their stated policy, not to stimulate gambling. It may be argued that promoting the national lottery does not stimulate gambling, but the Government are circumspect in that regard. They state in the White Paper:
  "For most people"—
  I emphasise the words "most people"—
  "participation in the national lottery will provide a harmless form of entertainment. Many countries which have had national lotteries for many years do not report any major adverse social effects."
  That is guarded language.
  Evidence from the United States points to the emergence of lottery addicts and that increased availability of that form of gambling has led to addiction to other forms. I trust that the Government will give the fullest consideration to the moral issues and dangers involved in the proposal to introduce a national lottery.
  A related moral issue aired by several hon. Members is whether the proceeds should be used to substitute for spending from taxation. That would be a form of parataxation of the most regressive sort if, as estimated, lottery tickets are bought in disproportionately high quantities by those on low incomes.
  No doubt we will be assured that the proceeds of the lottery will provide extra funding, but that will be difficult to prove. I assure the Secretary of State that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be vigilant in guarding against attempts by the Government to set expenditure on local projects against local authorities' spending allocations. Such an attempt would be cynical in the extreme. I ask the Secretary of State to give whatever assurance he can that that will not happen. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give such an assurance because, as he said himself, he cannot predict future Government expenditure—he should say what measures he will seek to introduce to ensure that such a thing does not happen.
  As a Member of Parliament representing a Merseyside constituency, of course I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friends about the effect of the national lottery on the pools industry. Of the 6,500 jobs that it provides, 4,600 or more are on Merseyside. They are expected to halve in the first year of the national lottery's operation and to reduce by three quarters by 1996–97. A further 2,000 jobs in Glasgow, Cardiff and London will disappear almost immediately.
  Moreover, not only jobs directly connected with the pools industry will be affected. It is estimated that between 70,000 and 80,000 pools collectors, earning about £20 a week, will be reduced to 30,000. Their jobs are important to the economy of Merseyside and to the wider economy of the country as a whole.
  The process workers in the pools headquarters in Merseyside are mostly female and the Government may regard their jobs as less important than men's—as second incomes supplementing family budgets. Opposition

  781
  Members reject such prejudice against female workers, who are entitled to work in their own right; but, even if we leave that argument aside, in an econoy as depressed as Merseyside's it is highly likely that such jobs produce the only family wage.
  Nor must we forget the income lost to the pools collectors. If someone takes on the arduous task of door-to-door collecting for £20 a week, that £20 must make an important difference to the family budget. It must be seen in that light—not as a mere £20 income, but as a £20 loss to a family budget that is already stretched to its limits. The Bill puts between 70,000 and 80,000 such vulnerable family budgets at risk.
  We who oppose the Bill are not seduced by suggestions that the pools industry may have the opportunity to administer the national lottery. Certainly, the Merseyside pools companies are well qualified to do so, on grounds of experience, resources and systems. However, we would like more guarantees and such guarantees are contrary to the Government's ideology. We also note that the number of jobs gained would only partly offset the number of jobs lost. Evidence suggests that lotteries can be run on minimal staffing. For example, in the New Jersey lottery, 185 staff were required to administer income of £825 million. In the Pennsylvania state lottery, 161 people were required to administer a turnover of about £1 billion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) said earlier, 147 people were required to run the West German lottery. To present the pools companies with an offer to run the national lottery is like inviting the work force of the pools industry to apply for membership of the firing squad that will execute those whose applications fail.
  Much more important, if the lottery is introduced, the pools companies should be allowed to operate on equal terms, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy). Five principles should apply. The collection of pools coupons should be allowed from retail outlets; television advertising should be allowed; promotion of the game of lucky numbers should be allowed; roll-up jackpots should be allowed; and there should be a level playing field on tax outtake.
  Let me now turn to the impact on smaller charities and voluntary organisations. I share the general concern that money spent on lottery tickets will largely displace money spent on donations to charities. It is all very well to say that money will be disbursed to charities from the net proceeds of the lottery; but, to a particular charity, £1 donated is £1 income. NOP research suggests that substitute funding from the proceeds of the lottery may be as little as between 3.5p and 6p for a particular charity. That is the harsh reality behind global figures such as the National Council for Voluntary Organisations' estimate of annual loss to voluntary organisations of £232 million per annum. We must view the problem in terms of the particular impact on particular charities and voluntary organisations—that is, at local level.
  As the chief executive of the Community Development Foundation has pointed out,
  "half or more of the voluntary sector consists of local groups and organisations which are not members of national organisations"—
  although it is likely that the big national organisations will be the major beneficiaries of the proceeds of a national lottery. He went on:
  782
  "Indigenous local voluntary groups are not the tail-end of the voluntary sector, but on the contrary are its roots and in aggregate its largest part. In any scheme to distribute benefits of the national lottery to charities, these local organisations are liable to be overlooked unless definite measures are devised to take them into account."
  In other words, mechanisms must be built into the administration of a national lottery, in terms of both collection and distribution of income.
  I have numerous objections in principle to the Bill, as well as numerous practical objections. The hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) mentioned the call of the distant drum. Let me quote Fitzgerald's translation of the Rubaiyat more fully:
  "Ah, take the Cash, and let the Credit go,
  Nor heed the rumble of a distant Drum!"
  The message of the drums is unemployment in the pools industry, damage to local charities and voluntary organisations and damage to the very people who need those organisations—the very people who would contribute to a national lottery. That is inequitable, in principle.
  The reasoned amendment goes some way towards meeting those objections and I shall support it. However, investigations are necessary in regard to other aspects of the Bill before it can safely be introduced. For that reason, I shall oppose its Second Reading.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. James Paice: Earlier, there was much talk of the lottery being a tax. I wish that all taxes were as voluntary as participation in the lottery will be.
  I welcome the principle behind the Bill. I am rather sad that the debate has been marred by so much discussion about jobs in the pools industry. Surely hon. Members should have lifted their eyes to the much greater opportunity that it will provide for the public good in so many important areas. I do not wish to mention all the good causes that will benefit: they are all worthy and I know that the task of deciding which should benefit, and how the money shall be spent, will be invidious. The fundamental issue at stake is this: will the lottery attract new money, or will it divert money from existing opportunities, mainly in the gambling and betting area?
  My own view—and, I suspect, that of many others—is that the lottery will do a bit of each. I think that the majority will be new money and that many of the concerns expressed will prove groundless; I also think that, inevitably, there will be a certain degree of diversion.
  I want to make two points. The first concerns the question of diversion. The House will be aware of my particular interest in the racing industry, for constituency reasons and because I am chairman of the all-party committee. The lottery's impact on the racing industry concerns me greatly. The settlement in February last year of the horse racing levy—which came at the same time as the reduction in the general betting duty, which targeted the levy to raise £48 million—was widely welcomed: it constituted a major gesture by the Government to help the industry, in response to the previous year's report by the Select Committee on Home Affairs. It is generally recognised, however, that that is the bare minimum that the industry needs to survive. The horse racing levy simply returns to the industry money taken from it by the exploitation of its product: it is part of the major income that allows the industry to continue.

  783
  In the past two years, there has been a fall in general betting turnover, which means a fall in Government taxation and also in horse race betting levy. In 1991–92, general betting turnover fell in cash terms—let alone real terms—for the first time in 10 years. The Irish experience has been prayed in aid several times today. Before the introduction of a lottery, there was considerable evidence of positive growth in betting turnover—over and above inflation—every year. Since the introduction of the lottery, that trend has been substantially reduced. Any reduction, therefore, in betting turnover will, because the horse race betting levy is decided on a percentage system, have a knock-on effect on the industry. To put that statement into context, horse racing in this country employs about 100,000 people.
  Nobody knows what will happen. I hope and believe that the concerns that have been expressed will prove to be completely misplaced. Until it is in place, nobody knows what the impact of the lottery will be. I do not therefore ask the Government to make sure that the racing industry receives a good share of the hand-out from the lottery. All that I ask is that the Government should reassure the House, and through the House the industry, that if there is obvious evidence that the betting levy is falling as a result of the introduction of the lottery they will look at ways of increasing the money that is returned to the racing industry. Without it, the industry will suffer severely.
  The money returned to racing could be increased simply by increasing the percentage of the levy, perhaps backed by a reduction in general betting duty. I do not believe, however, that that is really necessary. If 15 per cent. of the money that has been spent on horse race betting moves over to the lottery and if lottery turnover amounts to £4 billion, that would remove, in one go, the additional £13 million that the Government arranged to be put into the industry a year ago, thus undoing all that good. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to reassure me about what when he replies on behalf of the Government, not just on behalf of his Department.
  My second point is this. I hope very much that the introduction of this national institution will herald the liberalisation of our attitude towards gambling, betting, lotteries and all the other ways of enjoying our money in a speculative way. As the Government are the progenitor of a national lottery, they cannot at the same time connive at suppressing other betting activities.
  Only last week my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced that betting shops would be able to open in the evenings. That is a step towards liberalising our attitude to betting. For how much longer must betting shops white out their windows, as though they were as insidious as sex shops? How much longer will it be before people appreciate that it is a perfectly reasonable activity to bet on horses, just as it will be a perfectly reasonable activity to buy a lottery ticket? Many people go to the races and happily queue up at the tote or the bookmakers stand to put a bet on a horse, but they act furtively if they venture into bookmakers' shops because they are not proud of entering a shop whose activities are hidden from view.
  The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) referred to the fact that amusement arcades are proliferating. I share his concern about that development.
  784
  I believe that they are a far greater danger to young people, who waste money in amusement arcades and often resort to criminal activities to fund their addiction to amusement arcade machines.
  The Government must level the famous playing field about which we have heard so much. The need to advertise must be recognised. If the national lottery is to be allowed to advertise, it is only fair that other forms of betting and gambling should be able to advertise. I hope that betting shops will soon be allowed to open on Sunday, a point that would perhaps have been better made last Friday.
  If such measures were introduced, betting would be able to seek in its own way to make up any loss that may result from the diversion of money to the national lottery. In my view, the Government cannot allow a national lottery without any constraints upon it to be established and at the same time leave in place constraints upon competition. I hope that lottery tickets will be sold in many places—in village shops, betting shops, post offices and, perhaps, benefit offices. The Bill will, I trust, herald a new, liberal 21st century approach to a common human activity and remove the stigma on betting and gambling. Only if they are given the opportunity to flourish will all these worthy causes benefit.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: To some extent, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) let the cat out of the bag, for without intending to do so he exposed the weakness of the Government's approach. I shall explain what I mean later. I intend to make only three points and I shall be as brief as possible, as I know that several hon. Members still want to speak in the debate.
  Mr. Frank Field: Including some non-Liverpool ones.
  Mr. Howarth: Yes, including my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who considers the presence of the River Mersey to be an insuperable barrier between him and Liverpool. I can assure him that the ferries are still running.
  In support of his case my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) quoted Aristotle. Perhaps I may be allowed to bring the philosophical argument more up to date by quoting what John Stuart Mill said in his essay on liberty. He made the serious point that everybody should be totally free up to the point where their freedom acts as a constraint upon somebody else's freedom. We must bear that in mind, for we are not dealing with an unregulated market in gambling. Once we accept that central point—this is where, to some extent, I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East—the Government and, indirectly, Parliament are setting limits on the activities of any private or public organisation that is involved in gambling. That is most certainly the case here.
  Reference has been made to the studies that have been undertaken, although it appears that we are not to be allowed to know the outcome of the Government's own study. My hon. Friends have referred to the Coopers and Lybrand study. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) referred to the Jubilee Policy Centre report. There has also been a Gulbenkian report. They have all come to the conclusion that there is a fixed amount of money in the economy that can be used for gambling in

  785
  one form or another and that the introduction of new options does not lead to the creation of new money for gambling. All that happens is that money is taken away from existing sources of money for gambling. Many of us, particularly those on Merseyside, fear that money will be diverted from the football pools industry and that that will have an impact on jobs. If, however, the national lottery creates new money for gambling, several hon. Members have said today that that money will come from the poorest members of the community.
  It is important to subsidise the arts, the so-called culture
  —ballet, opera, theatre, in particular the National theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company—but it should be subsidised by central Government taxation of one kind or another. What is objectionable to me is that my constituents, who are among the poorest people in the country, should, by participating in the national lottery, be called upon to support ballet, theatre and opera. Those things should be supported, but not by that means, yet that will clearly be the implication of a national lottery.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key)rose—
  Mr. Howarth: I am trying to take only 10 minutes. The Minister will probably have half an hour.
  Mr. Key: No, 20 minutes.
  Mr. Howarth: That is longer than any of my hon. Friends have had.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) clearly showed the possible effects of a lottery.
  The second argument that I wish to consider is whether the football pools are games of skill or games of chance. The Secretary of State mentioned the 1963 legislation and said that if the pools are not games of skill the industry has been breaking the law for years. The pools can be a game of skill or a game of chance, and I shall give an example. Three members of my family do the pools. I am one of them, and I freely admit that for me it is a game of chance. I do a standing forecast with Littlewoods, and my predictions are based on the ages and dates of birth of my children, the number of our house and various other significant factors in my life. The two other members of my family take much time and care to predict the outcome of the following Saturday's games. Invariably they get it wrong, otherwise they would be far richer than they are today, but for them half the enjoyment of filling in a pools coupon is seeing how close their predictions are and, hopefully, winning some money.
  If Ministers accept that gambling is a regulated activity, and it certainly is, they must ensure a level playing field for the new part of the industry that they are trying to create. An interview with the Secretary of State appeared in the News of the World yesterday. He said that
  "the pools and the National Lottery are quite different."
  Are not the similarities between them so great that his argument falls? Several hon. Friends have said that the national lottery and the pools offer long odds and, therefore, the chance of winning large prizes. That is one similarity.
  Secondly, both are regarded as soft gambling: there is no opportunity for large roll-over jackpot prizes. Indeed, it is argued that they attract people who are not likely to get into harder forms of gambling as a result.
  786
  The third argument is that both are designed to benefit good causes. The Secretary of State has suggested that the lottery will pay out more than 50 per cent. With a prize fund of £14 million and an annual turnover of £1.5 billion, the figure comes to only 48.5 per cent. The lottery will pay a far lower percentage to good causes and tax than the pools.
  The chance ratio for the pools is eight from 58, whereas for the lottery it will be six from 49. There are a number of similarities between the two that make the case for treating them equally unanswerable.
  I urge hon. Members to vote in favour of Labour's reasoned amendment, but, more important, the Secretary of State and the Government have failed to make the case for a national lottery, as proposed in the Bill, and I therefore urge my hon. Friends and Conservative Members who agree with us to join us in voting against giving the Bill a Second Reading.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. John Carlisle: It would be churlish of Conservative Members, especially those who represent constituencies south of Liverpool, not to recognise the depth of feeling that has been expressed by so many Members on both sides of the House who represent Merseyside. I say to them and to my hon. Friend the Minister that I have some sympathy with their argument. I am concerned, as they are, about the advertising bias that the national lottery would inevitably have, which would affect the bingo industry, about which I shall say a little in a moment.
  I am perhaps more concerned that the money that goes to football via the Exchequer will decrease if activity on the pools declines, as inevitably it will. Tremendous sums have been put back into football, not only by the generosity of the pools industry, which to a certain extent one must acknowledge, but by the football grounds improvement trust, by the Football Trust and by the Government putting taxpayers' money into ground improvements to meet the requirements of the Taylor report. Few league and non-league clubs have not benefited in some way from the Football Trust.
  The Government must therefore answer the question that I tried to put to the Secretary of State earlier: if taxation receipts decrease, as the Coopers and Lybrand report forecasts, will the Government make good what could be a serious deficit in the moneys that go into our national game? Football clubs are always short of money, but none the less need money to improve their stadiums and bring them up to the standards outlined in the Taylor report and health and safety regulations. Merseyside Members can be assured that Conservative Members have great sympathy with their argument, even if we do not join them in the Lobby tonight. I hope that the Government will seriously consider the competitive nature of advertising and take seriously the Select Committee's recommendation that the headquarters of the lottery organisation should go to Liverpool, or certainly the Merseyside area.
  Clause 26 is an admirable measure, the purpose of which is to sell as many lottery tickets as possible. All hon. Members want it to be a success because of the money that will go to the recipient organisations, yet the Government have restricted the point of sale almost to a ludicrous extent.

  787
  I suggest that there are two ways of making some small amendment. The first is that the 80,000 pools collectors who knock on doors every week—it is remarkable that they still do—are an obvious point of sale for national lottery tickets in conjunction with pools coupons. The Secretary of State said that there is no reason why the two should not go side by side because, as he put it, they are adjoining playing fields. If that is the case, it means that there are not only the pools organisations with their vast experience of such matters but about 80,000 people knocking on doors across the country. We understand that about one third of the population do the football pools, so that provides a great opportunity to increase ticket sales. Sales could also be increased through the use of post offices and other retail outlets.
  The Government might also consider selling tickets in bingo halls. About 3 million people play bingo every week and, of that number, about 84 per cent. are women. They tend to be elderly women looking for some social atmosphere. They enjoy their game and play for modest sums. In such respectable organisations, all the prize money goes back to those who are playing and duty is paid to the Exchequer. The organisations suffer enormously because of advertising—how ridiculous that a £50,000 national bingo prize cannot be advertised in the bingo hall where one goes to play but only in the national papers. In any event, bingo halls are another possible outlet for tickets, and the Minister has the opportunity—
  Mrs. Wise: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Carlisle: No. I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me.
  The Minister has the opportunity to widen the scope for selling tickets to make the lottery the success that we all want it to be.
  I hope that the lottery will be so successful that it will replace the taxpayers' money which is now being used for sport, arts and heritage. The Minister has been careful to say that money must be ring-fenced—all hon. Members agree with that—but would it not be splendid if the amount of money raised could replace the money currently being paid by taxpayers for sport and the arts? Before members of the Opposition jump up, I add that that in turn could release money for health, education and housing.
  I wonder whether my right hon. and hon. Friends have been a little modest in their plans. A lottery could revolutionise sport, arts and national heritage. There is a great chance of replacing taxpayers' money with money from the national lottery. Therefore, the lottery scheme must receive enormous support from not only the House but outside. It must have the widest possible sales and advertisement and, if it is to be a success, the greatest support from those within the gambling industry, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice), the football pools, bingo halls and other organisations.
  If the scheme is a great success, my right hon. and hon. Friends will have done not only this Government but succeeding Governments a great favour by removing the burden from taxpayers and removing the political arguments which inevitably accompany the political funding of sport.
  788
  Clearly, sport is my main interest and I am sorry that time prevents me from saying much about it. All sports welcome the national lottery in all forms. I hope that it will be of enormous benefit throughout the world of sport, not merely among the highest flyers and for the building of new stadia but for the young sportsmen and women who lack opportunities in inner-city areas, right down to those in villages and towns. That is where we want the money to go and where we shall see the immediate benefit of the vast sums which, it is promised, the national lottery will give us.
  On that basis, I give the Bill my fullest support and wish it every success in its passage through the House.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Peter Mandelson: Many speeches have been made since my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said, perhaps rather optimistically, at the beginning of the debate that Labour was not divided on the principle of the Bill. I have felt increasingly isolated—physically, not politically—as I sat waiting to make my speech. I listened to most of my hon. Friends—
  Mr. Frank Field: From Liverpool.
  Mr. Mandelson: —from Liverpool and elsewhere making it clear that they would like the whole idea to disappear out of sight. They have made a strong case and expressed great concern to which I think all hon. Members must be extremely sympathetic, not least the Ministers who are responsible for introducing the Bill.
  The strength of my hon. Friends' case stems from the huge employment implications and potential costs, not only in Merseyside but in Glasgow and Cardiff, if the lottery were to be introduced and were to operate in such a way as to drive out the pools industry and lead to unemployment. We have heard some immensely powerful speeches—chiefly from hon. Members representing Merseyside constituencies—by which it would be almost impossible for the Government to fail to be swayed.
  Nevertheless, it would be a mistake if we were to oppose the Bill. I offer at least a bridge, if not a level playing field, between myself and the many like me who favour the concept of a national lottery and other right hon. and hon. Friends. Perhaps I can provide some glue or a gloss—more appropriately—so that we can emerge rather more united from the debate.
  It would be a colossal mistake for the Labour party to repeat the historical error that it made in opposing the introduction of premium bonds. It would be a mistake for three reasons. It would be very unwise for us to create the impression of being uninterested in and going against the tide of public opinion as though we were against new ideas merely because they were new and as though we were, in an old-wordly way, against innovation. I do not want to introduce a modernising argument or tendency to the debate, but we should remember that opposition to the lottery cannot possibly be regarded as the test of socialist purity. If that were the case, I do not know where it would leave all the constituency Labour parties which run raffles and bingo to raise funds. We should remind ourselves that it was not so long ago that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said from the Front Bench that the Labour party would consider introducing a national lottery in the future.

  789
  Secondly, it would be unfortunate and highly undesirable for the Labour party to appear to be under the sway of a vested interest—we can safely leave vested interests to the Tory party, which is much more practised and proficient at being swayed than the Labour party. We must remind ourselves that the pools industry, from which we have heard a great deal in recent weeks, has not been arguing against the principle of a lottery—it has been arguing for fair competition, not no competition.
  Thirdly, we must avoid adopting what I might call a rather sniffy, moralistic and intolerant attitude to those who want to have a flutter. I understand the argument about working people's income being used to finance middle-class interest in the arts and culture, but we need to guard against a trace of snobbery entering our remarks on that subject.
  As it happens, I was brought up rather strictly by my parents never to gamble. I have never done so, either in the soft way, as it is called, or in the hard way. However, it was also taught by my parents to respect what others did for their fun and to get their kicks as long as it did not interfere with the fun of others and as long as it was not anti-social. A degree of tolerance and respect for how other people choose to enjoy themselves and how they choose to spend their money should be a feature of our attitude on this subject. The lottery is in that category.
  The lottery will not have the impact on the quality of life which Ministers have advertised for it. It is as if the millennium arrived on the mere publication of the Bill. None the less, Ministers have exaggerated to make a point and it cannot be denied that in the absence of very much else about which people can shout under this Government, the national lottery will bring some individual enjoyment to many people. It will bring many benefits to organisations big and small for which they will have reasons to thank the Government for the creation of the national lottery.
  The unanswered question for me is not whether we should be in favour of the national lottery; that question has been answered. The question for me is whether the national lottery should go ahead in the form proposed by the Government.
  I have sat here throughout the debate and have heard the questions put to the Secretary of State. The attitude that he and his hon. Friend the Minister have displayed to the concerns expressed about constituency matters has been somewhat callous. They seem to be somewhat indifferent to the arguments made. They have been rather irresponsible in the way in which they have replied to those points, both in Question Time this afternoon and in the debate this evening.
  Having recognised in the past the understandable concerns of the pools industry and having undertaken to consult extensively and to conduct research, the Government have indisputably hidden the findings of that research. They have ignored the concerns, which they previously described as understandable, of the pools industry and of hon. Members who represent constituents who are employed in that industry and they have simply buried the consultations—
  Mr. Key indicated dissent.
  Mr. Mandelson: The Minister shakes his head. He will have an opportunity to reply to the debate and we shall all be interested in what he says. The impression created by
  790
  Ministers so far has been that they have been indifferent to the concerns expressed. It is appropriate and timely for Ministers to say more and to do more to acknowledge and to accommodate the legitimate concerns.
  The pools industry and the national lottery occupy the same position in the marketplace. They both offer a remote chance of winning a large prize for a small stake. It is not reasonable for the lottery, as the nationalised player in the market, to be specially helped and abetted, as the Government propose. The Government must again consider creating a fair competitive framework in relation to advertising, marketing and distribution. I should have thought that the Government, committed as they are to a free market ideology, would not need a lecture on the subject of markets from a socialist like me. However, I am happy to deliver that lecture, of which I hope the Government will be mindful.
  Money goes from the pools industry to football. I represent Hartlepool, whose football club tragically—due to unforeseen circumstances and a little local difficulty not of its making—was forced to appear in the High Court last week. Most regrettably, the club faces the indignity of being wound up. I look for encouragement, if not a generous contribution, for my football club when the Minister replies to the debate. He will not be surprised that I express considerable concern about the possibility of that money being jeopardised if the lottery succeeds at the expense of the pools.
  Some £45 million annually goes to the football industry from the pools. That is a substantial sum. The best estimate made is that less than one tenth of the money presently going into football from the pools would be available if a national lottery were set up. That is serious, not only in view of the financial fragility of clubs such as mine, but for the sake of all the physical improvements, the safety measures and the developments that the Football Trust notably finances.
  In setting up the lottery, if they are successful tonight, the Government are creating new opportunities. The House has a duty to protect what exists and is already enjoyed. The House must protect the money on which sport presently depends. It is the duty of the Government to ensure that in creating this opportunity, negative consequences do not flow.
  I hope that hon. Members will support the amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, although I believe that it would be wrong for us subsequently to vote against Second Reading. However, I point out that votes given on Second Reading can easily be taken away on Third Reading if the necessary changes are not made in Committee.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) for many of his remarks with which Conservative Members largely concur. We were all slightly amazed by the rather sniffy attitude adopted by one or two Opposition Members towards people taking a flutter especially, as the hon. Gentleman said, when it goes on in most political parties throughout the country.
  It is even stranger for Conservative Members to hear Labour Members expounding the virtues of cosseting a private sector company. The hon. Member for Hartlepool rightly said that a nationalised institution, or at least the

  791
  nationalised part of an industry, should not be cosseted. I look forward to remarks in a similar vein when we come to talk about the coal industry or any of the other remaining nationalised industries which face competition from private sector companies.
  It seems extraordinary to Conservative Members that in this debate on a national lottery quite so much attention has been devoted to the pools by Opposition Members. As I mentioned earlier, the pools companies are private sector companies. Although, under certain pressure from the Government, they remit money back into football, that money is not widely distributed. If I am fortunate enough to be a member of the Committee and if measures to level the playing field are agreed, I shall look for proposals to ensure that the pools industry contributes in a more even-handed way to sport generally and perhaps to the arts. The whole purpose of the national lottery is that it will endow the arts, sport and the new millennium fund.
  The whole merit of the national lottery is that it will raise money for good causes. As such, I am sure that most hon. Members support it. It is regrettable that the Bill seems to create a conflict in terms of competition with the pools. However, there is a case for arguing that the broader interest should prevail, although not necessarily to the total detriment of our other interests.
  The broader interest is clearly that the national lottery will provide additional money for a host of excellent causes for which money would otherwise be in very short supply. It is now many years since public subscription for good causes was a fashionable or successful way of raising money.
  I worked in the arts for some time as an auctioneer. Alas, it is extremely difficult to find patrons willing to endow museums or even to purchase important works of art for the nation. Therefore, I very much hope that the various funds to which the lottery will contribute will be able to make up that shortfall.
  I was slightly alarmed when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State indicated that the element that might be paid to Scotland might be out of proportion to the numbers there. As a good Birmingham Member, I will oppose that. I naturally feel that the money should be spent where the numbers are and in the same proportion.
  I concur with my colleagues on the Conservative Benches and with the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) that we must have a secure way of ensuring that the tax take is not too high. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley mentioned a figure of 15 per cent. I believe that must be the absolute maximum. I would support my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who made an excellent contribution to the debate, who suggested that it might be in the Treasury's longer-term interest to have a 0 per cent. or perhaps at most a 5 per cent. take.
  It would be totally ludicrous for us to support the concept of an institution to raise money for good events and causes if most of that money was simply recouped in general taxation. That is not the purpose of the Bill. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must co-ordinate to ensure that the Treasury does not acquire creepingly that reasonable percentage that would otherwise go to those good causes.
  792
  We must also be very careful that we do not succumb to special pleading. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set up structures for the distribution of the funds that may become available. However, I would like to examine one or two of them again—particularly on the sporting side—in Committee to decide whether they are the best means of distributing the money that is raised in the fairest and most equitable fashion. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will know of my interest in removing drugs from sport. I would obviously like to ensure that the bodies which distribute the money can get that money where it needs to go, without hindrance.
  We might try to find common ground on both sides of the House to assist smaller charities—and, indeed, the pools industry—in relation to which games the national lottery will encompass. Reference has been made to scratch cards and to whether the pools involve skill or total chance. Of course, the Skilball games are separate from that and there are also computer lotto number games.
  I will seek to be persuaded in Committee that the national lottery needs quite such a wide variety of games. It may be more successful if it is identified with two specific types of game. I hope that we can examine that element more carefully in Committee.
  As many of my colleagues still wish to speak in the debate, I will be brief. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends who are responsible for the Bill's progress in Committee will not offer themselves too much as hostages to fortune in trying to appease the pools industry. Those of us who have striven on behalf of the arts and on behalf of sport generally also have our corner to fight. The level playing field must be considered to be level only if the causes to which it contributes are also level, and in degree. However, I will support the Bill on Second Reading.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I shall be brief, as I have only one point to make. Reference has been made tonight to the motion introduced by Ken Hargreaves two or possibly three Parliaments ago. I put my name to that motion and I voted for it. Indeed, I believe that I was the only Labour Member at the time to support the motion for a national lottery. I want to use my contribution tonight to explain why I will vote for the reasoned amendment and against the Bill's Second Reading.
  We are talking about a measure that will decimate the pools industry and the jobs of those who work in it. That is one of the certainties about the Bill. The Secretary of State produced some figures and my colleagues presented other figures. Against that loss of jobs, we must realise that some of our fellow citizens are struggling to survive in a country that is now suffering its worst depression since the 1930s. The depression is on that scale.
  We have spent this afternoon and this evening debating a Bill that will put many people out of work, including many in my constituency and in neighbouring constituen-cies, on the chance that other jobs and opportunities will be created and, as the former Home Secretary said, because the Bill will cheer us up. I can assure the Secretary of State for National Heritage that the Bill will not cheer my constituents up.
  When the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) intervened in the introductory speeches, he was right to question whether we are talking about full-time or part-time jobs. Many of the jobs that we are talking about

  793
  on Merseyside are part-time jobs. However, they carry a wage packet which is sufficient to take those families above the benefit level. Therefore, those wages act as full-time wages. The Bill will destroy many of those jobs. I do not believe that we have the right to destroy them without creating other opportunities.
  The Secretary of State is a cultured, fair and witty man. When, in his introductory comments, he reached the point about level playing fields, a brief hint of humour crossed his face as he knew that that was the dodgiest part of his contribution. He knew that it was crucial to argue that there were fundamental differences between the pools and what was to be offered. He knew that, if he put the national lottery as proposed and the pools on an equal playing field, one or other would survive, but possibly not his treasured national lottery.
  The Secretary of State knows that his arguments about skill are untrue. If it means bringing the pools industry under another Act, it should be regulated by that Act. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, in the game that is about to commence, it is crucial that the pools have an equal chance with the national lottery to promote and advertise their wares. He knows also that, if he denies them that opportunity, as assuredly as anyone could be, he will be destroying jobs in Merseyside, Birkenhead, Cardiff and Glasgow.
  It is extraordinary that, when we are still at the bottom —one hopes that it is the bottom and that there is not worse to come—of the worst depression since the 1930s, we should seriously think about giving a Second Reading to a measure which will destroy jobs, many of which are in my constituency. That is why I was happy to support the idea of a national lottery; I believed that its time was coming. However, until we deal with unemployment and give security to people who are currently in employment in the pools industry, we are talking about a vote to add to the official total of 3 million unemployed and possibly the true total of 4 million.
  For that reason, and for that reason alone, I shall oppose the measure tonight. It is, as hon. Members have argued, a sectional interest. For too long we have tolerated the comfy cartel of those who are in employment which has operated against many of my constituents who are unemployed, and I am not joining it tonight.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Robert Banks: I am grateful to be called at this late stage, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  History has a habit of repeating itself. I dare say that our predecessors are looking down at us, or even up at us, and recalling that, in 1569, the first lottery in this country was held to raise funds to repair the Cinque ports. The prizes were plate, tapestry and money. Lotteries over the following hundreds of years went on. We found ourselves giving not only donations to the English plantations in Virginia in 1612 but fresh water to London, and relieving the ransom demands of English slaves in Tunis—all raised from lottery funds. Westminster bridge was built in 1739 and the British museum acquired its treasures and its building in 1753 from the sale of lottery tickets.
  We have come full circle back to lotteries. We have heard many Littlewoods speeches tonight and we have heard much about effects on the pools industry. I do not feel that the pools industry will be decimated, but it will have to take a bit of a knock. However—this point has not
  794
  been stressed enough—we have a terrific opportunity for more employment in the printing industry, through the distribution of lottery tickets and through the money that will be given to charities, sport and heritage causes. I am convinced that more jobs will be generated than will be lost.
  Certain aspects of the Bill demand to be voiced. One is that the operator who will be appointed to promote and administer the lottery should be a British company. Clearly no one in this country has experience of running a national lottery, and I should be very surprised if a British company was doing so overseas; I know of none. Nevertheless, why do not the pools companies act positively, try to form a consortium and have something to do with the operation of the lottery?
  It is important to consider how tickets are to be sold. I want the lottery to be blatantly biased in favour of small businesses and sub-post offices which should be able to sell tickets. At railway stations, terminals and so on, why not promote kiosks and allow people with disabilities to play a part in selling tickets? I should very much like to see in the British lottery operation an accent on the employment of disabled and disadvantaged people in the administration of the lottery and the sale of tickets. I do not want tickets to be sold through machines. The people element is most important.
  It is important that we see the draw on television and that it is publicised. After all, the pools get the rundown on a number of draws on Saturdays. The draw must use television to its best advantage. The value of prizes is of immense importance. The size of prizes will have a crucial bearing on the success of the lottery.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) cleverly referred to tax. It is very important that the Government do not take out tax. If we give money to arts enterprises, sport, charities and the millennium fund, it is important that the Government do not get their hands on the money and deprive people of the funds that we want them to have. The lottery will create a huge cash flow. The operator must take full account of the fact that he can draw interest on the cash flow as it enters the system and before it is parcelled out to the different authorities. It is important that we understand where the lottery proceeds will go. There must be no confusion that the Arts Council has its own budget but which is supplemented by lottery funds. The public must be clear on where the national lottery funds are spent. As has been said in the debate, it is important that funding of our Arts Council, the Sports Council and so on do not suffer because of the money which will come to them from lotteries.
  As I have said, there are a number of matters which must be examined, including the reference to charities. There are hundreds of thousands of charities in the United Kingdom. It is difficult to determine which charities should receive the funds. That matter must be addressed with great thoroughness to observe the terms of reference.
  I shall end by referring to the millennium fund. We must have a spectacular development. France has built the great La Défense, which is the most incredible building and one of the great sites in Europe. In the United Kingdom, what do we have? We have absolutely nothing. We do not even have a museum of modern art. Provincial cities in Germany have the most spectacular museums of modern contemporary art. We do not have that even in London. It is a national disgrace. I hope that the funds will be specifically earmarked in that direction.

  795
  For goodness sake, if we do nothing else with the millennium fund, let us do something which is architecturally great and which will put the City of London and the provinces firmly on the international map.
  9.3 pm
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: I shall be brief. I have sat through this debate and I have been waiting for an answer to a specific question: where will the money come from? I have heard speculation about how much it will be—anything from £1.5 billion to £4 billion—and I have heard discussion about how the money should be utilised. I have not heard any hon. Member tell me where it will come from.
  None of the proponents of the measure will say where the money will come from. It is an important matter because the idea that new money will be spent in addition to the football pools, the charitable giving and so on is extraordinary. Who is sitting around with all that money in his sock or under the mattress in this depression? It is certainly not my constituents who are having difficulty in paying their rent or mortgages or buying their clothes. If they start spending on the national lottery, what will they not spend on, for which they would otherwise have used the money? That is an important question.
  I have been told, "Don't worry about the fact that members of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers will lose their jobs at Merseyside, Glasgow and Cardiff because other jobs will be created." The right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) said that about 80,000 jobs might result from the new money which is apparently being created specifically for the national lottery. Members of my union will not only lose their jobs at Merseyside, but families will suffer because money will be diverted. The people who make the goods and services on which they presently spend the £1.5 billion to £4 billion will also suffer. I do not know who it will be. I do not know whether there will be worse unemployment in the house construction industry or whether the members of my union who work in retailing and who are already in a deep recession will find an even bigger recession. I suspect that will happen.
  People say that the Bill is a great idea. The hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) told us that a huge cash flow would be generated by the lottery. Where is that cash now and on what is it being spent? Who is able to contribute the largesse for this national lottery? That is the question that I want answered.
  I have a subsidiary question. We have heard loads of lyrical statements about swimming pools, sports stadiums and contributions to the arts. Why are they good if they come from a national lottery and bad if they come from local authorities? Without an answer to those two questions I shall not only vote for the amendment but also vote against the Second Reading.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: I hope that the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) will forgive me if I do not follow up her two pertinent questions. I should like to raise half a dozen swift points at this late hour. I should like to pick up the points made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). We need to give consideration to
  796
  the people who have been working in the pools as the House takes a decision that has a direct bearing on their employment. It is not often that we take such decisions, but this is one of them. The Minister should give us some reassurance in his reply that help will be given to those people. I hope that that reassurance will immediately bring the hon. Member for Birkenhead and others back on to the right side of the voting pattern this evening.
  With that rider, I thoroughly welcome the Bill, although I wish to make one or two stipulations. May I follow the two valleys—my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd)—in saying, "Keep the Treasury's hand out of the till." The maximum amount of money should go to good works, the arts, sport, heritage and so on. I hope that we shall aim to direct a minimum of a quarter of the sums raised to such works, but that we shall have it in our mind to push the amount up to a third. That should be the aim of the operators of the national lottery, bearing in mind administrative costs, too.
  The lottery will need to be imaginatively and professionally run and imaginatively marketed. The organisers should use every modern technique. We should try to run the lottery with greater efficiency than any other lottery in the world. That will mean that more funds will be available for the good works for which the lottery was originally devised. It must be simple and readily available and must operate in a way which allows the maximum number of people to participate.
  The use of roll-ups should be carefully studied in Committee. They should not be ruled out now, as people tend to do. They can be a successful influence in the operation of lotteries.
  The funds raised by the national lottery could be put to myriad uses. One use has not been mentioned so far. Perhaps only through the lottery shall we be able swiftly to effect better access for disabled people to the span of arts and heritage buildings to which they so often cannot gain entrance. In some instances, it requires a considerable sum of money to provide access. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will bear that in mind.
  I have five warnings to give. One has already been given by many others. The lottery money must be additional to other money. It must be additional to not only Government funding in general but Government funding in specific cases. That is important. It must also be additional to current charitable and voluntary funding. I hope that it will be additional to the excellent funding provided by the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, which in turn comes from the pools. It is much appreciated. I am sure that there is no constituency which has not benefited from such funding. They are small amounts of money, but they make a huge difference locally. It must be additional to contributions from business sponsorship of the arts and the matching Government funds that go with that—it must not be instead of any of these.
  Secondly, large and small requirements must be considered—not merely the marvellous idea for a Welsh national opera house, but help for local museums, art and theatre groups, community arts and so forth. That is where the root of British culture is to be found—great oak trees grow from very small acorns.
  Thirdly, small charities and voluntary organisations must be given the same leeway as the national lottery and

  797
  must be allowed to promote themselves in new ways and sell themselves in new locations, to enable them to continue their good work on the ground.
  Fourthly, I question the choice of the National Heritage Memorial Fund as the principal acting in the purchase of new buildings. It has done the most marvellous job of funding and of saving our heritage and can be the instrument to do that, but it will skew its operations if it has to become the principal saviour of our heritage.
  Finally, with one rider, it is crucial to allow any lotteries of fund-raising activities similar to the national lottery the same freedoms—the same promotional, advertising and sales activities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) said, we have an opportunity to direct distribution of lottery tickets through small local businesses, which need every bit of support in these days of large supermarkets and superstores.
  With those riders, I am pleased to support my right hon. and learned Friends in the Lobby this evening.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Torn Pendry: I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not give way, as the Minister and I have decided to cut down our speeches to allow as many hon. Members as possible to take part.
  The House is at its best when debating a subject that contains a cocktail of interests that span conventional party lines and we have had such a debate this evening. We have heard passionate and heart-felt speeches from both sides of the Chamber about moral, ethical, sectional and constituency concerns. Weighty arguments have been advanced for and against the Bill.
  By now, Ministers responsible for this legislation are aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have no intrinsic objection to the principle of a national lottery—myself included—but feel that the Bill is not the way. Equally, as the House has heard, many hon. Members cannot accept a lottery at any price.
  The fear that jobs in the pools industry could be lost, affecting their constituencies, is the main concern of many other hon. Members. They were sent to this House to represent their constituents' interests. We have tabled our amendment because of our affinity with the latter group and because a record number of our work force are in the dole queues in their thousands in areas such as Liverpool, Glasgow, Cardiff and east London, where the pools companies are situated.
  The pools industry has not been afforded anything like the level playing field for which it asked so that it could compete in the same market place as the national lottery and my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy), Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) argued that passionately and eloquently. I am sure that their constituents will be proud of the way in which they batted on their behalf.
  On a lighter note, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) has shown us a unique way to display his Garrick club tie.
  On a serious note, my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) made a powerful speech. She raised important issues that were picked up by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), the right hon.
  798
  and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) and others, which I hope the Minister will answer. In particular, I hope that the Minister will address the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley raised as a result of acquiring—by whatever means—a Conservative research department brief. That paper stated:
  "Wherever possible, lottery money will be given on a partnership basis, with donations from the private sector or local authorities augmenting input from lottery funds."
  I hope that the Minister will comment on that important issue.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) made an important, but perhaps obvious, point when he said that some capital should be invested in sport and the arts. I refer him to the briefing of the National Campaign for the Arts, which states:
  "It is always easy for politicians to justify putting up a building with a suitable commemorative plaque in prominent view. It is less politically rewarding—and usually extremely difficult—to prise out the money year on year for its operation."
  We have seen too many white elephants up and down the country as a result of such exercises. I hope that the Bill will contain an assurance that, where money is given, it continues to be made available for the upkeep of the sports hall, museum or art gallery.
  The hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), who is not now in his place, said much in favour of the Opposition's stance. We shall look anxiously to see whether he joins us in the Lobby tonight. There were many other excellent speeches, but time does not allow me to refer to all of them.
  It has been suggested that it is ironic—it has nothing to do with Clintonisation—that the Opposition are prepared to defend the legitimate interests of Britain's second-largest private company in the shape of Littlewoods pools, while Government Members are whipped to support what amounts to a state gambling monopoly. We take our stance in the interests of fair competition and fair play —hopefully, our argument will lend itself to many Conservative Members.
  The all-party Select Committee on National Heritage came to the same conclusion. It decided that the pools industry should be treated equally in relation to advertising and marketing, the ability to roll over jackpots and the other factors raised by my Liverpool colleagues.
  Some hon. Members were also concerned about the voluntary sector. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations is rightly anxious about the Bill's impact on its members. We shall insist that the commitment made by the Under-Secretary of State when he spoke to the NCVO conference is upheld. He said:
  "The Lottery is intended to provide an extra source of income for the charitable sector."
  Charities are justifiably concerned that the Bill encourages excessive gambling and want proper safeguards to minimise that possibility. They say that studies show that low income groups spend a greater proportion of their money on lotteries than high income groups. Therefore, they want low income groups to benefit significantly from national lottery funding. They want the tax levels to equate with European tax rates. They fear that charities could lose as much as £230 million a year. Those are real fears that must be assuaged by the Government.
  Mr. Michael Colvin rose—
  Mr. Pendry: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has just entered the Chamber and cannot have heard me say that I would not give way.
  We should agree with the Select Committee on National Heritage, which has stressed that the National Heritage Department should monitor the lottery's impact on charities. That point was stressed by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who made a moving and refreshing speech. In fact, it was so refreshing that I think that he has worked his way out of being appointed to the Committee that will examine the Bill—should he ever wish to sit on it.
  As someone who is known for his support of the national lottery, I feel that I should make my position clear. If there is one sin greater than an hon. Member reading back one of his speeches, perhaps it is quoting himself from a self-penned article in The Times. At the risk of penance later, however, I shall refer to what I wrote in my capacity as chairman of the Back-Bench sports committee at about the time that the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) proposed his national lottery. I wrote:
  "While the possibility of a lottery, in its own form and context, is a measure which could do great things, it is vital that it fits in with existing aspects of funding and employment within the industries which it is designed to help…Sport has suffered far too long to afford further mishaps. If we are to go down the road of a National Lottery then we had better get it right."
  That was my position then and it is my position now. It is one that is consistent with the Opposition's position on the Bill.
  The Bill that was introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Burton was flawed and rejected by the House. We, the Opposition, say that this Bill is flawed and we shall reject it. Despite the many informed voices that have given their time and the benefit of their advice and experience to the Secretary of State, he has been unwilling to be flexible. That does not augur well, does it, for the consideration of the Bill in Committee, should it go that far? The right hon. Gentleman's basic mistake was not to give interested parties the sort of information that he gleaned from his commissioned report, the Goodhall, Alexander and O'Hare report. How many Members knew that GAH stood for that?
  We all recognise that some commercially sensitive material might have had to have been left out, but how much of it was really sensitive? By the Secretary of State's course of action he has given the clear impression that he has shrouded himself in secrecy on the fundamental research facts that are necessary to make informed judgments about the Bill.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: My hon. Friend has made a fundamental point because all the research that has been undertaken by the Government involves the GAH group. Indeed, I have a written answer from the Secretary of State stating that there will be no more research. Yet I can find no track record of GAH. Is my hon. Friend able to enlighten right hon. and hon. Members about GAH?
  Mr. Pendry: My hon. Friend is perspicacious. I was about to do just what he asks.
  I was about to say that I wonder whether there is another explanation why the report has been secret and remains secret. Could it be that it lacks the quality that we are entitled to expect of a Government-commissioned
  800
  report? I ask because on 23 November my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) asked the Secretary of State to
  "state the qualifications of the GAH Group to carry out the consultant's report on a national lottery; and if he will describe the process by which it was selected from the tenders received."
  In reply, the Secretary of State said:
  "The … Group was the best qualified in terms of experience, expertise and cost."—[Official Report, 23 November 1992; vol. 214, c. 493.]
  That can hardly be right. We know from another answer given by the Secretary of State on 5 November to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadgreen that tenders for the contract were asked on 24 July 1992. As GAH was formed, according to Companies House, on 8 June 1992, by my calculations it was in business for 34 working days. The Secretary of State, or the Under-Secretary of State, when he replies, must tell the House why that inexperienced firm, operating out of—wait for it—Nether Wallop in Hampshire, was even approached to undertake this important service. Experienced and with expertise?—hardly. The Secretary of State must answer that. From now on we shall give these selective and secretive operations much more scrutiny.
  Fortunately, despite the defensive restrictions placed on hon. Members, we have had a debate worthy of the subject.
  I hope that the Secretary of State realises that it is consistent both to be committed to the concept of a national lottery and to retain sound and deeply held objections to some parts of the specific proposals in the Bill. That is why the Government should think again before attempting to pursue the Bill in its present form. It is why we are asking the House to send away the Secretary of State to think again and not to come back until such time as he has conducted a proper, open and informed national debate.
  The House may decide not to take that route. If so, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will do our level best in Committee to improve the Bill, I hope with the assistance of Conservative Members. This is not a party issue; it transcends party lines. Let the right hon. Gentleman make no mistake—there are many Labour Members who recognise the benefit that could flow to sport, the arts and heritage from a well-structured and well-run national lottery. Unfortunately, that is not on offer tonight.
  It is fair to say that over the years the football pools industry has done a great deal to prop up the Treasury with millions and millions of pounds. It is a disgrace that Ministers have not given it the consideration that it deserves in the debate and in the Bill. The underfunding of sport and the arts has been little short of a national disgrace for many years. Hon. Members have rightly highlighted the problems for those trying to promote sporting and artistic activity.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)—a man who knows his football—made an interesting and hard-hitting speech. He clearly made the point that, following the Taylor report, the Government introduced legislation that makes it difficult for football clubs to survive. They have also suffered swingeing increases in police costs. The pools industry, which puts some £100 million a year into sport, is their lifeline. It is the

  801
  industry that is trying to help the footballers and their clubs. The Government should say what they would do for football.
  The Bill contains many deep-seated flaws with which the Minister must deal when he replies. A central flaw is the lack of accountability. We welcome the principle enshrined in schedule 6 for a balanced membership on the proposed millennium fund, including a nominee from the Leader of the Opposition. Why not extend that principle to the rest of the Bill and to the national lottery itself? It appears that the Government believe that accountability is an expensive luxury to be granted for only a limited part of the millennium celebrations before being buried. That is not good enough. If the national lottery is to be a lottery of the nation, it must be seen to represent the nation in its operation. Too much power rests with the Secretary of State, as has been recognised by many organisations—not least the Lottery Promotion company, which has done more than anyone to put the national lottery on the agenda.
  There are many other flaws in the Bill, but time does not permit me to go into them in detail. I will give a list of them to the Minister, who can then reply. Supporters and sceptics alike should unite because we are not prepared to have a national lottery that fails to deal with the needs and concerns of the whole nation and that is flawed and inconsistent. Unfortunately, that is precisely the prospect that faces us. I urge the House to send the Bill packing and to vote for our amendment.
  9.33 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key): Tonight's debate has been remarkable and special because so many right hon. and hon. Members have contributed. Including Members of both Front Benches, 31 speakers have caught your eye, Madam Speaker, or that of the Deputy Speaker. That itself is something of a record. The quality of debate has been high. The debate has been measured, temperate and well-informed—and of how many debates in this Chamber can we say that? That bodes well for the Committee stage that I trust that the House will approve.
  The national lottery was a manifesto commitment, and nine months of national debate have drawn to a natural conclusion. We met the charities and the pools organisations, and held discussions with the bodies who are to distribute the moneys as to how they are to do that, how best to meet our objectives, and so on. After nine months, that debate is reaching a predictable and well-measured conclusion.
  I hope that my answers will help to allay the fears that have not unreasonably been expressed during the debate. However, I have been asked well over 100 questions and I have a little over 20 minutes in which to answer them. I hope that the House will allow me to attempt to answer many of them and that right hon. and hon. Members will not intervene too often. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) pointed out that he would rather get on with his arguments—and I would like to answer the questions.
  Mr. Wareing rose—
  Mr. Key: Of course I do not mind giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber for his speech, but I received a report of it.
  Mr. Wareing: The Minister said that the issue had been debated for nine months, but it was only on 9 December that the Secretary of State for National Heritage held discussions with members of the Pools Promoters Association. He subsequently spoke of a "continuing constructive discussion". The Minister spoke of discussions reaching "a natural conclusion." Can he give an assurance that there will be further discussions with the Pools Promoters Association and with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers before the Bill is finalised in Committee?
  Mr. Key: USDAW has not sought a meeting with me, but I have heard its representations very clearly—not least from the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), who sought for many months to inform Ministers of her views and those of USDAW. The date given by the hon. Gentleman was accurate but there were many hours of informal discussion before that particular summit, if I may say so describe it, in December.
  As for my own position, I have spoken to the pools promoters for many months about a variety of matters—not least promoting Merseyside to the United States last March with the leader of the city council and the chairman of Littlewoods pools. We visited Washington and New York and that was most successful. I am not sure whether I am allowed to quote myself from a newspaper, but I will allude to last Friday's Liverpool Daily Post. I am surprised that no hon. Members representing Liverpool constituencies made any reference to that. That clearly did not suit their purpose. I made it clear that we would listen carefully to the case that Merseyside might want to put to us on the location of the lottery's headquarters or of the games operators. That invitation was warmly received by Harry Rimmer of Liverpool city council. I am sure that we will hear more about that.
  Tonight's debate engendered great interest inside and outside the House. I hope that the House will reject the Opposition amendment and choose to focus on the real issue. Giving the Bill a Second Reading will give the country what it obviously wants—an opportunity to participate in a national lottery that will bring real benefits to charities, the arts, sport, and the heritage in this country. We cannot stop our citizens from spending their money on foreign lotteries; how much better it would be if they spent their money on our own national lottery, not only to gain prizes for themselves but to benefit the good causes that we have identified in the Bill.
  Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend's mention of good causes prompts me to intervene on behalf of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). He was about to deal with this in his speech, but the 10-minute rule came into operation. The point is also relevant to a point that I was going to make about charities during the speech of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry).
  Will my hon. Friend confirm there will be nothing to stop a charitable foundation from bidding to run the lottery? The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde suggested that charities might be out of pocket by some £230 million; that will be approximately the Treasury take, in tax, from the profits made by a company running the lottery. If it is run by a charitable foundation, all that money will go back into the kitty for the beneficiaries. I am sure that that is what most hon. Members want.
  Mr. Key: I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will exercise due scepticism about every mention of figures in the debate. One or two estimates have been made, but I think that it would be wise not to speculate on some of the fairy tale arithmetic that has been bandied about.
  As for the principle, it is important to recognise that one of the great benefits of our proposed system is the fact that beneficiaries of the lottery will not be involved in the distribution of funds. It is for precisely that reason that the National Heritage Memorial Fund, rather than English Heritage, has been chosen to deal with the heritage side. Otherwise, charities might have some difficulty in achieving their objectives.
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: As chairman of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland, I find it unfortunate that an English organisation has been chosen to distribute the funds. I also felt, listening to the debate, that sport came first and heritage nowhere. May I ask for Scottish National Heritage to have a major share and a voice in what is being done?
  Mr. Key: I will ensure that my hon. and learned Friend is very well funded. I assure him that the National Heritage Memorial Fund is a United Kingdom organisation, not an English organisation: that is precisely why we chose it.
  Opposition Members who have not spoken today, and whose voices I certainly miss, supported the private Member's Bill presented last January by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir. I. Lawrence). On that occasion, many of them made good speeches. This illustrates the serious dilemma in which some of them find themselves. I respect that; I do not wish it to be felt—as was suggested at one point—that Ministers are being callous, or disregarding the voice of Merseyside. That is far from the truth. The fact is that the hon. Members from Liverpool, Glasgow and Cardiff who have spoken today have found themselves in a difficult position, and have been straightforward enough to say so. Many have no difficulty with the idea of a lottery, but they do have difficulty with the unemployment prospects that they fear. I say "fear" because I believe that the pools companies have a bright future.
  Mr. Frank Field: The Minister is mistaken. What we fear is that the national lottery will be rigged in such a way that the football pools will be unable to survive. He has misinterpreted our objections.
  Mr. Key: I am coming to that. I am trying to make progress; perhaps I am giving way too often. [Interruption.] I assure the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that I shall come to his point. It would be immensely helpful if he did not interrupt so much from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Wareing: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Key: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Last Friday, I went to Holland to learn at first hand about the oldest national lottery in the world. I met the Finance Minister, the director and staff of the lottery, a retail newsagent, who makes a handsome living for himself and his family by selling tickets, and the cheerful and satisfied customers of the Dutch national lottery system.
  804
  The Dutch national lottery is a normal and accepted part of national life. It is also, incidentally, accepted by most of the Dutch churches, which are noted for their puritanical orthodoxy. The Dutch national lottery is specifically designed not to encourage compulsive or addictive gambling and it co-exists with football pools. Thus it has much in common with our proposals.
  There are, however, big differences. These differences are much envied by the Dutch. For example, there is to be a clear distinction between the body raising the revenue and the body that spends it. The same applies to competitive tendering for the operation and computerisation from the start, thus ensuring that the largest possible amount of money is raised for good causes. We shall also use existing organisations to distribute money direct to beneficiaries at local as well as national level. The Dutch also envy the flexibility that we propose to build into our national lottery in order to react to changing circumstances. They also envy our ability to offer new games to meet the needs of niche marketing.
  In the past, I have not done the football pools, though not for any particular reason; nor have I betted on greyhounds, horses and so on. However, I have—and so, I guess, have most other hon. Members—bought raffle tickets endlessly in support of my party at its ward meetings. I have also bought raffle tickets in aid of churches and charities throughout my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) made a crucial point when he called for our national lottery to be the best national lottery in the world. Of course that must he right.
  The pools companies have distributed to right hon. and hon. Members a package that is full of tendentious assertions and, in my view, a partial interpretation of the facts. The pools companies quote from their own Coopers and Lybrand report and from their prediction that they will have to cut over 4,000 jobs. The tables provided by the pools companies were, I found, fascinating. I wonder, though, whether they have less to do with the lottery and more to do with the pools companies' aspirations to cut the work force and whether that is why they have been seeking voluntary redundancies for some time and have cut their work force drastically over the past few years.
  Selective quotations are given from the Department's report.
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Key: I will give way, but I wish to reach the end of this point.
  The pools companies know that what they say can never be refuted because, as we have said time and time again, the report was compiled with the co-operation of lottery operators world wide, on the basis that it would never be published. I am not going to break commercial promises just to disprove the narrow assertions of the pools companies [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Workington interrupts from a sedentary position and says, "Ask them." We have no intention of going back to those companies. It is unnecessary to do so because they made it clear when writing to us that under no circumstances would they give us any information if it was to be published.
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy: The Minister has gone on record as saying that he does not wish the football pool companies

  805
  to be disadvantaged in their competition with the national lottery. Can he explain how that would be brought about, for it seems to me that they are disadvantaged all the way?
  Mr. Key: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with that point in his speech. We have said all along that we see no need for concessions. We have not so far been convinced by the arguments for concessions. If I were working for the pools companies, I would say to the management that most people want a lottery, that many people play the pools and that instead of entering into an extremely expensive campaign against the whole principle of the lottery—pretending that this is not in some way self interest—it ought to take on the competition of the national lottery and say that no concessions, in order to take on that competition, are needed.
  Mr. Graham: The Minister has referred to the pools companies. He also said that all the newsagents will make a fortune and do well out of the national lottery. What will happen, however, to the 70,000 part-time collectors whom the pools companies already pay? Those people will end up with less money in their pockets. That, in turn, will ensure that shops and everybody else lose out.
  Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman made a forceful and notable speech this afternoon, to which I listened with much care. One of the dilemmas that I face in deciding whether to accept the concessions that are being pressed by the pools industry is that if, for example, the pools industry were to gain a concession on retail outlets the 70,000 collectors would be the first on to the dole queues. That is a serious problem, and I am not convinced that the balance of the argument is in favour of the hon. Gentleman's proposition.
  I understand that the two consultants who were engaged on the GAH report have a long and unique track record and that the new consultancy was formed at that point. There is nothing more to be said on the matter. It is a matter of great regret that the Labour party should seek to disparage the expertise of that company, which won the competition fairly and openly.
  It would help the House if I reiterated the message of the GAH report. It is nothing sinister. It considered what the Department of National Heritage should be looking for in establishing a national lottery. It produced a touchstone against which we could measure the likely effectiveness of our legislation. It told us that the lottery spend throughout the world comes not from gambling spend but from general expenditure. In other words, the national lottery will not principally divert funds away from the pools. The report concluded that only if the pools did nothing would employment in the pools industry suffer. Salvation lies in the hands of the pools companies.
  In an attempt to persuade the hon. Member for Preston to join us in the Lobby and not to vote against the principle, I say that we always made it clear that this was not a question of a money factory turning out new money and that there would be displaced expenditure. Research shows that that displaced expenditure would be consumer spending in, for example, high street shops on sweets, magazines or soft drinks. It is the last pennies that people have when they go shopping and decide that they have enough to spend on such products. There is nothing secret in that.
  It is a pity that the Opposition have been taken in by the power of lobbying. The Opposition amendment is not a
  806
  runner. Of course a Bill to establish a national lottery cannot contain any measures specifically to protect employment in Merseyside or the other places mentioned in the amendment. How could the Bill constrain the employment practices of highly profitable private companies? I repeat that the action of the pools companies is more likely to lead to job losses than the coming of the national lottery. They have shown that by changing their rules they can offer a better chance of winning large jackpots. They can set their own house in order, and that they have done so is a promising sign of realism.
  The pools companies ask for equal tax levels. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the pools are taxed at a higher rate because their profits before tax would otherwise be 45 per cent. of turnover. They are a very profitable business, but let us be quite clear that there is nothing wrong with that. The pools companies are responsible employers and they contribute to the arts and sport, and in particular to football, because the Chancellor gave them a tax concession, but their primary purpose, which is legitimate and which they achieve highly successfully, is to make private profits for the private sector. In the Bill we are promoting the wider public good.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) made great play of additionality. I repeat the commitment given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the proceeds of the national lottery should not substitute for that provided in other ways. The proceeds will not be brought within the control total, and the Government will not make any case-by-case reduction in conventional expenditure programmes to take account of lottery proceeds. The Government will continue to provide the finance necessary from within public expenditure programmes to enable their policy objectives to be achieved.
  My right hon. Friend alluded to partnership funding, an issue raised by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley in relation to Conservative party briefings. We have always said that there would be partnership funding. It is entirely sensible and acceptable, and it is gaining ground in many aspects of public spending.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley asked what guidelines there would be for Oflot on the selection of an operator. The main concern will be to ensure the probity of the company chosen to undertake the operation. The director general will be under a general duty to ensure that the lottery is operated in a way that will guarantee propriety and protect the consumer and, subject to those considerations, will raise the maximum amount of money for good causes. He will operate a selection criterion which will reflect that general duty and, in line with that duty, the company chosen will also need to prove that it has the ability to establish the machinery to run the lottery quickly and to market it effectively.
  Within those overall objectives, it will be for the companies which wish to bid to produce their proposals —for example, for prize levels and administration—in order to maximise the return for good causes, and the bidding process will be fully competitive.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley also said that we should consult widely, including the pools and charities. I have sought to deal with her point. The White Paper invited comments and more than 200 individuals and organisations responded—only 17 were against the scheme. We have worked closely with the National

  807
  Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Association of Charitable Foundations, and an official from my Department sat in as observer at their respective working parties. We have taken on board many of the concerns of the charitable and voluntary sectors in producing our proposals. We have also held a series of meetings with the pools organisations. First, we held a series at official level and then with the Ministers on 9 December last.
  We have carefully included in the Bill a clause that admits further amendment in respect of the pools on which we are prepared to listen to rational arguments. I cannot say fairer than that. There will be an opportunity to debate that issue in Committee. The opportunity to convince us of the need for further concessions is available, and it will no doubt be taken up.
  The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) asked me specifically about fettering the discretion of prospective lottery operators by telling them how to design the lottery. We do not believe that instant games of the national lottery, including scratch cards, will compete directly with small charitable lotteries. We have done much to improve the climate for them.
  The hon. Members for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) have a real problem. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw said that the Government would not publish the GAH report because it showed that the lottery was a con for the operator. However, his hon. Friend said that Coopers and Lybrand had said that 5,000 jobs would be lost whereas GAH claims—it is alleged—that there would be 1,100 job losses but that that report is not available to him. On the basis of the case of 1,100 losses, it would clearly be in the Government's interests to publish the report versus the Coopers and Lybrand forecast, but the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said that we dare not. They cannot both be right. Nor can the hon. Gentleman say that the scheme will be a financial flop so we should not let it get off the ground and, at the same time, say that it will be such a huge success that the whole pools industry will be put at risk.
  Someone who seems to understand the national lottery is the Labour party's Front Bench spokesman on the citizens charter and women, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey). Almost exactly a year ago, she told the House:
  "Last night at a Labour party ward meeting I spent £2 on a raffle ticket. I did not win—I never do. I do not believe that buying a … raffle ticket is gambling. Nor do I believe that the average member of the British public believes that it is.
  … It is patronising to the poor to imply that they do not have the free will to make a choice about whether to buy a lottery ticket."—[Official Report, 17 January 1992; Vol. 201, c. 1261–2.]
  There is not a single hon. Member whose constituents will not benefit from the measure. If right hon. and hon. Members vote against the Bill tonight, will they promise to forgo all future benefits to their constituents? I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to vote to give the Bill a Second Reading. That will prove to our constituents that we listen to what they say, that we can look to the broader horizon and that we are not prepared to sacrifice the creation of a new industry with far-reaching beneficial consequences on the altar of narrow self-interest.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 310.

  Division No. 122]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Eastham, Ken

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Enright, Derek

  Ainger, Nick

  Etherington, Bill

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Allen, Graham

  Fatchett, Derek

  Alton, David

  Faulds, Andrew

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros"dale)

  Fisher, Mark

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Flynn, Paul

  Ashton, Joe

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Barnes, Harry

  Foulkes, George

  Battle, John

  Fraser, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Fyfe, Maria

  Beckett, Margaret

  Galbraith, Sam

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Galloway, George

  Bell, Stuart

  Gapes, Mike

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  George, Bruce

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Gerrard, Neil

  Benton, Joe

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Godsiff, Roger

  Betts, Clive

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Blair, Tony

  Gordon, Mildred

  Blunkett, David

  Graham, Thomas

  Boateng, Paul

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Boyes, Roland

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bradley, Keith

  Grocott, Bruce

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Gunnell, John

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

  Hain, Peter

  Burden, Richard

  Hall, Mike

  Byers, Stephen

  Hanson, David

  Caborn, Richard

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Heppell, John

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cann, Jamie

  Hoey, Kate

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Home Robertson, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clelland, David

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hutton, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ingram, Adam

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cox, Tom

  Jamieson, David

  Cryer, Bob

  Janner, Greville

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Darling, Alistair

  Keen, Alan

  Davidson, Ian

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

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

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Denham, John

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Dewar, Donald

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dixon, Don

  Leighton, Ron

  Dobson, Frank

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Lewis, Terry

  Dowd, Jim

  Litherland, Robert

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Loyden, Eddie

  809

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Radice, Giles

  McAllion, John

  Randall, Stuart

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Raynsford, Nick

  McCartney, Ian

  Redmond, Martin

  Macdonald, Calum

  Reid, Dr John

  McFall, John

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  McKelvey, William

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  McLeish, Henry

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rogers, Allan

  McMaster, Gordon

  Rooker, Jeff

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rooney, Terry

  Madden, Max

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mahon, Alice

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Rowlands, Ted

  Marek, Dr John

  Ruddock, Joan

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Martlew, Eric

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Maxton, John

  Short, Clare

  Meacher, Michael

  Simpson, Alan

  Meale, Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  Milburn, Alan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Miller, Andrew

  Soley, Clive

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Spellar, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Stevenson, George

  Morley, Elliot

  Stott, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Straw, Jack

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mullin, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Murphy, Paul

  Trimble, David

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Turner, Dennis

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Vaz, Keith

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  O'Hara, Edward

  Walley, Joan

  Olner, William

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wareing, Robert N

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Parry, Robert

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Pendry, Tom

  Wilson, Brian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Winnick, David

  Pike, Peter L.

  Wise, Audrey

  Pope, Greg

  Worthington, Tony

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Prescott, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

  Purchase, Ken

  Mr. Jack Thompson.

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Baldry, Tony

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Alexander, Richard

  Bates, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Amess, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Ancram, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Arbuthnot, James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Ashby, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Booth, Hartley

  Atkins, Robert

  Boswell, Tim

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Bowis, John

  810

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Brazier, Julian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gorst, John

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Burns, Simon

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Butcher, John

  Hague, William

  Butler, Peter

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carttiss, Michael

  Harris, David

  Cash, William

  Hawkins, Nick

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hawksley, Warren

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Hayes, Jerry

  Churchill, Mr

  Heald, Oliver

  Clappison, James

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hendry, Charles

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hicks, Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Congdon, David

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Conway, Derek

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Horam, John

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Couchman, James

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

  Cran, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

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

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jack, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jessel, Toby

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Duncan, Alan

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Key, Robert

  Dunn, Bob

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knapman, Roger

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Eggar, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Elletson, Harold

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

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knox, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evennett, David

  Legg, Barry

  Faber, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lidington, David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lightbown, David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lord, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Luff, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Maclean, David

  Freeman, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  French, Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fry, Peter

  Madel, David

  Gale, Roger

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gallie, Phil

  Malone, Gerald

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mans, Keith

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Marlow, Tony

  Garnier, Edward

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  811

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Mates, Michael

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Merchant, Piers

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Milligan, Stephen

  Spring, Richard

  Mills, Iain

  Sproat, Iain

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Steen, Anthony

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Stephen, Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stern, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Streeter, Gary

  Needham, Richard

  Sumberg, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Sweeney, Walter

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Sykes, John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Norris, Steve

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Thomason, Roy

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Page, Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Paice, James

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

  Patnick, Irvine

  Tracey, Richard

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Trend, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Trotter, Neville

  Pickles, Eric

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Viggers, Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Walden, George

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Redwood, John

  Ward, John

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Richards, Rod

  Waterson, Nigel

  Riddick, Graham

  Watts, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wells, Bowen

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Whitney, Ray

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Whittingdale, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Wilkinson, John

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Willetts, David

  Sackville, Tom

  Wilshire, David

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shersby, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Sims, Roger

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

  Soames, Nicholas

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 339, Noes 203.

  Division No. 123]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Ashby, David

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Atkins, Robert

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Alexander, Richard

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Amess, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Ancram, Michael

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bates, Michael

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Batiste, Spencer

  812

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bendall, Vivian

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fisher, Mark

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Forman, Nigel

  Body, Sir Richard

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Forth, Eric

  Booth, Hartley

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Boswell, Tim

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Freeman, Roger

  Bowden, Andrew

  French, Douglas

  Bowis, John

  Fry, Peter

  Boyes, Roland

  Gale, Roger

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gallie, Phil

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Brazier, Julian

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Garnier, Edward

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gill, Christopher

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Burns, Simon

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Burt, Alistair

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Butcher, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Butler, Peter

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gunnell, John

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hague, William

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Cash, William

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Churchill, Mr

  Hannam, Sir John

  Clappison, James

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Harris, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clelland, David

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hayes, Jerry

  Coe, Sebastian

  Heald, Oliver

  Colvin, Michael

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Congdon, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Conway, Derek

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hicks, Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Couchman, James

  Hoey, Kate

  Cran, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

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

  Home Robertson, John

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Horam, John

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

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

  Day, Stephen

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Hunter, Andrew

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dover, Den

  Jack, Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dunn, Bob

  Jessel, Toby

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Eggar, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Elletson, Harold

  Key, Robert

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

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

  Evennett, David

  Knox, David

  Faber, David

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  813

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Legg, Barry

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Leigh, Edward

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Sackville, Tom

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Lidington, David

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lightbown, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lord, Michael

  Sheerman, Barry

  Luff, Peter

  Shersby, Michael

  McFall, John

  Sims, Roger

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  MacKay, Andrew

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Maclean, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Soames, Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Madel, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Malone, Gerald

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mans, Keith

  Spring, Richard

  Marlow, Tony

  Sproat, Iain

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Steen, Anthony

  Mates, Michael

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stephen, Michael

  Maxton, John

  Stern, Michael

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Stott, Roger

  Merchant, Piers

  Streeter, Gary

  Milligan, Stephen

  Sumberg, David

  Mills, Iain

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Sykes, John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Thomason, Roy

  Morley, Elliot

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mudie, George

  Thurnham, Peter

  Needham, Richard

  Tipping, Paddy

  Nelson, Anthony

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

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Tredinnick, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Trend, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Trotter, Neville

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Norris, Steve

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Walden, George

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Page, Richard

  Ward, John

  Paice, James

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Waterson, Nigel

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Watts, John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wells, Bowen

  Pawsey, James

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Pickles, Eric

  Whitney, Ray

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Whittingdale, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wilkinson, John

  Radice, Giles

  Willetts, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wilshire, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Redwood, John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wood, Timothy

  Richards, Rod

  Worthington, Tony

  Riddick, Graham

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Robathan, Andrew

  Yeo, Tim

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Rooker, Jeff

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  814

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Hardy, Peter

  Ainger, Nick

  Henderson, Doug

  Allen, Graham

  Heppell, John

  Alton, David

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Ashton, Joe

  Hoyle, Doug

  Austin-Walker, John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Bell, Stuart

  Hutton, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Illsley, Eric

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Ingram, Adam

  Benton, Joe

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Jamieson, David

  Blunkett, David

  Janner, Greville

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Bradley, Keith

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

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

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Byers, Stephen

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Caborn, Richard

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Keen, Alan

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Cann, Jamie

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Clapham, Michael

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Coffey, Ann

  Leighton, Ron

  Cohen, Harry

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lewis, Terry

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Litherland, Robert

  Cousins, Jim

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cox, Tom

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Cryer, Bob

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cummings, John

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McAllion, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dafis, Cynog

  McCartney, Ian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Macdonald, Calum

  Davidson, Ian

  McKelvey, William

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  McMaster, Gordon

  Dewar, Donald

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dixon, Don

  Madden, Max

  Dobson, Frank

  Mahon, Alice

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Marek, Dr John

  Dowd, Jim

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Eastham, Ken

  Martlew, Eric

  Enright, Derek

  Meacher, Michael

  Etherington, Bill

  Meale, Alan

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Michael, Alun

  Faulds, Andrew

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Flynn, Paul

  Milburn, Alan

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Miller, Andrew

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Foulkes, George

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Galloway, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Gapes, Mike

  Murphy, Paul

  George, Bruce

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gerrard, Neil

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Gordon, Mildred

  O'Hara, Edward

  Graham, Thomas

  Olner, William

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Grocott, Bruce

  Parry, Robert

  Hall, Mike

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hanson, David

  Pike, Peter L.

  815

  Pope, Greg

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Straw, Jack

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Prescott, John

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Purchase, Ken

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Trimble, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Turner, Dennis

  Redmond, Martin

  Vaz, Keith

  Reid, Dr John

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Walley, Joan

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rooney, Terry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wilson, Brian

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Winnick, David

  Short, Clare

  Wise, Audrey

  Simpson, Alan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mr. Gerald Birmingham and

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mr. Harry Barnes.

  Spellar, John

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Ways and Means Motions relating to the National Lottery etc. Bill and to the Housing and Urban Development Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

  National Lottery etc. Bill [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the National Lottery etc. Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament—

  (a) of any expenses of the Secretary of State or the National Debt Commissioners attributable to the Act;

  (b) of remuneration and allowances to the Director General of the National Lottery, of expenses incurred by him and of other payments to or in respect of a person who holds or has held office as Director General of the National Lottery;

  (c) of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other enactment.—[Mr. Chapman.]

  10.28 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: This money resolution should not go by without comment. Two money resolutions from Bills passed on previous occasions are on the Order Paper and the House has passed money resolutions in a cursory manner. I am not in favour of that. Ministers should be called to account.
  On page v, under the heading, "Financial effects of the Bill [Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. I would be much obliged if the House would come to order and if those hon. Members leaving the Chamber would do so quietly so that we can hear the hon. Member who has the floor—[Interruption.] Order. Will those hon. Members who are talking beyond the Bar remain silent or leave the Chamber?
  Mr. Cryer: It is important for the House to scrutinise money as there are two money resolutions on the Order Paper. That is because the Government failed to achieve comprehensive money resolutions on two previous occasions: for the Housing and Urban Development Bill and the Education Bill. Therefore, it behoves Parliament to consider such matters.
  The first paragraph of "Financial effects of the Bill" states:
  "On Parts I and II, the only costs falling to be met from public funds will be the additional costs of the Secretary of State in implementing the Bill during 1993–94 (£0.5 million) and the initial costs during 1993–94 of the Director General of the National Lottery (£1–5 million)."
  That makes a total of £2 million. I can think of better uses for that £2 million than establishing a national lottery.
  The money resolution does not provide for any limit on the expenditure. It is open-ended and does not state that the expenditure should be limited to one year. Why is that? Do the Government anticipate that expenditure will be spread over more than one year even though the paragraph on the Bill's financial effects specifically relates to 1993–94?
  The money resolution includes the costs of the expenses of the Secretary of State in relation to the organisations listed in clause 21. I shall not list the organisations in that clause, but how much of the costs of administration are likely to be borne by such organisations as the Arts Council and the Sports Council? That may be a significant amount and result in a reduction in the anticipated revenue from the national lottery.
  The money resolution also involves expenditure on a number of additional posts in the public sector. The explanation of part IV suggests an additional 130 people

  817
  will be employed among the public sector staff. The wages of some of those people will be borne out of public funds. What proportion of the money authorised by the money resolution is it anticipated will be borne out of public funds? Those extra staff would be better utilised at the disability living allowance unit at Blackpool ensuring the smooth passage of mobility allowance and attendance allowance than establishing a national lottery. How much of the cost of employing additional public sector staff will come from public sector funds?
  The Bill's explanation states, somewhat cosily:
  "It is not expected that there will be any significant additional manpower requirements by local authorities." The Bill provides for additional fees to cover additional costs. Will the Minister assure us that, if local authorities meet any additional costs that are not covered by additional fee revenue, the money authorised in the money resolution will be sufficient to cover payments to local authorities if there is a clear demand for money to meet those additional costs? I am sure that the Minister will agree that he would not like to see any additional charges on local authorities, which are already stretched to the utmost in providing education, care in the community and a range of services. We certainly do not want traditional local authority services diminished because of additional pressure as a result of a national lottery. I hope that the Minister can assure me that the money resolution covers any contingency that might arise from the increased cost to local authorities.
  10.35 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for National Heritage (Mr. Robert Key): The expenses of the National Debt Commissioners will be dependent on the number and size of transactions handled for investment, and might be about £100,000. The costs of Oflot will be £1.5 million in 1993–94. They are likely to be about £2 million thereafter. Incidentally, that compares with the costs of Ofgas of £2 million, Ofwat at £6.5 million and Offer at £11 million. The costs of the Department will be £500,000 in 1993–94 and are likely to be at similar levels thereafter.
  The Millennium Commission and the National Lottery Charities Board costs—there is provision for the Secretary of State to bear initial administrative costs in 1994–95 before lottery moneys flow into the system—will be repaid when funds flow into the national lottery distribution fund. Experience with other charitable bodies that distribute large sums shows that 4 per cent. is a typical
  818
  figure for the expenses of a charitable distribution body. The other distribution bodies would be likely to have administration costs at similar levels. All costs from 1994–95 onwards will be repaid from the national lottery.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) asked about staffing levels. The director general will have a small permanent staff of about 45. The Millennium Commission's support unit will be quite small. The administrative secretary will be paid at the rate of a grade 7 officer of the home civil service. There will be a small staff of fewer than 10, with expert advice being brought in as necessary. Staffing for other bodies will be determined by those bodies themselves. Much of it will be brought in as necessary rather than involving many extra staff. These bodies will report on their levels of administrative expenditure on the lottery. The reports will be laid before Parliament.
  The costs of administering and regulating the lottery when it is established will be met through lottery proceeds. The only costs falling on public expenditure will be during 1993–94, when Oflot is set up and the first licence is granted. These are estimated to be £1.5 million. The Department of National Heritage will incur additional costs on the implementation of the national lottery of about £500,000 in the same year for administration, legal advice and other matters involving the granting of the first licence.
  The total effect on public sector manpower is expected to be an increase of 130, which includes all the distribution bodies and additional staff administering the fund in the Department of National Heritage. From 1994–95, these staff costs will be met entirely from national lottery proceeds. I hope that that answers the questions of the hon. Member for Bradford, South.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from the National Lottery etc. Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament—

  (a) of any expenses of the Secretary of State or the National Debt Commissioners attributable to the Act;

  (b) of remuneration and allowances to the Director General of the Natioanl Lottery, of expenses incurred by him and of other payments to or in respect of a person who holds or has held office as Director General of the National Lottery;

  (c) of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other enactment.

  Point of Order
  10.37 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a matter for the consideration of Madam Speaker overnight and before 3.30 pm tomorrow.
  You will see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is an unusual procedure—a notice of motion for an unopposed return—on the Order Paper at 2.35 pm tomorrow. It relates to Lothian police and my constituency. My locus in the matter is known to the Clerks and Madam Speaker.
  My point of order is succinct and valid. Is it right and proper, especially in the light of all that you said last week, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about the parliamentary manners, to put it at its best, of the Scottish Office, that there should be released to the press, before hon. Members have had any chance to ask questions, both the Government's statement and what was clearly in Scotland today a massive briefing for a particular point of view on a delicate and sensitive issue?
  I ask not that you come to any judgment immediately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that you draw the matter to the attention of Madam Speaker so that she can reflect on the behaviour of the Scottish Office tomorrow afternoon.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Michael Morris): I am grateful to the hon. Member for the manner in which he introduced his point of order. I am sure that I speak for Madam Speaker when I say that she would deplore any document being improperly issued to other parties—to the press or others—before it was issued to the House. The matter should be dealt with tomorrow, as the hon. Member has suggested.

  NATIONAL LOTTERY, ETC. BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the National Lottery, etc. Bill, it is expedient to authorize—

  (a) the charging of fees under the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 as amended by the Act resulting from the Bill;

  (b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Chapman.]

  Education Bill [Money] (No. 2)
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making—

  (a) grants in respect of aided or special agreement schools;

  (b) loans to the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools or grant-maintained special schools;

  (c) payments in respect of expenses incurred in connection with any maintained special school becoming a grant-maintained special school; and

  (d) grants to the governing bodies of grant-maintained special schools, including governing bodies in liquidation.—[Mr. Boswell.]

  10.39 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister has chosen to move the money resolution formally. That is not only a great shame, because a great deal of explanation is needed, but is a gross discourtesy to the House. I regret the Minister's decision. I hope that he will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if he wishes to speak in the debate later.
  The fact that we are discussing an additional money resolution this evening is further proof of the Government's disarray on the Education Bill. Their disarray is not surprising, especially to those of us who warned them that they should not embark on a Bill of such magnitude without proper and full consultation. The Government may well face further difficulties. The Bill has been guillotined and debate on significant and important matters is now severely restricted, which could lead to difficulties later.
  Time is limited in this sort of debate, so I shall try to be brief. That is difficult, not least because the money resolution is yet another example of the abuse of power by a Government who have been in power for too long.
  We do not even have details on two of the key items covered by the money resolution. It is a contempt of the House to ask it to vote on the resolution when hon. Members have not yet seen the details on which we are voting. For example, we have no details of paragraph (a)—
  "grants in respect of aided or special agreement schools",
  although we were told last week that we would be given them within a few days. We have no details on paragraph (b)—
  "loans to the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools or grant-maintained special schools";
  and we have been told that we will not have them until we reach Report. Nevertheless, the House is being asked to vote on the money resolution this evening. Would the Minister care to tell us why there is such a delay? If it is because Ministers have been consulting on those issues, that is proof that they should have done what we suggested at the beginning and consulted and listened before they introduced the Bill.
  I hope that the Minister will answer some of the detailed questions that I want to put to him, some of which might not have been necessary had we been given the details that we should have been given by this stage. For example, on paragraph (a), will the changes proposed allow, as some have suggested, a school to change from one local education authority to another? If so, it could lead to some interesting situations.

  821
  I want to concentrate on paragraph (b). The Education Reform Act 1988 prevented grant-maintained schools from borrowing money under section 57. The Education Bill, when it was presented to the House, followed that procedure and clause 60 includes a similar restriction. The first question is why this change is proposed now and what consequences it will have for other parts of the Bill, especially clause 60(7) on the granting of mortgages. It is important that the Minister tells us why that change is proposed. It could be that the Government are beginning to realise that some grant-maintained schools are already in financial trouble. The case of Woodruffe school, in Lyme Regis, has hit the headlines, and we wonder whether the measure is designed to bail out schools that are in financial difficulties. If so, we have several questions to ask about the proper control and accountability of taxpayers' money.
  The provision, of which we have no details, raises several important questions that grant-maintained schools and their governors will want answered. How much will schools be allowed to borrow, and what will be the security? From whom will the schools be able to borrow—the private sector or the Treasury? If it is the Treasury, on what basis will bids be judged? Will the Treasury make the final decision after assessing the merits of one school as against another, or will the Secretary of State have some say in approving bids? Will the total amount be cash limited?
  I hope that the Minister will place this provision—and he may know more of its details—in the context of the funding agency, and say where it stands in all of this. In Committee, we spent considerable time debating the funding authority for schools—we might say not enough time, but we tried to investigate the detail of how that system would operate in practice.
  Throughout those debates, there was no mention by Ministers of loans for grant-maintained schools. Why was that? Was it because Ministers have only just thought of this measure, or were they keeping quiet until the guillotine was in place? During our debate on the funding authority, Ministers made it clear that the authority could not borrow from the Treasury because it was a non-departmental public body. Will the loans mechanism be a means by which grant-maintained schools can bypass the funding agency?
  We need to know also what will be the criteria for a loan and who will be able to borrow. Will the 400-plus grant-maintained schools that account for the two thirds majority of such schools which did not get any part of the capital allocation today be eligible to apply for loans that will in effect bypass the funding authority in future? Those important details should have been brought before the House before right hon. and hon. Members were asked to sanction the resolution.
  Crucially for the governors of grant-maintained schools, how will loans be repaid? If there is a problem with repayment, who will be liable—the governors in office at the time that the school defaulted on its loan repayment, or the governors who took out the loan on behalf of the school? Is it significant that paragraph (d) covers the liquidation of a grant-maintained school?
  It is incumbent on the Minister to say how there is to be proper accountability of the fund. The funding authority for schools will not be subject to the Audit Commission. The resolution seems like another move away from public accountability.
  822
  Paragraph (c) of the resolution deals with payments for the establishment of grant-maintained special schools. Let me ask the Minister two specific questions. First, will he confirm that it is still Government policy to integrate children with special needs into mainstream provision whenever possible? The Minister nods. If that is so, will he 'acknowledge that the move to grant-maintained special schools could freeze the move towards integration—or, indeed, set it back—if those special schools followed other grant-maintained schools and measured success in terms of school rolls, trying to attract more pupils?
  There is a real danger that giving special schools grant-maintained status could militate against integration. Few people involved in special education seem to see this as a way forward. We shall, of course, have time to debate the matter in Committee, but I hope that, if it is still Government policy to promote integration, the Minister will think again.
  Secondly, where does the pressure come from for grant-maintained status for special schools? The discussions that we have had suggest that there is little support for it; indeed, I am told that there has been only one specific source of pressure. The head of a special school in Waltham Forest is keen to push for such status, with the support of Lord Tebbit. I should not be surprised to learn that that was the only source of pressure, and the Ministers felt that they should respond to the person concerned. I ask the Minister to think again, and to listen to those with experience in special education.
  It is wrong for Ministers to table a resolution such as this without giving details of how the money will be spent. We do not know enough about the provisions to which the resolution refers; what we do know worries us considerably. Yet again, the Government's priorities are wrong. When Ministers start providing money to tackle the real problems in education—the lack of books, oversized classes and so forth—they will show that they understand the problems faced by so many people in education today.
  The resolution is not relevant to the main problems that we face, and we will vote against it.
  10.52 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has raised some important questions. It is vital that, before we vote on the motion, we are given detailed answers to those questions. However, it would not serve the House well if I delayed the vote by repeating what she said, or referring to it directly. I shall therefore take up just one issue, which concerns the whole Bill and is highlighted by the existence of the motion. I refer to the problem created by the lack of consultation on all aspects of the Bill.
  On Second Reading, I said that the Bill had been
  "proudly hailed by the Secretary of State as the largest ever piece of educational legislation"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The debate is very circumscribed. The hon. Gentleman must speak to the motion; he cannot refer to general debates about consultation, or to points made on Second Reading.
  Mr. Foster: I am raising the issue of consultation because it highlights the difficulty that surrounds the motion. The motion was tabled because of a failure to engage in adequate consultation about the four issues covered by the motion, and I fear that there has been the

  823
  same lack of consultation about all the other aspects of the Bill. I hope, therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will accept that I am in order in that respect.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: So long as the hon. Gentleman continues to develop his argument in relation to the money resolution, he is in order, but if he goes wider than that he is not in order.
  Mr. Foster: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point that I was making, which I believe is relevant, is that during the Second Reading debate I said that this was the largest ever piece of education legislation that there had ever been and that there had been what I understood to be almost the shortest consultation period. I went on to say:
  "If what we hear is true, the shortness of that period has caught out even Department of Education officials. It is almost certain"—
  I said at that time—
  "that the Bill will receive as many amendments from them as it will from Opposition Members."—[Official Report, 9 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 671.]
  The money resolution is designed to enable the Government to introduce a very large number of additional amendments that were not considered when the Bill was drafted. What should concern all hon. Members is that a number of the amendments that the Government intend to table relating to the four issues referred to in the money resolution will not be debated in Committee. The Minister has accepted that the Standing Committee has already considered the clauses that refer specifically to the issues raised in the money resolution.
  I shall be unable to support the money resolution because the Government have provided us with no details of the four issues with which it deals. That, sadly, is a reflection on the way in which the Government treat the Standing Committee that is considering the Bill, the whole House and the rest of the country. I hope that detailed answers will be given to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury. Apart from that, I am very concerned about the lack of information as a result of detailed consultations not having taken place.
  10.57 pm
  Mr. Stephen Byers: A number of points need to be made, to which the Minister ought to respond in some detail.
  By voting for the money resolution we would, in effect, give a blank cheque to the Government. So much is left unsaid and unprovided for in the money resolution. Many hon. Members need further details to be provided before they will be prepared even to consider supporting the Government.
  I intend to refer to two aspects of the money resolution. Paragraph (b) refers to loans being made available to grant-maintained schools. Section 57 of the Education Reform Act 1988 specifically excludes grant-maintained schools from borrowing money or receiving loans. Can the Minister tell us why, in the light of experience, it is now believed to be essential that such a power should be given to grant-maintained schools? Many of us feel that it is simply because the present grants, which effectively are gifts from central Government to grant-maintained schools, will no longer be made available.
  824
  Under the present capital spending system, central Government give to individual grant-maintained schools a sum of money. No debt charges are incurred by those schools. Therefore, they can proceed with their capital spending in the knowledge that there will be no additional charge on revenue. The Government now realise that the result of continuing that financial regime could lead to a real financial burden. It is interesting that the applications made by many grant-maintained schools for capital spending this year will be bitterly disappointed by the miserly capital approvals that the Department has made. We had a flavour of that in the summer when the Department sent a letter to every grant-maintained school stating that it was not worth bidding for important capital projects such as a new sixth form block, library provision, sports facilities or drama and play facilities. They would no longer be accepted by the Department for capital grants. What a change we have seen in the past 18 months or two years.
  Is the money resolution a way of circumventing that regime, knowing that the cap will be placed on capital grants? If grant-maintained schools now want capital, they will have to get a loan from the relevant Government Department. Is the purpose of the resolution to cover the day-to-day running costs of grant-maintained schools? A number of grant-maintained schools are experiencing great financial difficulties and are trading at a loss, to use the market phraseology of which the Government are so fond. Will the Government give a subsidy to those schools?
  It is all part of the deceit that the Government have played on parents. The attractions of grant-maintained status were presented as "additional resources for your school and greater freedom" but the reality is quite different.
  The purpose of the money resolution is to offer the Government an opportunity to give additional resources to grant-maintained schools. We must note that those resources will be loans, and there are some important questions that the Minister must answer about the nature of those loans. For instance, what terms will be attached to them? Will they be at a rate of interest? If so, will it be a fixed rate or a variable rate tied to the market? Does it have to be repaid over a fixed term? Indeed, what will be the repayment period for a loan? What will be the security on the loan if the grant-maintained school defaults? Will it be secured on the buildings, plant and equipment of a school, or will the liability fall on the school governors? What will be the relevant body? Will the loan come from the Department for Education, and if so what part will the funding agency play? Will it express a view on whether such an application should be agreed? Will the Department have an annual budget, stated in the accounts, from which loans will be made, or will it be an uncapped amount that can increase and decrease depending on demand from individual schools? Will there be a limit on how much loan a school can get each year from the Department? These questions need to be answered by the Minister because there is not a word in the money resolution to deal with those facts.
  Finally, what about the audit arrangements? The Minister will be aware that the National Audit Office has conducted an investigation into the auditing procedures of grant-maintained schools. Its report is due to be published within weeks. Will the Minister give an undertaking that the Government will adopt the recommendations of the

  825
  report in the Committee considering the Education Bill? Does the Minister agree that the Audit Commission can play a valuable role in the process and that what is good enough for health service trusts is good enough for grant-maintained schools? Auditors for health service trusts are appointed by the Audit Commission; auditors for the grant-maintained sector are not. In view of the fact that grant-maintained schools now receive loans, does the Minister agree that they should be subject to the same auditing process as the national health service trusts? They are important questions because we may be considering potentially large sums of public money.
  Paragraph (c) of the resolution covers the payment of expenses for local authority-maintained special schools to become grant-maintained schools. Will the Minister confirm that such special schools can achieve grant-maintained status without a vote by parents? The Government have already conceded that the funding agency will have the power to set up mainstream—if I can call them that—grant-maintained schools without a parental vote. Will the same apply to special schools? The Minister needs to make that clear. As I understand it, it will be a possibility, and the Minister needs to explain why parental views and democracy will no longer extend to the grant-maintained sector. We know that they no longer extend to mainstream schools because the change can occur without a parental ballot, but will the same happen in special schools?
  The money resolution proves how bankrupt Government thinking is on education. It does nothing to improve standards, raise the quality of education or extend parental choice. For those reasons, we shall vote against it.
  11.5 pm
  Mr. Derek Enright: I am extremely concerned about paragraph (b). The cat was let out of the bag in Committee by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). I said that schools would go bankrupt and he replied that colleges of further and higher education went millions of pounds into the red but that it did not matter. That comes from a leading education spokesman for his party, so it is clearly a method of avoiding bankruptcy.
  Voluntary aided schools are undoubtedly playing roulette by promising and pledging their buildings which belong to them. They are pledging them against borrowing money—that is not only roulette but Russian roulette.
  Mr. James Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the hon. Gentleman refresh my memory with the column number in Hansard and the date when I am alleged to have made that statement? He and I enjoy ourselves in Committee, but may I say gently that I am a little surprised that he did not tell me that he was going to refer to me.
  Mr. Enright: I apologise unreservedly to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, but, as the money order did not appear in my post until this afternoon and I have not seen hide nor hair of the hon. Gentleman since then, I was unable to do so. If he cares to go to the Library, he will find that it has the most excellent facilities for pointing out to him the column in which he made his allegations.
  826
  I return to the warning I gave to voluntary aided schools—"Do not risk giving this shabby lot your goods and chattels."
  Mr. Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman referred to me by name, as it were, I asked him to provide the column reference and date of the statement that I am alleged to have made. He has not replied. Do you not think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the obvious conclusion to be drawn from the hon. Gentleman's lack of information is that the reference should be withdrawn as he is unable to substantiate it?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a matter for debate. I remind hon. Members that there is a courtesy and a convention in the House that hon. Members, if they intend to mention another hon. Member, should do their very best to inform him or her. A message board is available for that purpose.
  Mr. Enright: I did my very best, Mr. Deputy Speaker, even latterly, by signalling to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth from a sedentary position, but he was too busy talking to his hon. Friends.
  11.9 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: It is gratifying to get a debate such as this on a money resolution. If there were more such debates, it might prevent the Government from tabling sloppy money resolutions in the first place and from turning Parliament into a sausage machine for legislation.
  It was as recently as 10 November that the previous money resolution was tabled. If the Government had any idea about what the legislation would cover, they would surely have made adequate provision in the original resolution. They did not. They excluded loans and special schools.
  In the previous money resolution, the item in respect of expenses in connection with a maintained school becoming a grant-maintained school applied specifically to balloting. There was a brief debate which, the House may be surprised to learn, I instituted. In a rather bland and effortless reply, the Minister said that the item applied to balloting. Does paragraph (c) relate to balloting or not? Apart from the word "special", the terms are identical to those in the money resolution of 10 November.
  I want to give the Minister time to reply adequately, although, if he does, it will be the first time for many months that a Minister has replied adequately on a money resolution. Most Ministers regard a two-minute speech and no information as an adequate reply.
  I am pleased to see, once again, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) here after 10.30 pm. I hope that she will keep her attendance in the Chamber consistent and that she will not disappear and slope off before 10.30 pm as was suggested to me previously.
  The question of loans is important and a number of issues have been raised. Under paragraph (b), can loans be made without interest payments? Will there be no terms on repayment? Could there be open-ended repayment terms? What rules will be laid down? Where can we see them? Will they be placed in the Library for reference so that we know that, wherever and to whoever the loans are made, the terms will be standard?
  Grant-maintained schools are a stage on the journey to the private sector. Why do the Government seek to

  827
  support them with taxpayers' money by further subventions? Under the terms of the money resolution, there are no clear limitations on the terms.
  I have asked an important question. The Government were not thinking about the point when they tabled the original resolution on 10 November. That was only two and a half months ago. Surely the Government should achieve a better standard of competence in dealing with Parliament rather than expecting money resolutions to go through on the nod time after time whether hon. Members want them or not. That will not happen. I am pleased that a debate has taken place tonight as a warning to the Government that they must attain a degree of competence in dealing with Parliament.
  11.13 pm
  Dr. Tony Wright: It is clear from what hon. Members have said that the sound that we hear is that of chickens coming home to roost. All the things that were said about the financial side of the Education Bill on Second Reading, which we must not talk about again, are becoming apparent in the money resolution. The Government are desperately trying to fill the gaps. Indeed, those points were made on Second Reading. The strange thing about the money resolution, particularly in respect of the provision about loans, is that it appears that the Government are simply making it up as they go along—not least because the Government, in something of a hurry, issued a document on the funding arrangements for grant-maintained schools only just before Christmas.
  Once again, that document asked more questions than it answered. That has been the pattern as the Bill has progressed through the House. One would have thought that the Government could have found a way of explaining in that document why they wanted to make new financial provisions. If there were to be loan arrangements for grant-maintained schools, the Government could have informed the House about that in that document.
  However, there was no mention of loans in the "Dear John" letter that accompanied the document. There was no mention of the requirements now being asked of the House in the money resolution. We have the desperate sight of a Bill that is full of holes that are having to be filled as the Bill makes progress. One wonders how many more such resolutions will be necessary.
  My second point relates to school governors. It is already clear that governors of all schools, and particularly governors of schools that have the prospect of grant-maintained status and those that already have GM status, are extremely anxious about their responsibilities. In addition to their existing anxieties about their obligations, they are to be asked to undertake loans on unspecified terms and in respect of which the liabilities are not identified.
  When the Minister replies, I hope that he will spell out clearly and directly to the governors of grant-maintained schools, as they now face the prospect of taking out loans for the first time, on what terms the loans are to be taken out and what liabilities they carry. Nothing else will be satisfactory.
  11.17 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell)rose—
  Mr. Michael Connarty: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Minister has finally presented himself in Parliament, he might at least have the courage to address the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Connarty: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I said the Minister, I meant the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the fact that a point of order is a matter for the Chair. He should not make a party-political point.
  Mr. Boswell: Before I was interrupted, I was going to say that half a dozen Opposition Members put up a fine show of synthetic indignation and asked a battery of questions. I will cut out the indignation in my response and concentrate on some of the questions.
  I want first to establish that I have no apologies to make to the House for the handling of this matter. We consulted the interested parties in the greatest detail on these extremely important matters. As soon as our consultations were complete and our preparations were laid, we were able to present the amendments. We notified the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and her hon. Friends as soon as possible in the interests of the fullest debate. That debate will take place next week, in the debate on new clauses or at the appropriate stage on Report.
  I want to answer the questions that have been raised. If I fail to answer any of them in the short time left to me, I hope to respond at Question Time or in our subsequent debates in Committee.
  I want to deal first with what I believe is the most substantial part of the money resolution—although this view was not shared by some hon. Members—and that is the part relating to grant-maintained special schools in respect of which the amendments have now been tabled by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools.
  I confirm to the hon. Member for Dewsbury that integration—which all hon. Members welcome—of special needs children is enshrined in clause 143 and there is no question of freezing the integration process. That is not our intention. I confirm also that it would be possible for the funding agency for schools to establish a grant-maintained special school. It would hardly be possible to consult the parents of a school which did not exist at that time.
  Dealing with the perhaps technical but minor provision on which the hon. Member for Dewsbury barely touched, the first part of the money resolution reflects a tidying-up of the long history—all the way back to the Butler Act, with all its subsequent accretions—of the rules covering advances made and grants made to aided schools. That brings the matter into a modern form; it has been substantially agreed with the churches. Indeed, that is why the time has been required.
  The second part of the resolution has most concerned the House. It relates to loans. A fine body of indignation and confusion was weaved around the matter. Certain

  829
  hon. Members decided to play it as if it were intended either to bail out grant-maintained schools or to provide them with massive extra funding.
  Mr. Mike Hall: Which is it?
  Mr. Boswell: I will deal with the point if the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) will allow me the three and a half minutes left to respond to it.
  As for the capital side, we are proposing under this head, exactly as for aided schools—or as near as possible —that if promoters bring forward a grant-maintained school proposal and it is agreed, 85 per cent. of the cost can and will be met by grant from my right hon. Friend. The balance can be borrowed just as it can be by the promoters of an aided school. That is the purpose.
  There is a more general point in relation to recurrent funding. It has nothing whatever to do with long-term capital expenditure. The provisions in the resolution try to replicate as nearly as possible the arrangements under the local management of schools where it is possible for a school under LMS to be more favourably placed than under GM because it can carry forward a deficit until a subsequent year—a deficit which might, for example, arise because of a change in the numbers on roll.
  I refer to the specific case that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dewsbury—Woodruffe school in Dorset. That school came into the grant-maintained sector with a £70,000 inherited deficit from the Dorset LEA. That arose under the existing LEA's LMS scheme. As a grant-maintained school hitherto, it is being denied the flexibility which it enjoyed under LMS and that is clearly unfair. The proposal will rectify that for other grant-maintained schools. There will be no proposal under these terms for long-term funding. The money will have to be repaid, normally in the subsequent year.
  Several hon. Members asked for further details of the terms and conditions. They will be set out in the published regulations, including the payment period and rates of interest. No school will be allowed a loan if it is likely to default. If it did, individual governors would not be liable. We shall abide by Treasury rules.
  As for the point on mortgages, there is no question of our seeking to change the bar on mortgages set out in clause 60(7), nor is there any intention of permitting loans to the private sector.
  Those are sensible, realisitic changes which facilitate improvements in the Bill and the fair treatment of grant-maintained schools and voluntary schools alongside those in the maintained sector. I commend the resolution to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 152.

  Division No. 124]

  [11.23 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Baldry, Tony

  Alexander, Richard

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bates, Michael

  Ailason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Amess, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Ashby, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Boswell, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bowis, John

  830

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Heald, Oliver

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Brazier, Julian

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hendry, Charles

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hicks, Robert

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Burns, Simon

  Horam, John

  Butcher, John

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Butterfill, John

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

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cash, William

  Jack, Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jessel, Toby

  Clappison, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Key, Robert

  Congdon, David

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Conway, Derek

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Knapman, Roger

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Couchman, James

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Cran, James

  Knox, David

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

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Day, Stephen

  Legg, Barry

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Leigh, Edward

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Dover, Den

  Lidington, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Lightbown, David

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Dunn, Bob

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lord, Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Luff, Peter

  Elletson, Harold

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Maclean, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Malone, Gerald

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Mans, Keith

  Evennett, David

  Marlow, Tony

  Faber, David

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Merchant, Piers

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Milligan, Stephen

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Mills, Iain

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Forman, Nigel

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Forth, Eric

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Needham, Richard

  Freeman, Roger

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  French, Douglas

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Gallie, Phil

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Garnier, Edward

  Norris, Steve

  Gill, Christopher

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Paice, James

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Patnick, Irvine

  Gorst, John

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Pawsey, James

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Pickles, Eric

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hague, William

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Richards, Rod

  Harris, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Hawkins, Nick

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hawksley, Warren

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hayes, Jerry

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  831

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Thomason, Roy

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Sackville, Tom

  Thurnham, Peter

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Tredinnick, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Viggers, Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Walden, George

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Waller, Gary

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Watts, John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wells, Bowen

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Whittingdale, John

  Spring, Richard

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sproat, Iain

  Wilkinson, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Willetts, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Stephen, Michael

  Wood, Timothy

  Stern, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Streeter, Gary

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Sykes, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mr. James Arbuthnot and

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mr. Andrew MacKay.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cohen, Harry

  Ainger, Nick

  Connarty, Michael

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cryer, Bob

  Alton, David

  Cummings, John

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Ashton, Joe

  Dalyell, Tam

  Austin-Walker, John

  Darling, Alistair

  Barnes, Harry

  Davidson, Ian

  Battle, John

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Beckett, Margaret

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

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Denham, John

  Bell, Stuart

  Dixon, Don

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dowd, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Benton, Joe

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Betts, Clive

  Eastham, Ken

  Blair, Tony

  Enright, Derek

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Etherington, Bill

  Bradley, Keith

  Fatchett, Derek

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

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Byers, Stephen

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  George, Bruce

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cann, Jamie

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clapham, Michael

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clelland, David

  Graham, Thomas

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Coffey, Ann

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  832

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mullin, Chris

  Gunnell, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Hall, Mike

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hanson, David

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hardy, Peter

  O'Hara, Edward

  Heppell, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Home Robertson, John

  Pope, Greg

  Hood, Jimmy

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hutton, John

  Purchase, Ken

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jamieson, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Rooney, Terry

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Short, Clare

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Simpson, Alan

  Leighton, Ron

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lewis, Terry

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Loyden, Eddie

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McAllion, John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Tipping, Paddy

  McFall, John

  Turner, Dennis

  McMaster, Gordon

  Vaz, Keith

  McNamara, Kevin

  Walley, Joan

  Mahon, Alice

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Wareing, Robert N

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Winnick, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Wise, Audrey

  Meale, Alan

  Worthington, Tony

  Michael, Alun

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Miller, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Morley, Elliot

  Mr. Eric Illsley and

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Mr. John Spellar.

  Mudie, George

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making—

  (a) grants in respect of aided or special agreement schools;

  (b) loans to the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools or grant-maintained special schools;

  (c) payments in respect of expenses incurred in connection with any maintained special school becoming a grant-maintained special school; and

  (d) grants to the governing bodies of grant-maintained special schools, including governing bodies in liquidation.

  Housing and Urban Development Bill [Money] (No. 2)
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Housing and Urban Development Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required to be paid by the Secretary of State by way of adjustment of any levies paid to him under the Act. —[Mr. Wood.]
  11.35 pm
  Mr. John Battle: We are faced tonight with another classic example of the Government making up their housing policy from day to day, and tacking a shift in direction on to the end of the Housing and Urban Development Bill because the previous direction proved to be blocked.
  The Government are technically clearing the way for a change in the rules covering the voluntary transfer of local authority housing stocks and, interestingly, they are doing so in a money resolution. The irony is that the Government seem to be more concerned with cutting back money on housing than dealing with housing need and conditions. It is becoming clear that the Government have no coherent housing policy—it seems to be a part of the chaos theory governing their present policy.
  The resolution and the Bill do not deal with the housing problems facing nearly all our constituents—the drastic shortage of housing to rent, and the affordability of housing in relation to people's real incomes. It is not the time and place to discuss in detail the Government new clauses, which will be brought before the Housing and Urban Development Bill Committee tomorrow morning. Obviously we shall debate them there
  In The Guardian this morning, Mr. Will Hutton commented:
  "success requires root and branch reform.
  This extends to the housing market with its capacity to destabilise the economic cycle and pre-empt colossal savings flows. The imperative is now reviving the rented sector—and a first move would be to permit further council house sales, only if accompanied by a matching commitment to build new rentable housing to replace what has been lost."
  At least that shows a clear appreciation of the need for rented housing. Not surprisingly, that is what we said about housing in our general election manifesto, and it remains our policy. Everyone except the Government seems to realise that there is a desperate need for rented housing.
  The resolution makes financial adjustments to the parameters of the Housing and Urban Development Bill. Basically, the Government have got themselves into a mess over their housing policy, and especially over the large-scale transfer of local authority properties, precisely because of the problems of housing benefit which they have not faced up to in the past.
  About a year ago—before the general election—Ministers were boldly declaring that after the election about 200 local authorities would willingly and speedily transfer their housing stock, lock, stock and barrel. That did not happen—it could not happen—and the Government now realise that they cannot afford to let it happen, which is what the resolution is all about. It has eventually dawned on the Government—especially on Ministers at the Department of Social Security and the Treasury—that large-scale voluntary transfer carries with
  834
  it a huge potential housing benefit bill for the Treasury. It is an expensive policy option, which is why the Treasury cannot sanction it. Too many transfers from local authorities would cost too much Government money, which is why the Government are tonight trying to put an instant stop to the policy. They are introducing a short-term measure, designed to ensure that large-scale voluntary transfer does not become the drain that the Treasury believes that it might.
  The Treasury has drawn the line. That was clear from the introductory letter that the Minister sent to hon. Members when the large-scale voluntary transfer consultation exercise was launched on 18 November 1992. In it, the Minister for Housing and Planning said:
  "We much regret the delay in publishing this paper, but I think it is generally realised that, because of the issues it raises"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I am having some difficulty in relating the hon. Gentleman's remarks to money.
  Mr. Battle: The very next line of the letter states:
  "I think it is generally realised that, because of the issues it raises, it has been caught up in the discussions of the PES round."
  That relates precisely to money. Among other matters, the paper sets out the expected proposals to limit the number of properties transferred in a single batch.
  The letter also states:
  "as you know, a financial imbalance has arisen in the past between central and local Government as a result of the additional Housing Benefit costs of transfers to the Exchequer. The paper proposes redressing these by means of a levy on an authority's transfer receipts after deducting the authority's notional HRA debt … The most suitable means of doing this will be amendments during the Commons stages of the Housing and Urban Development Bill."
  The key problem for the housing Minister was that the proposals for large scale transfer, set out by the Government during the general election, have proved to be —as it is now termed—subject to the Exchequer costs of disposal. The housing Minister is now up against the barrier of the public expenditure implications of the transfer.
  The real problem lies with the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which introduced the subsidy of rent rebates within the housing revenue account. Under that provision, better-off tenants who are not entitled to rebate are expected to subsidise those who are. The better-off council tenants have to pay for the poorer ones. The previous hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen, who is not now a Member of Parliament, was the then Minister responsible for housing. He vehemently denied, both in the House and in Committee, that ring-fencing the housing revenue account would produce that effect.
  The levy proposed in both resolutions before us is intended to level the public expenditure playing field between the transfer and retention of stock. The same objective could be achieved by ending the requirement for local authority tenants to contribute towards the rent rebate subsidy. Why should other tenants who are slightly better off and not on housing benefit have to subsidise the housing benefit of others?
  Inside the ring fence set up by the Government under the 1989 Act, council tenants subsidise the rent rebates of others. However, outside that ring fence, the new housing organisation that could take over the transferred local authority stock will lose out on the cross subsidy, which is

  835
  what the Government have now realised. That is why they have to come to the House late at night to change the rules by tagging new clauses on to the Housing and Urban Development Bill.
  I shall focus for a few moments on the housing revenue account ring fence and the system. An increasing proportion of the rents paid by tenants who are not on benefit is used to meet the rent rebate costs of others. Therefore, the public expenditure consequences to which the Government have at last woken up—despite our warnings throughout 1988—are simply the result of the way that the Government designed the subsidy system.
  If the Government want to level the public expenditure playing field between transfer and stock retention, they could start by introducing measures to end local authorities' requirement to contribute towards the itnt rebate subsidy, not by imposing—as the resolutions suggest—a levy on transfer receipts.
  The subsidy regime is the problem, and it has been for about 60 years. The council house subsidy regime is complex and the Government are finding it too difficult to transfer it to large-scale voluntary transfer bodies. In 1919, large-scale investment in council housing took place on the basis of a deficit subsidy system. In 1923, there was a switch to an investment subsidy system, which was for new building. In 1935, legislation introduced local authority housing revenue accounts. From 1923 to 1972, local authorities could remove deficits by raising rents or making a rate fund contribution.
  What happened then? Under the Housing Finance Act 1972, introduced by a Conservative Government, there was a return to deficit subsidy and rent rebates were introduced. It was from 1955 to 1972, however, that local authorities used general housing subsidies and redistribution methods through income-related benefit.
  The origins of housing benefit lie in the argument about the best way to distribute housing revenue subsidies. I think that it was Eleanor Rathbone who said in the House in 1930 that a decent rent rebate scheme would have to be devised. A key argument that was not settled then still dogs the Government, and that was whether a subsidy should reduce the standard rent for all houses irrespective of the income of tenants—a form of universal benefit system—or whether it should be restricted to tenants who qualify on the ground of low income—in other words, a means-tested system.
  In Leeds, the Rev. Charles Jenkinson, the housing reformer, made a brave attempt to introduce a rent differential scheme. It was a classic attempt to have a rent rebate pool combined with full economic rents for all houses. It failed because tenants saw a basic rent increase of between 70 and 100 per cent., even before the calculation of rebates according to family income needs. Some tenants received a 100 per cent. rebate, some had to make a contribution, and others had to pay the full rent. It was—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been very tolerant. The hon. Member must get to 1993.
  Mr. Battle: I shall bring the House somewhat closer to 1993, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In 1982, the Government shifted housing benefit from the Department of the Environment—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not return to the speech which he has written. He must relate his remarks to the levy in 1993 and not go back to 1982.
  Mr. Battle: We would not be in the position that we now occupy if the Government had not made such a mess—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The fact is that we are in this position, a position that the hon. Member must address.
  Mr. Battle: That is precisely what I am attempting to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  When the Government discovered that they were paying rent rebate subsidy to more than 100 authorities where the housing revenue account was in surplus while another group of authorities were regarded by the Government as indiscriminately subsidising council housing through rate fund contributions, they realised that there was a conflict. In 1989, the ring fence round the HRA that was introduced—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is beginning to tax my patience. Before us are paving measures that relate to new clauses that are yet to be moved in Committee. He must address that issue and not take up the history that has created the present situation.
  Mr. Battle: The Government have come here tonight to tell the House that they did not provide enough money for the Bill when it was first introduced, so it is incumbent upon them to explain why they introduced it without making full financial arrangements. The reason for that, in terms of the Government's need, is that the incorporation of rebate subsidy into the new housing revenue account system gave them renewed leverage on rents. When that is challenged by the need to provide for housing benefit, the Government find themselves in difficulty. Consequently, they have had to table a money resolution to ensure that there is enough money to change the system. They know that they cannot go ahead with a large-scale voluntary transfer under the terms that they promised the electorate at the general election. The Treasury has told the Government that it is far too expensive.
  The practical effect of the Government's action is that council tenants—and this relates directly to the resolution —are paying an average of £3.85 a week towards other people's housing benefit. Councils will receive £792 million a year less in housing subsidy in 1993–94 than if benefit had been paid in full by the Government—in other words, 20 per cent. of the cost of rent rebates. Almost two thirds of council tenants now receive some help with their rents. That is equivalent to almost 1.5 million households, many of which could be affected by the new clauses for which the Government are paving the way in the resolution. The 5 per cent. real increases in rents proposed by the Government this year will push more council tenants on to housing benefit. That means that the Government will have to come back to the House because they cannot finance that proposal.
  In the 260 local authorities that the Bill could affect, better-off tenants are now contributing to their neighbours' housing benefit. Fifteen councils receive no housing subsidy, not even for housing benefit. As unemployment inevitably escalates, that number is likely to rise in the months and years ahead. Following the

  837
  voluntary transfer in Bromley, new tenants now face a rent of about £80 a week, which is double the level for their neighbours. Many families cannot possibly afford that rent without resorting to housing benefit. That is why the Government need to pave the way for the new clauses in the resolution.
  Council rents have quadrupled from £6.41 in 1979 to £27.28 in 1991, according to Government figures. It is little wonder that the cost of housing benefit has tripled to £5.9 billion during the same period. I argue that the Treasury should meet housing benefit costs, irrespective of tenure. That is what was promised when the housing benefit system was introduced in 1982. Council tenants have been uniquely discriminated against by the system. Income support should be separated out rather than passed across to ensure that some council tenants subsidise their neighbours.
  The idea of rent rebates is to assist those on low incomes to pay their rents. Since 1989, the Government have blurred the crucial distinction between housing subsidy and income maintenance, with better-off tenants subsidising their poorer neighbours, precisely because the provision for housing rebates was subsumed within the new housing revenue account subsidy system. In practice, the Government are trying to match high rents with low wages. Seven out of 10 housing association tenants are on housing benefit. Six out of 10—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is taking the matter very wide. Those examples are not relevant to the levy in the resolution. It is a tightly drawn motion, and it is in the interests of the House that hon. Members restrict themselves to it.
  Mr. Battle: As I understand it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the motion is about transfer and the introduction of a levy to reduce the level of housing benefit. The Government cannot afford to carry out the transfer of local authority properties, to which the resolution refers, without putting in a subsidy. The Government decided to impose a levy rather than tackle the issue of the ring fencing of housing benefit. I thought that that was very pertinent to the resolution.
  Whether one is talking of local authorities or housing associations, if a person on full benefit takes a part-time job that pulls him up a little way through the housing taper, and then discovers that he cannot pay the rent, he is in real danger, as he moves off housing benefit, of falling behind with his rent and of losing his home. When he gets a job, he loses his home, having lost access to housing benefit. That is the fundamental inconsistency at the heart of the Government's policy, and at the heart of the measure that will tackle the issue of imposing a levy.
  Like the Bill itself, tonight's resolutions are far removed from addressing the real issues of housing benefit that the Government should and could be tackling—the need for housing to rent and for assuring real affordability.
  The Government are presenting no clear way forward for housing associations or local authorities. They have nothing to offer people desperate for housing to rent. There is no clear vision of housing reform or of tackling the cost of escalating housing benefit as unemployment rises and rises. Tonight's tinkering addresses a problem that is entirely of the Government's own making. It is an attempt, late in the day, to adjust an ill-thought-out policy.
  838
  The Institute of Housing, commenting on the large-scale voluntary transfer consultation document, stated:
  "The Government's"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does this relate specifically to the levy? If not, it is not in order for the hon. Gentleman to give the quotation.
  Mr. Battle: The institute specifically commented:
  "The Government's first priority with the review should have been to maximise investment"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman comes to the House with a prepared speech, which is perfectly fair, but if any part of it does not relate specifically to the resolution, it is out of order. It is no use the hon. Gentleman just carrying on, as if he will not be deterred. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman may not give that quotation because it is not relevant to the levy.
  Mr. Battle: If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rule that referring to large-scale voluntary transfer receipts is out of order, I am somewhat surprised, because that is precisely what the measure is about. The Institute of Housing was, consulted on that matter and on the levy, and it clearly comments:
  "The large-scale voluntary transfer"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is failing to show the relevance and the linkage. If he will demonstrate the linkage, he may be in order. He has consistently carried on without showing any linkage.
  Mr. Battle: I gained the impression that, every time I tried to make the linkage, I was ruled out of order. Although you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have given the impression that I am simply reading a prepared speech, if you check Hansard, you and other right hon. and hon. Members may find that I spelt out clearly that the levy is precisely about large-scale voluntary transfer receipts.
  The Government say that they need the money, but our case is that it should not be used in this way; the Government should not use the money to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement. Rather, it should be used specifically for housing investment. That is why we respond to the measure in the terms that we do.
  A total of £130 billion is locked in to English local authority housing stock. It should be used for general investment in new homes and to repairing and renovating existing housing stock. The money should not be used to bail out the Government's failed policies on large-scale voluntary transfers.
  The question of affordability will not go away. Despite the rather bland report on the subject produced by the Housing Corporation, and quietly placed in the Library before Christmas, the real debate on affordability, from which the Government are now trying to slide away, is only just beginning. We will ensure that the House returns to these issues time and again.
  11.59 pm
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) rightly emphasised the strange way in which the provisions that we are debating were introduced. Following a long gestation period, a consultation paper that had been anticipated since mid-summer finally emerged in November, with a date for submissions early in January this year. On the

  839
  basis of the Government's response to those submissions —they have not had much time to consider them—we are now presented with proposed amendments to a Bill that would otherwise have completed its Committee stage before tonight.
  A number of questions have not been answered. It is possible that Ministers will answer them in Committee tomorrow, but it is only fair to the House to expect them to answer some tonight. First, what is the expected yield of the levy that is to be introduced in the coming financial year—1993–94—and in any full financial year thereafter?
  Secondly, what circumstances will involve adjustment of any levies provided for under the motion, which refers to
  "any sums required to be paid for the Secretary of State by way of adjustment of any levies",
  and what sums will be involved in any such adjustment?
  Thirdly, how many transfers of stock are expected to be approved in any one year—in 1993–94 and in any financial year thereafter?
  Fourthly, will the transfer quota be set by reference to the number of applications received by the Department, the number of dwellings involved, the capital sums expected to be received by local authorities for the transfers, or any expected adjustment to housing benefit clawback which the Government may expect to lose as a result of the transfer of properties from local authorities to housing associations or other landlords?
  Finally, where does the long title of the Bill make provision to cover the levy?
  12.2 am
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) dealt with the way in which the levy would be used. Let me remind the House of the comments made by John Parry, director of the Institute of Housing: he said that the first priority for any Government, in relation to housing policy, should be to maximise investment. I hope that the Minister will not only respond to the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, West and for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), but deal with the way in which the levy from capital receipts and the voluntary transfer of assets impedes investment in housing stock and repairs.
  Those of us who represent inner-city constituencies are well aware of the current housing burden, and the problems that it creates for so many of our constituents. Representing Leeds as I do, I see the waiting list increase daily; I see the problems that that causes my constituents, especially young families. I also see the problems created by our housing department, although it is well managed. The Minister was in Leeds on Friday: he understands those problems. Indeed, he visited the Halton Moor estate in my constituency. We have a well-managed housing department but it has real difficulty in funding repairs.
  The important point about the money resolution, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you will notice, is that the levy will take away capital and revenue receipts that could otherwise be used for crucial tasks in my constituency. The Under-Secretary made a fleeting visit to my constituency last Friday, accompanied by a press officer and a press release, and used that visit as a photo-opportunity, but he does not understand the deep problems that face estates such as the Halton Moor estate in my constituency. It
  840
  would have been useful if, after having spoken to his friends in the Home Office, he had been able to announce that the local authority would be able to borrow money in order to pay for capital projects. Had he done so—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): That has nothing to do with me.
  Mr. Fatchett: The Minister should not try to chair the proceedings.
  Had he done so, he would have been able to appreciate the problems of the estate as a whole and recognise that the money that has been made available by the Home Office —money that has been well received—to deal with urban crime needs to be seen as part of an overall package which involves investment in housing. A Minister who was sensitive towards housing needs would not just fly in and out of an estate. He would take the opportunity—
  Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): What has that to do with the money resolution?
  Mr. Fatchett: I will explain what it has to do with the money resolution. This levy will take money away from capital receipts and capital investment for estates such as the one that I have mentioned. I want that money to be provided for my constituency. I do not want it to be used to prop up a failed Government policy. If the hon. Gentleman had read the money resolution, or had looked at the proceedings in Standing Committee, or at the failed policies of his own Government, he would not have made such an inane intervention. He would know more about what is going on with this legislation.
  Those hon. Members who represent inner city constituencies and understand housing problems will be reluctant to support the money resolution. They know what the Government intend to do: they intend to penalise tenants. That has been their policy throughout their 13 years in office. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich said, it is a transfer from the poor to the very poor. The transfer is unjust. There should be a broader housing revenue perspective. My hon. Friend also said that the transfer will make it impossible to deliver the quality and quantity of housing stock that is needed in the inner cities.
  The Minister for Housing and Planning shakes his head, but he is in no position to do that if he considers the Government's housing record. Instead of sending his junior Minister, I suggest that he should come to Leeds. I will take him to the Halton Moor estate where he can talk to the appropriate tenants. He would then be in a position to appreciate the housing problems. I shall even offer to the Minister for Housing and Planning—something that is totally in line with the money resolution and the transfer of assets—the opportunity to come to one of my constituency advice surgeries. He would then realise how large the burden of housing problems is in inner city constituencies. It is no use for the Minister for Housing and Planning, given his background, to pretend that these policies are sensitive to the needs of my constituents. They are not. For that reason, I hope that we shall oppose the money resolution. It will have damaging effects because of the way in which it reallocates resources.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich has raised a number of important points. I know that the Under-Secretary of State is anxious to address the House

  841
  and that only a few minutes are left for debate. I hope that he will be able to address those points. I hope, too, shat he will be able to address the point that I put to him now, which is this: how will the money resolution affect a city such as Leeds? My view is that it will take money away from the city and that it will damage tenants, investment and repairs. The Minister must answer that point.
  12.9 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): The only thing on which Conservative Members and the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) would agree is that to get to 1993 one must go through 1982. The hon. Member did not enlighten the House, although we shall study his comments with considerable care. I wonder whether he cleared his speech with the shadow Treasury team, given the impact that it might have on the public sector borrowing requirement.
  The speech by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) showed Opposition Members' lamentable lack of understanding of large-scale transfers. When I visited the hon. Gentleman's constituency last week, I announced a considerable commitment, running into millions of pounds, for the Halton Moor estate, for which the leader of Leeds council and residents and tenants thanked the Government. Every hon. Member should visit that estate because they would see millions of pounds being invested by the Government in refurbishing properties, with new central heating and new windows being installed, electrical rewiring and new social housing being built costing millions of pounds. What the hon. Member does not appreciate—
  Mr. Fatchett rose—
  Mr. Baldry: I shall not give way because the hon. Gentleman left me little time to respond to the points that he made.
  The hon. Gentleman does not understand that large-scale transfers will take place only if a local authority so decides and if tenants vote for it. It must be shown to be in the interests of the majority of the tenants—[Interruption.] That is what is known as democracy. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central seems to have difficulty—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We cannot have a conversation between—
  Mr. Fatchett: The Minister will not give way.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Minister does not have to give way and the same applies to any other hon. Member. We cannot have seated interventions becoming part of the record.
  Mr. Baldry: It is quite clear—
  Mr. Fatchett rose—
  Mr. Baldry: No, I am not going to give way. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central has not the slightest understanding of what large-scale transfers are all about.
  Mr. Fatchett rose—
  Mr. Baldry: I do not intend to give way.
  Mr. Fatchett rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already made the position very clear. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central must resume his seat.
  Mr. Baldry: I do not intend to give way. The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand what large-scale transfers are all about.
  Let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members what large-scale transfers are about. It is about the 19—
  Mr. Fatchett: Will the Minister give away?
  Mr. Baldry: Nineteen large-scale transfers have been completed so far—
  Mr. Fatchett rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not expect to have to mention the hon. Gentleman by name again.
  Mr. Fatchett: The Minister has mentioned me a few times by name; it is quite disgraceful.
  Mr. Baldry: It is not surprising that I have mentioned an hon. Member who has made a speech. If I had ignored the hon. Gentleman, I am sure that he would have rather regretted that.
  Nineteen large-scale transfers have been completed so far. The most recent, to the newly formed Surrey Heath housing association, took place only last week. A further three are due to take place before the new arrangements that we will discuss tomorrow come into effect. In each of the transfers, the local authority concerned has disposed of all its housing to a newly established housing association because it has decided that it is in the best interests of its tenants and a majority have voted in support of the position taken by their local authority. These transfers have been very successful. The 19 authorities are freed from management obligations to concentrate on their enabling role. Up to 25 per cent. of the capital receipts from these transfers, which totalled more than £850 million, are freely usable and have given the authorities a head start in facilitating new housing investment in their areas. The transfers have brought more than £1.3 billion of private sector investment into social housing. Not only does this help to improve the state of the housing concerned, but it frees resources for allocation to other authorities where the need may be greater. The tenants of the 100,000 properties that are now in housing association ownership continue to benefit from enhanced repair and improvement packages, from more efficient management and from a new approach to running their housing. They are real benefits: tenants, local authorities and, in some cases, community charge payers all gain from the transfer.
  As those who have considered the consultation paper on transfers which we issued last November will recognise, transfers generate significant Exchequer costs, mainly in the form of housing benefit payments which follow transfer and which fall to be met by the Exchequer rather than by local authorities. That is the primary reason for the current proposals.
  We are committed to a continuing programme of transfers but we cannot afford to leave transfers wholly unregulated. The number of transfers allowed to proceed must be controlled in a programme which takes into account the cost to the Exchequer of individual transfers.

  843
  Authorities should be expected to contribute to the additional costs, which is why we intend to apply a levy on receipts.
  The responses to the consultation paper showed that authorities which responded accepted the case for changing some of the arrangements which had developed in the past few years. I have absolutely no doubt that, in considering whether they wish to apply for a large scale voluntary transfer and in consulting their tenants on whether to proceed with such a transfer and whether tenants vote for one, local authorities will of course wish to consider the levy and its impact on a particular local authority and its tenants.
  It has been generally recognised that there should be a change in some of the arrangements which have developed, and that is now a priority. It is what we set out to achieve in implementing the measures covered in the resolution. The Government are committed to a continuing programme of voluntary transfers. We want them to succeed and to bring about the benefits that I have mentioned. Our proposals enable that to happen while, at the same time, they should bring into better balance the financial effects which transfers have on the Exchequer and on transferring authorities. I commend the resolution to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Housing and Urban Development Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required to be paid by the Secretary of State by way of adjustment of any levies paid to him under the Act.

  Housing and Urban Development Bill [Ways and Means] (No.2)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Housing and Urban Development Bill, it is expedient to authorise the making of provision requiring the payment by local authorities of a levy in respect of certain disposals of dwelling-houses.—[Mr. Wood.]
  12.16 am
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: We had not intended to speak to this motion until the Government chose to deal with the previous item of business in the way that they did.
  On Second Reading, the Government make their case for the ways and means and money resolutions in the general debate. We have debated a money resolution and are about to debate a ways and means resolution because, after having consulted, the Government have decided to table new clauses to the Bill. As a result of the changes, the Government must introduce a further ways and means resolution and a further money resolution to take note of the changes.
  The Government tabled the new clauses on Friday last week, at a very late stage. They have allowed no time for the Opposition to table amendments to those new clauses. The usual procedure is that, when new clauses or amendments are tabled, we can table amendments to them, but if we did so in this case they would be starred and might not necessarily be selected. The Government have acted disgracefully throughout, especially with regard to tabling the new clauses.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) have raised many issues. If, at the start of the debate, the Minister had given the reasons for the money resolution and stated what the new clauses meant, we should have had a better understanding of what the Government were trying to achieve. As they have done throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have acted disgracefully. That is in line—
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: My hon. Friend is making some interesting and strong criticisms of the Government's handling of the Bill and especially of the fact that they moved the ways and means resolution this evening. For the benefit of those of us who have not followed the proceedings on the Bill as closely as others have—that will include many Conservative Members—will my hon. Friend draw to the attention of the House the significant new clauses which were tabled on Friday? Will he point out the way in which they will alter the Bill and the way in which they relate to the motion? My hon. Friend would do the House and democracy a great service if he drew the new clauses to the attention of hon. Members before they are discussed in Committee.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) continues, I remind him of the relatively narrow scope of the motion.
  Mr. Pike: I understand what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to go into the detail of the new clauses. The point is that the House should understand that the new clauses are extremely long and technical. The

  845
  money formula for the levy, which is dealt with in this motion and in the money resolution, is extremely difficult to understand.
  If the Government want to ensure that legislation is debated constructively and positively, they should assist the House at all stages. The Opposition have approached the legislation positively in Committee. The Government have several consultations under way and they will table further amendments to the Bill.
  I will not follow the line suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), although there may be some justification for doing so. The Opposition feel strongly that the way in which the Government have gone about things in the money resolution and in the ways and means resolution has been wrong. Any fault lies with the Government.
  12.21 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): The comments by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) were somewhat bizarre. It was known for a long time in Committee that these matters would be debated tomorrow. The new clauses were tabled on Thursday, which gave ample time for the Opposition to table amendments on Friday, if they wished to do so. I have no doubt that a number of hon. Members were here on Friday to vote on the Shops (Amendment) Bill. On reflection, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that his point was not a good one.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Housing and Urban Development Bill, it is expedient to authorise the making of provision requiring the payment by local authorities of a levy in respect of certain disposals of dwelling-houses.

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

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft District Electoral Areas (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th December, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]
    Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    FOOTWEAR LABELLING
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5248/92, relating to the labelling of materials used in the main components of footwear, and endorses the Government's view that the United Kingdom should support a uniform system of labelling for footwear provided that text can be used instead of pictograms.—[Mr. Wood.]
    Question agreed to.

  TRANSPORT
  Ordered,
  That Mr. David Marshall be discharged from the Transport Committee and Mr. Brian H. Donohoe be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  WELSH AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Jon Owen Jones be discharged from the Welsh Affairs Committee and Mr. Nick Ainger be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Convalescent Care (Ilkley)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  12.23 am
  Mr. Gary Waller: Convalescence as a specialist field of medicine within the national health service has been in decline for many years. However, I hope to show tonight that in many areas, that decline is being reversed as the clinical and economic case for convalescent care becomes ever more obvious.
  I address my remarks specifically to the Grove convalescent hospital in Ilkley in my constituency with its 54 beds, of which 44 are currently convalescent. It now represents one of the last bastions of convalescence in this country. It is somewhat ironic that just when the tide of convalescent care might be turning, the Airedale NHS trust is preparing to close that hospital. The development of the internal market in the NHS can give such units an opportunity to demonstrate the value for money that they offer, if they are given that opportunity, and also show that they satisfy a need that is not easily met elsewhere.
  As the demand for hospital services increases, fed by a more elderly population and rising expectations, throughput in the health service has become faster. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), is aware, the trend is towards short stays and day surgery wherever possible for good clinical as well as economic reasons.
  Getting people up and on their feet speeds their recovery, but many of them will continue to need nursing care for some time following an operation or illness. Community care is the answer in many cases, but not in all. If an elderly person lives alone, a consultant may often see no alternative to a situation where the patient continues to occupy an acute hospital bed, preventing waiting lists from falling and preventing the expensive time of surgeons from being efficiently utilised. In money terms, convalescent units often represent good value. Purchasing authorities are currently charged only £49 per night for patients cared for at the Grove, compared with well over £200 per night in a typical acute unit.
  Financial criteria, however, tell only half the story. Many medical practitioners believe that stressful and busy acute wards are far from an ideal environment in which patients can recuperate well. Quoted in the Health Service Journal, Professor Peter Millard of the geriatrics department at St. George's hospital in London sees a need for "healing halfway houses" where patients, particularly the elderly, can go between hospital and home to recover strength and independence. Keeping someone in hospital when that person no longer needs full medical care is expensive and inappropriate, but in Professor Millard's experience, discharging patients straight back home, even with intensive after care services, is rarely a solution.
  There is, perhaps, no single model of convalescent care that is suitable for every patient. A number of different ones are developing, not only in this country but abroad. In Sweden, the concept of the patient hotel has rapidly gained ground, with units at Lund and Malmö, and spreading to Copenhagen in Denmark. Patients are treated very much as customers or hotel guests, with priority accorded to their own preferences, in a relaxed and comfortable atmosphere. Relatives who wish to stay
  848
  with patients may do so, paying a reasonable fee to cover costs and overheads. That is also permitted at the Grove when beds are available.
  Although the Swedish patient hotel model is based on single rooms, the costs are only a half or a third of those in acute hospitals. Patients like it and they prosper, but the health service also secures benefits as a whole. As one practitioner put it:
  "The patient hotel helps prevent institutional hospitalisation and saves money which can be transferred to patients needing more intensive treatment. Our experience of a patient hotel in Lund is an overwhelmingly positive one."
  In the United States, convalescent units have been developing from Connecticut, where a 93-bed medical hotel opened in January last year, to California, where Recovery Inns, charging an all-inclusive fee of $700 per day, demonstrate the diversity of the concept, if not a model that we would necessarily wish to emulate within the NHS.
  The Kingston hospital NHS trust has created its own hospital hotel whose first objective is defined as being
  "to achieve a more efficient use of acute inpatient beds to reduce waiting lists and waiting time."
  An encouraging leaflet issued to patients on admission welcomes them and explains that becoming a guest in the patient hotel when a return home is not feasible is regarded as a way of releasing an acute bed for further admission. In Worthing, Oxford, Peterborough, Lambeth and south Derbyshire, too, different organisational patterns of convalescent care have come into being in recent times. I am sorry that I do not have time to refer to them in detail.
  Having considered some fairly recent developments pointing perhaps towards the need for a diversity of responses to the need for convalescent care, I refer again to the Grove convalescent hospital in the town of Ilkley in my own constituency. In Victorian times, Ilkley was a spa to which many people came to take the waters and perhaps to convalesce at one of its hydropathic establishments. Today, they still come, not to take the waters but nevertheless to convalesce at the Grove following major surgery or intensive medical treatment in an acute hospital. An attractive folder about the hospital tells us that it was established in 1829 as the Ilkley Charity, that it overlooks the town centre, and is surrounded by attractive landscaped gardens.
  "Patients", we are informed,
  "normally come to the Grove for two to three weeks following a wide range of hospital procedures; from heart by-pass and major cardiac operations to orthopaedic work, kidney and liver transplants and ophthalmic operations. Others are cared for following treatment for leukaemia or the effects of a stroke. All forms of post-operative care are available, as is specialist insulin control for diabetic patients. Treatment is carefully planned for each individual patient according to their own individual needs and includes the provision where appropriate of skilled rehabilitation therapy."
  It can be seen that the level of nursing care provided at the Grove is considerably higher than in most of the other models of convalescent units to which I have referred. It is true that patients do not have the total privacy of individual rooms which are commonly found in patient hotels, but efforts have been made to ensure that we are a long way from the rows of beds offering no privacy at all in traditional Nightingale-style wards. Everyone agrees that the staff and the excellent hospital manager, Mrs Sheila Wormold, have done a remarkable job.
  Although the building may be more than 150 years old, nevertheless the ethos has much in common with that of

  849
  the more recently invented patient hotel. It is clear from the comments of patients that they feel that they are treated as guests, with comfortable lounges on both the ground and first floors, a licensed bar and a wide choice of menus available. As patients start to feel better they can walk in the gardens, take a five-minute stroll down to take tea at Betty's or even venture as far as the famous Ilkley moor.
  Letters received from patients following their stay are revealing. Mrs. Saxton of Bakewell, Derbyshire wrote:
  "It frightens me when I think of my condition on arrival at The Grove. I couldn't possibly have looked after myself at home. If places such as The Grove close, what will happen to future patients"?
  Mrs. Norris of Carnforth, which is a considerable distance away, wrote:
  "It was a truly wonderful fortnight in every way, and I returned home…looking and feeling so different to when I left the Royal Lancaster Infirmary … I was refreshed and strengthened in body, mind and spirit. That The Grove Convalescent Hospital should remain open for years to come is vitally essential, so that others may continue to benefit as I did (and, indeed, the Government should make it possible for similar establishments to be built throughout the country)."
  Audrey Scriven, an Ilkley resident, wrote:
  "I don't think any other community has such a suitable convalescent hospital in such a wonderful situation as Ilkley … Open more homes like The Grove Convalescent Hospital, don't close down the gem that is here."
  Taking patient records almost at random, it is apparent that the Grove meets a need which could not otherwise easily be satisfied for patients not only from the immediate area but from many parts of the north.
  The staff of the Grove spend much time talking to, listening to and reassuring patients. That is the kind of personal attention which the staff of an excellent convalescent hospital such as the Grove can give but which is far more difficult to provide in a busy general hospital ward.
  Many consultants from many parts of the country—Lancashire, Yorkshire, the west and south—have written to me. The tenor of their remarks was that if the Grove closed they would have to keep patients in acute wards for longer, waiting lists would grow and patient care would suffer.
  This is not the first time that I have raised the future of the Grove hospital in the House. Just over five years ago, on 16 November 1987, I sought
  "leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the proposed emergency closure of the Grove hospital."
  The following day, the then Leeds Western health authority was considering a proposal to close the Grove within days as an emergency measure and as part of a package intended to deal with overspendng of £800,000 in that financial year. Statutory procedures were then in midstream. I said:
  "everyone realises that if the hospital were to be closed now, before the statutory procedures are completed and before objectors have even had a chance to put forward alternatives, the involvement of Ministers would be a parody of what Parliament intended."—[Official Report, 16 November 1987; Vol. 122, c. 776.]
  Time has moved on. At the eleventh hour the Grove was reprieved in 1987. With the encouragement of the Yorkshire regional health authority, it was taken over by Airedale health authority in whose area it was located. From April 1992, Airedale hospitals have been incorporated in an NHS trust and from 1 December that
  850
  part of Airedale health authority with which we are concerned has merged to form a new Bradford and district health authority.
  History has not only moved on; it is repeating itself. The Airedale NHS trust is now having difficulty in matching its income with its expenditure. A closure proposal has been announced, but it will undoubtedly take many months for the community health council to give its view, for the public and interested parties to be consulted and for my hon. Friend the Minister to make his decision. In the meantime, the NHS trust has stated that it intends to proceed with an emergency closure no later than the end of March.
  Such an emergency closure is regarded by many as just as unacceptable now as it was before. A hospital is much more than just walls and a roof. If the Grove is closed, the consultation which has not yet begun will be pointless because many or most of the staff will have been made redundant.
  When I submitted a paper to the regional health authority in March 1988 I commented:
  "The majority of convalescent patients are elderly, live alone and have nobody at home to provide the care which is essential to effect recovery. The difficulties of providing alternative cover are immense. The arguments point …towards the provision of convalescent care by nursing staff who are specialists in this sector and can meet the need more effectively and more economically for those patients who require it."
  I pointed out that the Grove suffered because there was no internal market in the NHS at that time. Well before the issue of a White Paper on the NHS, I urged that districts should be charged against their budgets in proportion to the usage which they make of the hospital so that they could offset those charges against savings made elsewhere by taking advantage of the Grove's facilities.
  When I spoke earlier of convalescent facilities developing in the United Kingdom, it will perhaps have been noted that there is a major gap in the north of England. I regret the fact that, because of the pressure currently applied to it, Airedale NHS trust proposes to close the Grove without positively or adequately exploring alternative strategies. Money needs to be spent on the Grove. The trust says that it is required to spend £1 million over five years. Only some £100,000, or perhaps a little more, needs to be spent urgently to satisfy fire and environmental health regulations.
  I am particularly attracted to the concept of a mixed unit serving both NHS and private patients. At present, the hospital takes private patients from BUPA, but clearly requires some modernisation and expansion of its facilities to develop that side of its work. As it happens, there is land to the rear of the hospital where it should be possible to obtain planning permission to build a new block, creating not only rooms for private patients on the patient hotel model but improved common facilities for the hospital patients as a whole. There are companies with a good track record in the health sector which could be interested in working with the Airedale NHS trust along those lines.
  Some health authorities have indicated that they do not intend to send patients to the Grove in the future. However, I believe that judicious marketing would reveal that many health authorities and purchasers of services in Yorkshire and the north of England would benefit from sending some of their patients to the Grove.
  I have already referred to the internal market. Every health authority is paying for patients to remain in acute

  851
  hospital beds when they need not be there, simply because they have not considered the alternative of convalescent care, the cost of which could be a great deal less.
  Finally, I shall refer to the important issue of GP beds in the hospital. Since late last year, the Grove has accommodated 10 GP beds which were formerly provided at the Coronation hospital in Ilkley. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), who preceded my hon. Friend the Minister in his present post, wrote to me on 8 August 1991 to uphold the decision of the former Airedale health authority to end in-patient services at Coronation hospital. In his letter he said:
  "The health authority have been able to assure me that they can provide 10 beds to meet the GPs' needs at the Grove Hospital in Ilkley. Airedale have invested some £80,000 in improving this facility since taking over the management in 1989, and I am satisfied that the Grove will provide a good setting for the continuation of this important local service."
  So 18 months ago the Grove was seen as a good setting for GP beds. My hon. Friend also saw a move to the Grove as consistent with the wish
  "to ensure that the best standards of modern medicine are available for [patients] care."
  But now there is uncertainty about where the 10 GP beds which rightly concerned my hon. Friend should be located. As yet no solution has been found and the uncertainty remains. There has been talk about using a local nursing home. But many doubt whether that solution, appropriate as it might be for some patients, would provide the standard of nursing care available at present.
  Taxpayers are also entitled to ask about the £80,000 which has been spent improving the Grove since 1989 and the additional amount spent since 1991 on providing the GP beds. Taxpayers are entitled to ask that, after such expenditure, decisions are not taken for short-term and perhaps short-sighted reasons.
  There is good will on the part of the trust chairman, Mr. Peter Bell, to move towards a solution to the problems posed so soon after the creation of the Airedale NHS trust. The NHS management executive and the Yorkshire regional health authority have a responsibility in the matter because the Grove is essentially a regional facility. The regional health authority should work with Airedale to ascertain whether an alternative course can be followed. It needs to be a course which would provide clinical benefits for patients while enabling the hospital to pay its way in the internal market.
  Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to meet me at an early date to consider whether any possible way forward can be found. Obviously, I can ask him to make no commitment except that he consider the matter in a careful and thoughtful way, as I know that he will. But that is no less than the dedicated staff and the patients who have benefited from staying at the Grove deserve.
  12.41 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I have listened with great interest to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) in his well researched speech. I recognise the wealth of local knowledge that underlies his remarks. He shares with Mr. Peter Bell, the chairman of the Airedale NHS trust, a passionate concern that Keighley people should get the best available care from the
  852
  NHS. The Airedale trust is striving to improve the health care of all Airedale residents: that is well understood and recognised.
  The proposal at issue here is that the Airedale NHS trust wishes to close the Grove convalescent hospital in Ilkley. The trust is a second wave NHS trust which came into being in April of this year. The Grove is one of seven hospital sites which comprise the trust. It was built in 1829 as a hospital and convalescent home, and was taken over by Airedale health authority in April 1989 from Leeds Western health authority. It became part of the trust in April this year. The hospital was in a rundown condition when Airedale district health authority took it over and the facilities have been improved, upgraded and refurbished over the past three and a half years.
  The Grove is a 54-bed convalescent hospital currently providing convalescent care to eight district health authorities in Yorkshire and Lancashire and accepting substantial numbers of extra-contractual referrals, particularly from the Greater Manchester area.
  The hospital currently has 10 nursing care beds which are used by general practitioners in Ilkley—a service provided as a result of the closure of the in-patient beds at Ilkley Coronation hospital in 1991. Occupancy of the 44 convalescent beds has remained stable over the last 18 months: on average, 38 beds out of the available 44 are occupied representing an average occupancy of 86 per cent.
  The GP beds have maintained an occupancy rate of approximately 50 per cent. since being transferred from Ilkley Coronation hospital in September 1991. Patients staying at the Grove will have an average length of stay of about two weeks, with the maximum being three weeks.
  The position of patients housed in the Grove from other health authorities is as follows. The figures are from 1 April to 30 November, 1992 and are: Leeds 114; Harrogate 21; Burnley 102; Lancaster 58; Calderdale 52; Airedale 123; GP beds 86; private patients, 16; other extra contractual referrals 209. The House will note that only 15 per cent. of patients treated at the hospital are from the Airedale area.
  I stress that quality care is undeniably being provided by a very devoted group of staff. However, it has become increasingly difficult to provide modern care for the elderly and pre-convalescent patients in facilities dating back to the early part of the 19th century.
  The hospital urgently needs considerable capital expenditure to meet statutory safety requirements—for instance, upgraded and additional toilet and washing facilities, separation of beds and improved access to patients on upper floors. That would require an investment of £1 million or more, on a building that does not easily lend itself to adaptation.
  In 1992–93, the Grove convalescent hospital will suffer a loss of about £77,000 in contract income, and in 1993–94, as purchasing authorities withdraw and redraw contracts for convalescent care, the deficit is likely to reach approximately £250,000. Two of the main reasons given by purchasing authorities for discontinuing their contracts are that the quality of accommodation at the Grove is no longer acceptable, and that the purchasing authorities wish to use their budgets on convalescent care within their own districts. As my hon. Friend will be aware, there is a growing trend within health authorities to provide

  853
  convalescent care locally, using local provider units. That has advantages to patients, in making it easier for friends and relatives to visit.
  Although demand is relatively high, the trust has already received indications that Calderdale and Burnley health authorities will no longer be contracting with Airedale NHS trust for that type of care in 1993–94. It is also likely that Leeds health authority will reduce the size of its contract, as it has not been able to utilise its present contract fully. Furthermore, Bradford health authority can no longer contract for its patients.
  The change in the attitude of purchasing authorities will mean a reduction of about 20 per cent. in income, and the price of £49 per night would have to be raised to £68 to balance such a loss. There is also a need to account for inflation, pay charges on capital expenditure to meet safety regulations, and—as I have mentioned—for considerable upgrading.
  I understand that the length of stay of patients in the Grove hospital is falling below the historic average of two weeks. That is likely to continue in 1993–94, with a consequent loss of income. As my hon. Friend will agree, that trend will lead to the Grove becoming less attractive to the few health authorities that continue to purchase its services. The increase in price would also threaten the current level of extra contractual referrals. They represent 35 per cent. of income, which would be vulnerable as the price per patient per night increased.
  I emphasise, on behalf of the trust, that the closure of the Grove is not designed to release capital for other trust purposes. While its sale would eliminate the need for the trust to pay capital charges of £112,000 per annum, by the nature of the capital charging system, there would be a resulting loss of income. Hence the sale of the Grove would have a neutral effect, in terms of capital charges, on the trust's finances.
  The trust has always been prepared to consider any collaborative proposal to develop the site of the Grove for hospital/hotel type accommodation or any other suitable health care provision. However, the capital and revenue implications of such schemes must not be such as to damage the overall finances of the trust. In its review of that and other options, the trust has indicated that any such developments should be based on a new-build approach on the site rather than endeavouring to make provision within the constraints of a building dating from 1829.
  The care and interest of patients has been the most important factor in the Airedale trust's deliberations. There are, as I have identified, a number of factors involved in the proposal to close the hospital: first, a decrease in the number of referrals and the number of
  854
  contracts from the purchasing authorities; secondly, the fact that the cost per patient per night is likely to increase; thirdly, an ever-increasing drain on the trust's financial resources; fourthly, the need for considerable capital investment to bring the hospital up to modern standards; and fifthly, a decreasing need for convalescent beds as clinical procedures make more and more use of non-invasive therapy techniques and day surgery.
  A trust can only provide the services which purchasing authorities will buy. It cannot, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, continue to run an increasingly uneconomic hospital for a decreasing number of patients. The trust will continue to meet the requirements for GP beds, contract referrals and extra contractual referrals by using other hospital sites in the area. The planned closure date is 31 March 1993, with possible emergency closure before that date.
  My hon. Friend may prefer there to be a longer consultation period on the closure or more widespread discussion on the matter. However, the economics and the purchaser wishes will not change. The trust is best placed to make decisions on how to meet its contracts with purchasing authorities and how to continue to provide the excellent patient care found at the Grove convalescent hospital. If the trust decides that it is in the best interests of patients and the trust to close the Grove convalescent hospital, it should—I fear—be allowed to do so.
  Let me reassure my hon. Friend that the Government wish to invest in the Airedale NHS trust and the care of patients in Ilkley. There are plans for a new eight-theatre block, including dedicated day-care facilities at the Airedale general hospital. Those plans are being formulated by the trust with the NHS management executive. The trust has also invested £250,000 on the upgrading of the out-patient services at the Coronation hospital in Ilkley. That is another example of how the trust is investing in local care. I understand that my hon. Friend has kindly offered his services to open that unit in the new year.
  I listened with interest to my hon. Friend's remarks about convalescence. All such decisions must be made by purchasers on a local basis. Purchasers must take the decisions on how best to provide care in the most economic and efficient way for all their patients.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind what I have said today. I assure him that I am firmly committed to the best interests of patients in the NHS, both in Ilkely and elsewhere. I will ensure that the Airedale NHS trust continues to have the best interests of its patients to the fore.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to One o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Burglary
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) burglaries of a dwelling, (b) burglaries other than of a dwelling and (c) burglaries in total were reported (i) in each police force area and (ii) in total for England and Wales in each calendar year since 1979, and in the 12 months ended June 1992.

  Mr. Jack
  The available information is for notifiable offences of burglary recorded by the police and is contained in the tables.

  Notifiable offences of burglary by police force area England and Wales 1979

  Police force area

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Other burglary

  Total burglary

  Avon and Somerset

  3,925

  5,134

  9,059

  Bedfordshire

  1,664

  3,067

  4,731

  Cambridgeshire

  1,698

  2,484

  4,182

  Cheshire

  2,752

  3,927

  6,679

  Cleveland

  4,007

  3,895

  7,902

  Cumbria

  1,273

  2,528

  3,801

  Derbyshire

  3,459

  4,630

  8,089

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,239

  4,408

  7,647

  Dorset

  1,952

  2,046

  3,998

  Durham

  2,155

  3,862

  6,017

  Essex

  3,538

  6,758

  10,296

  Gloucestershire

  1,151

  1,858

  3,009

  Greater Manchester

  19,162

  19,962

  39,124

  Hampshire

  6,105

  6,413

  12,518

  Hertfordshire

  1,789

  2,814

  4,603

  Humberside

  4,476

  6,436

  10,912

  Kent

  4,944

  5,495

  10,439

  Lancashire

  5,476

  6,972

  12,448

  Leicestershire

  2,158

  3,543

  5,701

  Lincolnshire

  1,211

  2,070

  3,281

  City of London

  51

  1,088

  1,139

  Merseyside

  16,699

  14,484

  31,183

  Metropolitan Police District

  68,661

  48,340

  117,001

  Norfolk

  1,249

  3,057

  4,306

  Northamptonshire

  1,798

  2,653

  4,451

  Northumbria

  12,285

  14,729

  27,014

  North Yorkshire

  2,181

  2,593

  4,774

  Nottinghamshire

  6,130

  10,364

  16,494

  South Yorkshire

  4,439

  8,162

  12,601

  Staffordshire

  2,755

  5,250

  8,005

  Suffolk

  857

  1,991

  2,848

  Surrey

  2,213

  2,577

  4,790

  Sussex

  4,658

  4,596

  9,254

  Thames Valley

  5,927

  7,931

  13,858

  Warwickshire

  876

  1,951

  2,827

  West Mercia

  1,947

  3,986

  5,933

  West Midlands

  16,953

  22,910

  39,863

  West Yorkshire

  14,905

  17,240

  32,145

  Wiltshire

  1,291

  2,235

  3,526

  Dyfed-Powys

  544

  1,170

  1,714

  Gwent

  1,196

  2,123

  3,319

  North Wales

  2,039

  2,617

  4,656

  South Wales

  6,984

  10,916

  17,900

  TOTAL

  252,772

  291,265

  544,037

  500

  Notifiable offences of burglary by police force area England and Wales 1980

  Police force area

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Other burglary

  Total burglary

  Avon and Somerset

  5,199

  6,285

  11,484

  Bedfordshire

  2,168

  3,436

  5,604

  Cambridgeshire

  1,886

  2,973

  4,859

  Cheshire

  3,639

  4,537

  8,176

  Cleveland

  4,265

  4,697

  8,962

  Cumbria

  1,622

  2,442

  4,064

  Derbyshire

  3,902

  5,185

  9,087

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,662

  5,188

  8,850

  Dorset

  2,137

  2,430

  4,567

  Durham

  2,971

  4,740

  7,711

  Essex

  3,850

  7,497

  11,347

  Gloucestershire

  1,684

  2,246

  3,930

  Greater Manchester

  23,733

  23,216

  46,949

  Hampshire

  6,300

  6,997

  13,297

  Hertfordshire

  2,642

  3,345

  5,807

  Humberside

  5,537

  7,173

  12,710

  Kent

  4,805

  5,624

  10,429

  Lancashire

  5,597

  7,131

  12,728

  Leicestershire

  2,656

  4,506

  7,162

  Lincolnshire

  1,268

  2,264

  3,532

  City of London

  41

  1,030

  1,071

  Merseyside

  19,884

  14,917

  34,801

  Metropolitan Police District

  75,214

  50,730

  125,944

  Norfolk

  1,568

  3,705

  5,273

  Northamptonshire

  2,411

  3,637

  6,048

  Northumbria

  14,557

  16,511

  31,068

  North Yorkshire

  2,207

  3,076

  5,283

  Nottinghamshire

  6,629

  11,532

  18,161

  South Yorkshire

  5,777

  9,864

  15,641

  Staffordshire

  3,085

  5,665

  8,750

  Suffolk

  1,024

  2,199

  3,223

  Surrey

  2,412

  2,672

  5,084

  Sussex

  5,192

  4,778

  9,970

  Thames Valley

  6,611

  8,616

  15,227

  Warwickshire

  1,151

  2,138

  3,289

  West Mercia

  2,419

  4,677

  7,096

  West Midlands

  23,170

  26,613

  49,783

  West Yorkshire

  17,077

  18,226

  35,303

  Wiltshire

  1,548

  2,232

  3,780

  Dyfed-Powys

  602

  1,227

  1,829

  Gwent

  1,602

  2,365

  3,967

  North Wales

  2,833

  3,274

  6,107

  South Wales

  8,576

  11,861

  20,437

  TOTAL

  294,933

  323,457

  618,390

  Notifiable offences of burglary by police force area England and Wales 1981

  Police force area

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Other burglary

  Total burglary

  Avon and Somerset

  6,136

  7,288

  13,424

  Bedfordshire

  2,528

  3,988

  6,516

  Cambridgeshire

  2,343

  3,395

  5,738

  Cheshire

  4,637

  5,234

  9,871

  Cleveland

  4,985

  5,468

  10,453

  Cumbria

  1,782

  2,905

  4,687

  Derbyshire

  4,327

  6,018

  10,345

  Devon and Cornwall

  4,016

  6,316

  10,332

  Dorset

  2,446

  2,691

  5,137

  Durham

  3,134

  5,069

  8,203

  Essex

  4,503

  7,621

  12,124

  Gloucestershire

  1,969

  2,886

  4,855

  Greater Manchester

  32,238

  25,943

  58,181

  Hampshire

  7,960

  8,554

  16,514

  Hertfordshire

  2,486

  3,844

  6,330

  Humberside

  6,719

  8,254

  14,973

  Kent

  6,032

  6,167

  12,199

  Lancashire

  7,297

  8,068

  15,365

  Leicestershire

  3,269

  5,130

  8,399

  Lincolnshire

  1,430

  2,997

  4,427

  City of London

  31

  1,058

  1,089

  Merseyside

  23,269

  18,421

  41,690

  501

  Police force area

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Other burglary

  Total burglary

  Metropolitan Police District

  86,549

  58,270

  144,819

  Norfolk

  2,242

  4,795

  7,037

  Northamptonshire

  2,558

  3,686

  6,244

  Northumbria

  16,581

  18,084

  34,665

  North Yorkshire

  3,135

  3,548

  6,683

  Nottinghamshire

  8,719

  12,986

  21,705

  South Yorkshire

  6,557

  10,912

  17,469

  Staffordshire

  3,565

  6,305

  9,870

  Suffolk

  1,332

  2,567

  3,899

  Surrey

  2,654

  2,814

  5,468

  Sussex

  6,108

  5,385

  11,493

  Thames Valley

  7,198

  9,289

  16,487

  Warwickshire

  1,730

  2,813

  4,543

  West Mercia

  3,433

  6,005

  9,438

  West Midlands

  27,703

  29,655

  57,358

  West Yorkshire

  19,371

  20,588

  39,959

  Wiltshire

  1,656

  2,623

  4,279

  Dyfed-Powys

  623

  1,505

  2,128

  Gwent

  1,696

  2,521

  4,217

  North Wales

  3,057

  3,956

  7,013

  South Wales

  9,688

  13,067

  22,755

  TOTAL

  349,692

  368,689

  718,381

  Notifiable offences of burglary by police force area England and Wales 1982

  Police force area

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Other burglary

  Total burglary

  Avon and Somerset

  6,734

  7,304

  14,038

  Bedfordshire

  2,583

  3,940

  6,523

  Cambridgeshire

  2,681

  4,048

  6,729

  Cheshire

  5,106

  5,668

  10,774

  Cleveland

  5,489

  5,904

  11,393

  Cumbria

  2,193

  3,286

  5,479

  Derbyshire

  4,648

  6,235

  10,883

  Devon and Cornwall

  4,747

  6,932

  11,679

  Dorset

  2,708

  3,122

  5,830

  Durham

  3,934

  5,946

  9,880

  Essex

  4,869

  8,875

  13,744

  Gloucestershire

  2,184

  3,055

  5,239

  Greater Manchester

  39,903

  26,062

  65,965

  Hampshire

  9,254

  9,845

  19,099

  Hertfordshire

  2,548

  3,991

  6,539

  Humberside

  6,823

  9,768

  16,591

  Kent

  7,773

  7,176

  14,949

  Lancashire

  9,087

  10,088

  19,175

  Leicestershire

  4,348

  6,237

  10,585

  Lincolnshire

  1,728

  3,233

  4,961

  City of London

  93

  990

  1,083

  Merseyside

  27,188

  20,201

  47,389

  Metropolitan Police District

  99,049

  59,193

  158,242

  Norfolk

  2,822

  5,250

  8,072

  Northamptonshire

  3,046

  4,305

  7,351

  Northumbria

  22,806

  20,468

  43,274

  North Yorkshire

  3,356

  4,204

  7,560

  Nottinghamshire

  7,793

  11,096

  18,889

  South Yorkshire

  7,744

  11,831

  19,575

  Staffordshire

  4,304

  7,229

  11,533

  Suffolk

  1,305

  2,654

  3,959

  Surrey

  3,118

  3,219

  6,337

  Sussex

  6,654

  6,541

  13,195

  Thames Valley

  8,445

  10,301

  18,746

  Warwickshire

  1,925

  3,242

  5,167

  West Mercia

  3,744

  6,841

  10,585

  West Midlands

  33,780

  32,240

  66,020

  West Yorkshire

  22,591

  22,532

  45,123

  Wiltshire

  1,790

  2,797

  4,587

  Dyfed-Powys

  662

  1,545

  2,207

  Gwent

  2,036

  2,999

  5,035

  North Wales

  3,391

  4,004

  7,395

  South Wales

  10,106

  13,904

  24,010

  TOTAL

  407,088

  398,301

  805,389

  502

  Notifiable offences of burglary by police force area England and Wales 1983

  Police force area

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Other burglary

  Total burglary

  Avon and Somerset

  7,561

  7,205

  14,766

  Bedfordshire

  2,788

  4,159

  6,947

  Cambridgeshire

  2,592

  3,691

  6,283

  Cheshire

  5,338

  6,086

  11,424

  Cleveland

  5,804

  5,537

  11,341

  Cumbria

  2,326

  3,364

  5,690

  Derbyshire

  4,449

  5,745

  10,194

  Devon and Cornwall

  5,400

  6,506

  11,906

  Dorset

  2,762

  2,627

  5,389

  Durham

  4,685

  5,483

  10,168

  Essex

  5,261

  8,733

  13,994

  Gloucestershire

  2,246

  2,911

  5,157

  Greater Manchester

  47,385

  25,063

  72,448

  Hampshire

  8,996

  9,458

  18,454

  Hertfordshire

  2,463

  3,040

  5,503

  Humberside

  7,454

  9,613

  17,067

  Kent

  8,021

  6,135

  14,156

  Lancashire

  8,968

  8,973

  17,941

  Leicestershire

  4,490

  5,465

  9,955

  Lincolnshire

  2,007

  3,218

  5,225

  City of London

  65

  1,095

  1,160

  Merseyside

  31,454

  17,635

  49,089

  Metropolitan Police District

  98,927

  53,268

  152,195

  Norfolk

  3,131

  4,878

  8,009

  Northamptonshire

  3,092

  4,098

  7,190

  Northumbria

  22,148

  21,968

  44,116

  North Yorkshire

  3,439

  4,038

  7,477

  Nottinghamshire

  7,787

  10,635

  18,422

  South Yorkshire

  9,015

  12,163

  21,178

  Staffordshire

  5,177

  7,624

  12,801

  Suffolk

  1,601

  2,992

  4,593

  Surrey

  3,116

  3,070

  6,186

  Sussex

  7,795

  6,060

  13,855

  Thames Valley

  8,901

  9,447

  18,348

  Warwickshire

  2,297

  3,220

  5,517

  West Mercia

  4,076

  5,897

  9,973

  West Midlands

  37,266

  30,401

  67,667

  West Yorkshire

  22,533

  19,445

  41,978

  Wiltshire

  1,783

  2,583

  4,366

  Dyfed-Powys

  709

  1,521

  2,230

  Gwent

  1,990

  2,858

  4,848

  North Wales

  3,754

  4,216

  7,970

  South Wales

  10,987

  14,178

  25,165

  TOTAL

  432,039

  376,302

  808,341

  Notifiable offences of burglary by police force area England and Wales 1984

  Police force area

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Other burglary

  Total burglary

  Avon and Somerset

  8,282

  8,463

  16,745

  Bedfordshire

  3,706

  4,256

  7,962

  Cambridgeshire

  2,511

  3,635

  6,146

  Cheshire

  6,029

  6,658

  12,687

  Cleveland

  7,114

  6,919

  14,033

  Cumbria

  2,627

  3,796

  6,423

  Derbyshire

  4,399

  6,013

  10,412

  Devon and Cornwall

  5,723

  7,504

  13,227

  Dorset

  2,742

  2,738

  5,480

  Durham

  4,992

  6,425

  11,417

  Essex

  5,366

  8,331

  13,697

  Gloucestershire

  2,364

  3,362

  5,726

  Greater Manchester

  54,252

  28,812

  83,064

  Hampshire

  8,815

  9,850

  18,665

  Hertfordshire

  2,933

  3,609

  6,542

  Humberside

  6,747

  10,624

  17,371

  Kent

  8,973

  6,714

  15,687

  Lancashire

  9,822

  9,384

  19,206

  Leicestershire

  5,099

  5,769

  10,868

  Lincolnshire

  2,004

  3,860

  5,864

  City of London

  32

  913

  945

  503

  Police force area

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Other burglary

  Total burglary

  Merseyside

  35,293

  18,246

  53,539

  Metropolitan Police District

  109,672

  57,980

  167,652

  Norfolk

  2,294

  4,892

  7,816

  Northamptonshire

  3,493

  4,328

  7,821

  Northumbria

  24,229

  26,671

  50,900

  North Yorkshire

  3,971

  4,513

  8,484

  Nottinghamshire

  7,611

  11,227

  18,838

  South Yorkshire

  10,476

  14,794

  25,270

  Staffordshire

  5,783

  7,672

  13,455

  Suffolk

  1,619

  3,030

  4,649

  Surrey

  3,374

  3,248

  6,622

  Sussex

  8,857

  7,136

  15,993

  Thames Valley

  9,362

  11,444

  20,806

  Warwickshire

  2,531

  3,656

  6,187

  West Mercia

  5,082

  6,111

  11,193

  West Midlands

  43,643

  33,793

  77,436

  West Yorkshire

  25,166

  21,267

  46,433

  Wiltshire

  1,950

  3,232

  5,182

  Dyfed-Powys

  848

  1,819

  2,667

  Gwent

  2,161

  2,734

  4,895

  North Wales

  3,415

  5,198

  8,613

  South Wales

  10,743

  15,562

  26,305

  TOTAL

  476,735

  416,188

  892,923

  Notifiable offences of burglary by police force area England and Wales 1985

  Police force area

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Other burglary

  Total burglary

  Avon and Somerset

  8,970

  8,765

  17,735

  Bedfordshire

  3,878

  4,013

  7,891

  Cambridgeshire

  2,326

  3,666

  5,992

  Cheshire

  6,147

  6,291

  12,438

  Cleveland

  6,734

  6,348

  13,082

  Cumbria

  2,869

  3,702

  6,571

  Derbyshire

  4,132

  5,338

  9,470

  Devon and Cornwall

  5,814

  7,536

  13,350

  Dorset

  2,847

  2,733

  5,580

  Durham

  4,723

  5,862

  10,585

  Essex

  5,067

  8,474

  13,541

  Gloucestershire

  2,903

  3,850

  6,753

  Greater Manchester

  51,958

  28,572

  80,530

  Hampshire

  8,820

  9,744

  18,564

  Hertfordshire

  2,888

  3,063

  5,951

  Humberside

  7,488

  11,836

  19,324

  Kent

  9,216

  6,798

  16,014

  Lancashire

  10,312

  8,467

  18,779

  Leicestershire

  4,558

  5,476

  10,034

  Lincolnshire

  2,399

  3,915

  6,314

  City of London

  35

  935

  970

  Merseyside

  35,669

  18,800

  54,469

  Metropolitan Police District

  97,242

  56,855

  154,097

  Norfolk

  3,209

  5,081

  8,290

  Northamptonshire

  3,562

  4,029

  7,591

  Northumbria

  24,630

  26,546

  51,176

  North Yorkshire

  4,697

  4,350

  9,047

  Nottinghamshire

  7,001

  10,387

  17,388

  South Yorkshire

  9,057

  12,375

  21,432

  Staffordshire

  5,516

  7,737

  13,253

  Suffolk

  2,069

  3,382

  5,451

  Surrey

  3,164

  3,223

  6,387

  Sussex

  8,720

  7,105

  15,825

  Thames Valley

  9,070

  11,153

  20,223

  Warwickshire

  2,608

  3,533

  6,141

  West Mercia

  4,428

  5,644

  10,072

  West Midlands

  39,889

  33,158

  73,047

  West Yorkshire

  25,733

  20,036

  45,769

  Wiltshire

  2,135

  3,192

  5,327

  Dyfed-Powys

  951

  1,792

  2,743

  Gwent

  1,973

  2,914

  4,887

  North Wales

  3,790

  5,294

  9,084

  South Wales

  9,993

  15,537

  25,530

  TOTAL

  459,190

  407,507

  866,697

  504

  Notifiable offences of burglary by police force area England and Wales 1986

  Police force area

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Other burglary

  Total burglary

  Avon and Somerset

  10,912

  9,831

  20,743

  Bedfordshire

  4,382

  4,349

  8,731

  Cambridgeshire

  2,499

  3,650

  6,149

  Cheshire

  6,095

  6,134

  12,229

  Cleveland

  8,067

  7,022

  15,089

  Cumbria

  4,024

  4,038

  8,062

  Derbyshire

  4,375

  5,540

  9,915

  Devon and Cornwall

  6,521

  8,668

  15,189

  Dorset

  3,531

  2,873

  6,404

  Durham

  5,921

  5,768

  11,689

  Essex

  6,079

  9,468

  15,547

  Gloucestershire

  3,328

  4,397

  7,725

  Greater Manchester

  60,738

  31,486

  92,224

  Hampshire

  9,241

  10,852

  20,093

  Hertfordshire

  3,247

  3,470

  6,717

  Humberside

  8,925

  14,009

  22,934

  Kent

  8,166

  6,610

  14,776

  Lancashire

  11,957

  8,855

  20,812

  Leicestershire

  4,881

  5,441

  10,322

  Lincolnshire

  3,174

  4,109

  7,283

  City of London

  55

  872

  927

  Merseyside

  37,375

  19,496

  56,871

  Metropolitan Police District

  102,781

  54,063

  156,844

  Norfolk

  3,477

  6,115

  9,592

  Northamptonshire

  3,441

  4,448

  7,889

  Northumbria

  25,880

  26,126

  52,006

  North Yorkshire

  4,908

  4,908

  9,816

  Nottinghamshire

  7,792

  9,596

  17,388

  South Yorkshire

  11,125

  12,446

  23,571

  Staffordshire

  6,250

  8,639

  14,889

  Suffolk

  2,107

  4,216

  6,323

  Surrey

  3,489

  3,474

  6,963

  Sussex

  8,736

  7,628

  16,364

  Thames Valley

  10,776

  12,435

  23,211

  Warwickshire

  2,866

  3,172

  6,038

  West Mercia

  5,399

  5,513

  10,912

  West Midlands

  45,676

  36,090

  81,766

  West Yorkshire

  26,862

  19,246

  46,108

  Wiltshire

  2,734

  3,502

  6,236

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,036

  2,100

  3,136

  Gwent

  2,074

  2,748

  4,822

  North Wales

  4,689

  5,513

  10,202

  South Wales

  10,417

  16,696

  27,113

  TOTAL

  506,008

  425,612

  931,620

  Notifiable offences of burglary by police force area England and Wales 1987

  Police force area

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Other burglary

  Total burglary

  Avon and Somerset

  10,268

  10,274

  20,542

  Bedfordshire

  3,824

  4,269

  8,093

  Cambridgeshire

  2,730

  3,566

  6,296

  Cheshire

  6,710

  6,336

  13,046

  Cleveland

  9,019

  7,191

  16,210

  Cumbria

  3,496

  3,696

  7,192

  Derbyshire

  4,462

  5,412

  9,874

  Devon and Cornwall

  6,883

  8,917

  15,800

  Dorset

  3,826

  2,881

  6,707

  Durham

  5,322

  5,598

  10,920

  Essex

  5,736

  9,424

  15,160

  Gloucestershire

  3,769

  5,106

  8,875

  Greater Manchester

  54,323

  30,094

  84,417

  Hampshire

  8,903

  10,785

  19,688

  Hertfordshire

  3,105

  3,408

  6,513

  Humberside

  9,470

  14,338

  23,808

  Kent

  7,925

  6,303

  14,228

  Lancashire

  11,555

  8,940

  20,495

  Leicestershire

  5,524

  5,715

  11,239

  Lincolnshire

  2,966

  4,318

  7,284

  City of London

  63

  991

  1,054

  505

  Police force area

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Other burglary

  Total burglary

  Merseyside

  34,087

  17,880

  51,967

  Metropolitan Police District

  97,763

  52,123

  149,886

  Norfolk

  3,707

  6,211

  9,918

  Northamptonshire

  3,460

  3,841

  7,301

  Northumbria

  25,186

  25,258

  50,444

  North Yorkshire

  4,811

  4,929

  9,740

  Nottinghamshire

  7,801

  10,038

  17,839

  South Yorkshire

  11,712

  13,042

  24,754

  Staffordshire

  6,520

  8,395

  14,915

  Suffolk

  2,119

  3,723

  5,842

  Surrey

  3,571

  3,019

  6,590

  Sussex

  8,059

  7,383

  15,442

  Thames Valley

  10,747

  11,440

  22,187

  Warwickshire

  2,586

  3,395

  5,981

  West Mercia

  4,784

  5,406

  10,190

  West Midlands

  39,224

  33,838

  73,062

  West Yorkshire

  26,355

  20,322

  46,677

  Wiltshire

  2,434

  3,300

  5,734

  Dyfed-Powys

  945

  1,997

  2,942

  Gwent

  2,195

  2,609

  4,804

  North Wales

  4,411

  5,544

  9,955

  South Wales

  10,645

  15,848

  26,493

  TOTAL

  483,001

  417,103

  900,104

  Notifiable offences of burglary by police force area England and Wales 1988

  Police force area

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Other burglary

  Total burglary

  Avon and Somerset

  9,050

  9,124

  18,174

  Bedfordshire

  3,890

  3,962

  7,852

  Cambridgeshire

  2,505

  3,799

  6,304

  Cheshire

  6,110

  5,466

  11,576

  Cleveland

  8,402

  5,930

  14,332

  Cumbria

  2,800

  3,626

  6,426

  Derbyshire

  3,768

  4,982

  8,750

  Devon and Cornwall

  6,640

  8,564

  15,204

  Dorset

  3,124

  2,245

  5,369

  Durham

  4,697

  4,939

  9,636

  Essex

  5,261

  8,363

  13,624

  Gloucestershire

  3,512

  4,659

  8,171

  Greater Manchester

  48,809

  26,956

  75,765

  Hampshire

  7,921

  9,664

  17,585

  Hertfordshire

  3,077

  3,102

  6,179

  Humberside

  7,439

  13,733

  21,172

  Kent

  7,705

  5,870

  13,575

  Lancashire

  9,890

  8,492

  18,382

  Leicestershire

  5,335

  5,265

  10,600

  Lincolnshire

  2,822

  3,398

  6,220

  City of London

  34

  810

  844

  Merseyside

  28,477

  14,146

  42,623

  Metropolitan Police District

  93,650

  49,227

  142,877

  Norfolk

  3,650

  5,958

  9,608

  Northamptonshire

  2,900

  3,403

  6,303

  Northumbria

  23,257

  22,795

  46,052

  North Yorkshire

  4,011

  4,286

  8,297

  Nottinghamshire

  7,519

  8,570

  16,089

  South Yorkshire

  10,213

  11,518

  21,731

  Staffordshire

  6,337

  7,894

  14,231

  Suffolk

  2,209

  3,848

  6,057

  Surrey

  3,703

  3,222

  6,925

  Sussex

  7,695

  7,267

  14,962

  Thames Valley

  9,720

  9,629

  19,349

  Warwickshire

  2,233

  2,864

  5,097

  West Mercia

  3,968

  4,840

  8,808

  West Midlands

  34,790

  27,644

  62,434

  West Yorkshire

  24,166

  19,841

  44,007

  Wiltshire

  2,293

  2,930

  5,223

  Dyfed-Powys

  897

  2,317

  3,214

  Gwent

  1,809

  2,361

  4,170

  North Wales

  4,080

  4,757

  8,837

  South Wales

  10,652

  14,506

  25,158

  TOTAL

  441,020

  376,772

  817,792

  506

  Notifiable offences of burglary by police force area England and Wales 1989

  Police force area

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Other burglary

  Total burglary

  Avon and Somerset

  8,430

  9,142

  17,572

  Bedfordshire

  3,632

  3,978

  7,610

  Cambridgeshire

  2,925

  3,776

  6,701

  Cheshire

  5,351

  5,150

  10,501

  Cleveland

  8,634

  5,761

  14,395

  Cumbria

  2,770

  3,690

  6,460

  Derbyshire

  4,080

  5,310

  9,390

  Devon and Cornwall

  7,256

  8,575

  15,831

  Dorset

  3,525

  2,444

  5,969

  Durham

  4,345

  5,385

  9,730

  Essex

  6,152

  9,076

  15,228

  Gloucestershire

  3,288

  4,927

  8,215

  Greater Manchester

  45,138

  28,300

  73,438

  Hampshire

  9,280

  10,298

  19,578

  Hertfordshire

  3,233

  3,127

  6,360

  Humberside

  8,366

  13,745

  22,111

  Kent

  8,181

  6,239

  14,420

  Lancashire

  9,275

  7,742

  17,017

  Leicestershire

  5,626

  5,926

  11,552

  Lincolnshire

  2,959

  3,849

  6,808

  City of London

  39

  872

  911

  Merseyside

  23,833

  13,038

  36,871

  Metropolitan Police District

  97,608

  51,293

  148,901

  Norfolk

  4,064

  6,391

  10,455

  Northamptonshire

  2,859

  3,533

  6,392

  Northumbria

  24,955

  24,630

  49,585

  North Yorkshire

  3,831

  4,240

  8,071

  Nottinghamshire

  8,080

  10,187

  18,267

  South Yorkshire

  10,132

  12,382

  22,514

  Staffordshire

  5,430

  7,976

  13,406

  Suffolk

  2,185

  3,837

  6,022

  Surrey

  3,825

  3,368

  7,193

  Sussex

  8,191

  7,847

  16,038

  Thames Valley

  10,165

  10,115

  20,280

  Warwickshire

  2,158

  3,314

  5,472

  West Mercia

  4,032

  5,534

  9,566

  West Midlands

  31,124

  26,999

  58,123

  West Yorkshire

  24,207

  20,456

  44,663

  Wiltshire

  2,345

  2,956

  5,301

  Dyfed-Powys

  946

  1,775

  2,721

  Gwent

  1,586

  2,252

  3,838

  North Wales

  3,213

  4,174

  7,387

  South Wales

  10,466

  14,601

  25,067

  TOTAL

  437,720

  388,210

  825,930

  Notifiable offences of burglary by police force area England and Wales 1990

  Police force area

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Other burglary

  Total burglary

  Avon and Somerset

  12,072

  14,316

  26,388

  Bedfordshire

  5,559

  5,250

  10,809

  Cambridgeshire

  3,552

  4,809

  8,361

  Cheshire

  6,849

  6,706

  13,555

  Cleveland

  10,434

  6,125

  16,559

  Cumbria

  3,427

  4,283

  7,710

  Derbyshire

  4,886

  7,641

  12,527

  Devon and Cornwall

  10,340

  11,418

  21,758

  Dorset

  4,371

  3,254

  7,625

  Durham

  5,516

  5,796

  11,312

  Essex

  8,004

  11,839

  19,843

  Gloucestershire

  4,041

  5,537

  9,578

  Greater Manchester

  53,725

  34,130

  87,855

  Hampshire

  11,998

  13,533

  25,531

  Hertfordshire

  4,173

  4,487

  8,660

  Humberside

  10,937

  16,424

  27,361

  Kent

  11,146

  8,530

  19,676

  Lancashire

  11,709

  9,926

  21,635

  Leicestershire

  7,645

  8,412

  16,057

  Lincolnshire

  3,943

  4,294

  8,237

  City of London

  34

  949

  983

  507

  Police force area

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Other burglary

  Total burglary

  Merseyside

  21,617

  12,205

  33,822

  Metropolitan Police District

  115,119

  58,128

  173,247

  Norfolk

  4,983

  7,541

  12,524

  Northamptonshire

  4,428

  4,675

  9,103

  Northumbria

  27,092

  27,654

  54,746

  North Yorkshire

  4,004

  5,512

  9,516

  Nottinghamshire

  10,385

  13,816

  24,201

  South Yorkshire

  12,126

  14,981

  27,107

  Staffordshire

  7,639

  11,089

  18,728

  Suffolk

  2,555

  4,609

  7,164

  Surrey

  5,171

  4,687

  9,858

  Sussex

  11,562

  10,646

  22,208

  Thames Valley

  15,191

  11,939

  27,130

  Warwickshire

  2,525

  4,619

  7,144

  West Mercia

  4,383

  6,141

  10,524

  West Midlands

  35,613

  32,605

  68,218

  West Yorkshire

  30,348

  27,901

  58,249

  Wiltshire

  2,770

  3,417

  6,187

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,177

  2,242

  3,419

  Gwent

  2,074

  3,161

  5,235

  North Wales

  3,247

  5,095

  8,342

  South Wales

  10,791

  17,330

  28,121

  TOTAL

  529,161

  477,652

  1,006,813

  Notifiable offences of burglary by police force area England and Wales 1991

  Police force area

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Other burglary

  Total burglary

  Avon and Somerset

  15,795

  18,166

  33,961

  Bedfordshire

  6,057

  6,816

  12,873

  Cambridgeshire

  4,828

  7,069

  11,897

  Cheshire

  8,317

  8,220

  16,537

  Cleveland

  10,190

  7,088

  17,278

  Cumbria

  4,426

  6,400

  10,826

  Derbyshire

  7,116

  11,384

  18,500

  Devon and Cornwall

  11,345

  14,363

  25,708

  Dorset

  4,862

  4,425

  9,287

  Durham

  6,464

  7,101

  13,565

  Essex

  9,807

  15,173

  24,980

  Gloucestershire

  5,387

  7,214

  12,601

  Greater Manchester

  59,605

  38,110

  97,715

  Hampshire

  14,062

  17,941

  32,003

  Hertfordshire

  4,935

  5,955

  10,890

  Humberside

  12,882

  20,067

  32,949

  Kent

  15,836

  10,699

  26,535

  Lancashire

  13,971

  11,074

  25,045

  Leicestershire

  11,513

  10,013

  21,526

  Lincolnshire

  4,251

  4,740

  8,991

  City of London

  73

  997

  1,070

  Merseyside

  21,473

  12,136

  33,609

  Metropolitan Police District

  126,861

  64,621

  191,482

  Norfolk

  6,023

  9,313

  15,336

  Northamptonshire

  5,742

  6,406

  12,148

  Northumbria

  31,413

  34,688

  66,101

  North Yorkshire

  4,975

  7,363

  12,338

  Nottinghamshire

  14,092

  16,476

  30,568

  South Yorkshire

  15,085

  20,176

  35,261

  Staffordshire

  9,846

  13,677

  23,523

  Suffolk

  2,859

  4,779

  7,638

  Surrey

  5,157

  6,280

  11,437

  Sussex

  13,427

  13,047

  26,474

  Thames Valley

  17,545

  16,520

  34,065

  Warwickshire

  3,228

  7,062

  10,290

  West Mercia

  6,208

  8,387

  14,595

  West Midlands

  41,624

  42,460

  84,084

  West Yorkshire

  41,857

  36,769

  78,626

  Wiltshire

  3,564

  4,594

  8,158

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,528

  3,168

  4,696

  Gwent

  3,227

  4,250

  7,477

  North Wales

  3,876

  6,308

  10,184

  South Wales

  13,614

  23,023

  36,637

  TOTAL

  624,946

  594,518

  1,219,464

  508

  Notifiable offences of burglary by police force area England and Wales 1992

  Police force area

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Other burglary

  Total burglary

  Avon and Somerset

  16,267

  17,412

  33,679

  Bedfordshire

  6,496

  7,614

  14,110

  Cambridgeshire

  5,409

  7,716

  13,125

  Cheshire

  8,991

  10,010

  19,001

  Cleveland

  12,334

  7,423

  19,757

  Cumbria

  4,745

  6,818

  11,563

  Derbyshire

  7,454

  12,798

  20,252

  Devon and Cornwall

  12,114

  14,808

  26,922

  Dorset

  5,136

  4,495

  9,631

  Durham

  6,660

  6,802

  13,462

  Essex

  10,158

  16,252

  26,410

  Gloucestershire

  6,266

  8,166

  14,432

  Greater Manchester

  61,582

  39,138

  100,720

  Hampshire

  14,270

  18,693

  32,963

  Hertfordshire

  5,174

  6,374

  11,548

  Humberside

  13,111

  21,427

  34,538

  Kent

  17,358

  11,768

  29,126

  Lancashire

  15,381

  10,882

  26,263

  Leicestershire

  11,920

  10,342

  22,262

  Lincolnshire

  4,988

  5,162

  10,150

  City of London

  57

  943

  1,000

  Merseyside

  21,831

  11,911

  33,742

  Metropolitan Police District

  130,095

  64,243

  194,338

  Norfolk

  6,018

  10,207

  16,225

  Northamptonshire

  5,600

  6,801

  12,401

  Northumbria

  32,515

  35,870

  68,385

  North Yorkshire

  5,738

  8,066

  13,804

  Nottinghamshire

  15,857

  17,264

  33,121

  South Yorkshire

  15,815

  22,261

  38,076

  Staffordshire

  11,067

  14,251

  25,318

  Suffolk

  3,344

  5,059

  8,403

  Surrey

  5,188

  6,333

  11,521

  Sussex

  13,869

  13,471

  27,340

  Thames Valley

  18,507

  17,667

  36,174

  Warwickshire

  4,023

  7,933

  11,956

  West Mercia

  7,265

  8,837

  16,102

  West Midlands

  46,434

  45,960

  92,394

  West Yorkshire

  47,444

  37,664

  85,108

  Wiltshire

  3,933

  4,662

  8,595

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,604

  3,395

  4,999

  Gwent

  3,836

  4,310

  8,146

  North Wales

  4,733

  7,360

  12,093

  South Wales

  13,601

  23,953

  37,554

  TOTAL

  664,188

  622,521

  1,286,709

  Offences Against Businesses
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the total number of offences against businesses committed in England and Wales in 1991 and (b) the total loss incurred by businesses as a result of those offences.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Fines
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take to ensure that all an individual's assets and income are taken into account by the court in assessing the level of unit fine under the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Mr. Jack
  The Criminal Justice Act 1991 already requires magistrates courts to take the whole of an individual's income, including income from assets, into account in assessing an offender's weekly disposable income for the purpose of determining the value of a unit
  509
  in accordance with the provisions of section 18 of the Act, as well as such other information relating to an offender's means as appears to the court to be relevant. A specific exception is made for child benefit.

  Under section 20 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, a court may order a convicted person to provide the court with a statement of means. Failure to do so is an offence punishable by a fine of up to £1,000. Provision of false information or omission of any material fact is an offence punishable by a fine of up to £2,500.

  Remand Prisoners (Escorts)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances police forces may charge health authorities or trusts to escort prisoners in custody on remand but who are, during their custody, in the care of health authorities or trusts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The escorting of such patients is the responsibility of the health authority or trust concerned. Existing guidance makes it clear that they are free to seek police assistance with escorting if the circumstances appear to require this. Section 15 of the Police Act 1964 gives police authorities power to make charges for services which go beyond normal policing activity. We are currently reviewing guidance on this subject.

  Pools Coupons
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has as to what proportion of pools clients prefer to use lucky numbers rather than skill in making their bets on pools coupons.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No estimate has been made of the proportion of football pools clients who employ "lucky" numbers when making their selection on pools coupons. The fact remains, however, that the law requires the pools to take the form of a forecasting competition, in which there is an opportunity for clients who wish to do so to exercise skill and judgment in making their forecasts.

  Remand Prisons
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the average length of time that women have been held on remand in prisons in England and Wales since 1985.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest information is given in the table.

  Average time spent in custody by female untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners in Prison Service establishments, 1985–91

  Year

  Average Number of Days in Custody

  Untried Prisoners1 3

  Convicted Unsentenced Prisoners2 3

  1985

  41

  26

  1986

  44

  24

  1987

  45

  25

  1988

  51

  27

  1989

  44

  32

  1990

  40

  26

  41991

  40

  32

  1Time spent in Prison Service establishments before conviction.

  2Time spent in Prison Service establishments after conviction.

  510
  3Averages are subject to wide variation because of the small populations on which they are based.

  4Data for 1991 is provisional.

  These figures are published annually in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales", chapter 2, table 2.1, of the volume for 1990, Cm 1800.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women are currently being held on remand in prisons(a) in England and Wales and (b) in London.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table shows how many unsentenced females were in prison service establishments on 19 January. Of these Holloway prison is the only establishment in London.

  Establishment

  Number

  Holloway

  200

  Low Newton

  13

  New Hall

  32

  Pucklechurch

  28

  Risley

  63

  TOTAL

  336

  The numbers shown cover all females, both adults and young persons, remanded in custody by magistrates courts, committed for trial to the Crown court and convicted but not sentenced.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of women held on remand in prisons in England and Wales since 1985 have been acquitted of the charges for which they were held in detention.

  Mr. Jack
  It is estimated that about 17 per cent. of females held in custody on remand since 1985 have subsequently been acquitted.

  Police Custody
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been kept overnight in police custody following being charged, before being released on unopposed conditional magistrates bail the following day in each of the Welsh police authority areas in 1991–92.

  Mr. Jack
  This information is not held centrally and could be compiled by the individual police forces only at disproportionate cost.

  New Age Travellers
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish his proposals for dealing with the public order issues raised by the activities of new age travelers.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to make an announcement shortly.

  Police Officers (Assaults)
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to reduce the level of violent assaults against police officers.
  511
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office police scientific development branch undertakes a full programme of evaluation of new equipment and improvements to existing equipment. Recent work includes an examination of stab-resistant clothing. In order that their work might be better informed, my right hon. and learned Friend has commissioned an investigation into the circumstances in which police officers are assaulted.

  Terrorism (Central London)
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis indicating how many police officers have been withdrawn from service in the London borough of Greenwich in each of the last two years in order to increase the police presence in the central London area in response to the threat of terrorist activities.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is not our practice to disclose details of resources devoted to combating terrorism.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to ensure recruits into the police force are of the highest quality.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The responsibilty for making appointments to the police service lies solely with the chief officer of the police force concerned. All applicants are required to sit the police initial recruitment test, which was revised in 1991 and which is designed to test the precise abilities and attributes which are necessary for a successful career in the service.

  The accelerated promotion scheme for graduates, which offers places to young officers who are looking to rise rapidly to the higher ranks in the service, is also highly selective, with high standards.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to make representations to the European Community to enable exemptions to be granted to charities from the provisions of the current European Community directive on processing of personal data.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government are seeking, in discussion with their European Community partners, to ensure that the directive makes proper allowance for the needs of charities and other data users, and does not go beyond the 1981 Council of Europe convention on data processing on which the Data Protection Act 1984 is based.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Fissile Material Stocks
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has regarding the quantities of fissile material stocks held by(a) each of the other four acknowledged nuclear weapons states, (b) Israel and (c) India.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This information is not available.

  Nazi Persecution
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many outstanding claims for compensation from victims of Nazi persecution are known to his Department.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  No claim remains outstanding. There was a scheme between 1964–66, when a British tribunal disbursed £1 million to compensate victims of Nazi persecution held at concentration camps during the second world war. All cases were settled and the scheme closed in 1966. It is not now possible to reconsider cases nor to consider new claims.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the claims for compensation by Mr. Ted Roberts and Mr. Arthur Thomas, held by the Nazis at Drancy.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Between 1964 and 1966, a British tribunal disbursed £1 million in a scheme to compensate the victims of Nazi persecution held at concentration camps. The funds were fully disbursed and the scheme closed in 1966. Mr. Roberts's claim failed to meet the criteria and was turned down in 1964. Mr. Thomas made his claim known to the Department only recently. It is not now possible to admit new claims or to reconsider cases settled by the tribunal.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the development of an international plutonium store to enhance non-proliferation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We give careful consideration to any proposal which may contribute to international efforts to prevent proliferation.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the nuclear proliferation implications of the planned stockpiling of military usable plutonium by Japan over the next decade.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Japan, as a non-nuclear weapon state party to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, has undertaken a formal binding commitment not to develop nuclear weapons and has concluded a fullscope safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. We are satisfied that plutonium held by Japan will be covered by such safeguards, but we understand that it is Japan's intention to avoid the accumulation of stockpiles.

  Government Communications Headquarters
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about security arrangements at the GCHQ base in the Blackdown Hills, Somerset.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he has
  513
  taken to assure himself of the efficiency and effectiveness of the security arrangements at the GCHQ base in the Blackdown Hills, Somerset.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is satisfied that the security arrangements in place at the composite signals organisation station at Culmhead meet prescribed national standards for the protection of classified material.

  Serbia
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has of breaches of sanctions against Serbia by companies based in member states of the Community other than Greece.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations sanctions committee in New York has not confirmed any sanctions breach by a company based in a member state of the Community other than Greece.

  Mr. Mohd Iftikhar
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects a decision to be taken by the United Kingdom post in Islamabad on the entry clearance application by Mr. Mohd Iftikhar—ref. TH/20617/92—to join his wife in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In the absence of any information about this case, I have asked the high commission in Islamabad for a full report. I shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as soon as possible.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice his Department is currently giving to United Kingdom subjects working and living in Kuwait; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The current Foreign and Commonwealth Office consular travel advice for Kuwait is:"In view of heightened tension in the area, British nationals visiting Kuwait should exercise caution. In particular they are strongly advised not to travel anywhere near the border with Iraq. It would be easy and very dangerous to cross inadvertently. Anyone who has to travel north of the Mutla Ridge should consult HM Consul, British Embasy, Kuwait City (Tel. 240 3334–6 or 240 3324–7) in advance.
  British nationals travelling anywhere outside Kuwait City should take care, and let someone know where they are going. There are dangers from unexploded ordnance. Even where officially cleared, beaches and picnic spots should be avoided because of mines.
  Visitors are advised to register with the Embassy on arrival."

  Nuclear Test Ban
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the resumption of negotiations towards a comprehensive test ban treaty is now considered to be in the United Kingdom's security interests; and if he will make a statement.
  514
  Mr. Gard-Jones
  We have long made plain our support for the ultimate goal of a comprehensive test ban, but we have also emphasised our belief that this can be approached only on a step-by-step basis. In particular, we have drawn attention to the problems of verification, and have been actively involved in discussing these issues in the conference on disarmament, in Geneva.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which United Nations Security Council resolutions specifically authorised each of the allied coalition military attacks on Iraq in the current year, pursuant to chapter VII of the United Nations charter.

  Mr. Hogg
  The Security Council determined in its statements of 8 and 11 January that Iraq was in material breach of resolution 687 and its related resolutions, and warned Iraq that serious consequences would ensue from continued failure to comply with its obligations. Resolution 687 lays down the terms for the formal ceasefire between the coalition states and Iraq at the end of the hostilities mandated by the Security Council in resolution 678. These terms are binding in themselves but have also been specifically accepted by Iraq as a condition for the formal ceasefire to come into effect. In the light of Iraq's continued breaches of Security Council resolution 687 and thus of the ceasefire terms, and the repeated warnings given by the Security Council and members of the coalition, their forces were entitled to take necessary and proportionate action in order to ensure Iraqi compliance with those terms.

  The purpose of the no-fly zones in Northern and Southern Iraq is to monitor compliance by Iraq with United Nations Security Council resolution 688 in areas in which there are circumstances of extreme humanitarian need. Iraq has been warned frequently not to interfere with allied aircraft in the zones. Such aircraft have the inherent right of self-defence against Iraqi threats to their safety. Attacks against Iraqi missile systems and associated command and control centres were necessary and proportionate responses in self-defence to such threats.

  Somalia
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of the talks between the different factions of southern Somalia; and if he will list(a) the positive decisions reached and (b) the issues that remain to be resolved.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: We have received regular reports on the recent meeting of Somali factions in Addis Ababa. The factions have agreed in principle:

  (i) on a cease fire;

  (ii) to hold a National Reconciliation Conference, probably on 15 March in Addis Ababa;

  (iii) on the establishment of an ad hoc committee to continue discussion, in particular over the participation and the agenda for reconciliation conference;

  (iv) on the disarmament of heavy weapons;

  (v) on the encampment of factional militias.

  The agreement leaves key issues for discussion by an ad hoc committee. Conference attendance in particular is likely to be contentious. Implementation on the ground of the cease fire, disarmament and emcampment too will be a complex and difficult task.
  515
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the representatives who attended the meeting of Somali factions which ended on 13 January; and what assistance to the peace process was given by(a) the United Nations, (b) the United States of America, (c) the EC and (d) Britain.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: The recent meeting of Somali factions in Addis Ababa was arranged by the United Nations. We, the EC, and the United States have consistently supported the United Nations peace initiative in Somalia. The following representatives of Somali factions attend the meeting.

  1. Somali Africans Muki Organisation (SAMO) Mr. Mohamed Ramadan Arbow, Chairman

  2. Somali Democratic Alliance (SDA) Mr. Mohamed Farah Abudllahi, Chairman

  3. Somali Democratic Movement (SDM)1 Mr. Abdi Muse Mayow, Chairman Colonel Mohamed Nur Aliyou, Chairman1

  4. Somali National Democratic Union (SNDU) Mr. Ali Ismael Abdi, Chairman

  5. Somali National Front (SNF) General Omar Hagi Mohamed Hersi, Chairman

  6. Somali National Union (SNU) Dr. Mohamed Ragis Mohamed, Chairman

  7. Somali Patriotic Movement (SPM)1 General Aden Abdillahi Noor, Chairman

  8. Somali Patriotic Movement (SPM)1 Colonel Ahmed Omar Jess, Chairman

  9. Somali Salvation Democratic Front (SSDF) General Mohamed Abshir Musse, Chairman

  10. Southern Somali National Movement (SSNM) Colonel Abdi Warsame Isaaq, Chairman

  11. United Somali Congress (USC)1 General Mohamed Farah Aidid, Chairman

  12. United Somali Congress (USC)1 Mr. Mohamed Qanyare Afrah, Chairman

  13. United Somali Front (USF) Mr. Abdurahman Dualeh Ali, Chairman

  14. United Somali Party (USP) Mr. Mohamed Abdi Hashi, Chairman

  1 The USC, SPM and the SDM were divided into different factions owing different allegiances.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements have been made to include the traditional elders in Somalia in the March negotiations and in relief and reconstruction plans; and what plans he has to reduce the role of the warlords.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have made it clear to the United Nations that the reconciliation process and the development of rehabilitation plans must involve all sections of Somali society, particularly the traditional elders. Implementation of Security Council resolution 794 has reduced the ability of the warloads to hinder aid deliveries.

  Liberia
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Security Council's special representative has yet reported back to the Council with his evaluation of the situation in Liberia under resolution 788; what further steps are being considered; and if he will make a statement.
  516
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Nations Secretary-General's special envoy, Mr. Gordon-Somers, has reported informally to the Security Council on his visit to Liberia. He has now returned to Liberia. The Secretary-General is expected to deliver his report on Mr. Gordon-Somers's evaluation to the Security Council in the last week of January. We would not wish to anticipate that report.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to monitor developments of incursions of rebel forces from Liberia into Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have been monitoring Liberian rebel incursions into Seirra Leone through our high commission in Freetown. Our defence adviser in Accra visits Sierra Leone regularly.

TRANSPORT

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what was the proportion of those passing driving tests at the first time of taking in each of the last 10 years;

  (2) how many people successfully completing driving tests at the first time of taking in Wales in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Information on first-time passes is not collated regularly. Surveys carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory from time to time provide information on first-time pass rates for Great Britain.

  Aircraft (Air Circulation)
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what guidelines from the Civil Aviation Authority or his Department exist for the circulation rates of air in aircraft cabins necessary to safeguard the health of passengers and flight attendants; and if the CAA takes regular readings of circulation rates of aircraft in service;

  (2) if the Civil Aviation Authority or his Department will initiate a review with the joint aviation authorities into cabin air quality issues and their effects on the health of passengers, flight attendants and crew;

  (3) what assessment the Civil Aviation Authority has made of the dangers to the health of flight attendants and passengers of high levels of ozone in aircraft cabins encountered on some high altitude, high latitude flights; and what plans there are to introduce regulations to ensure ozone is kept within safe limits.

  Mr. Norris
  The Civil Aviation Authority and the joint aviation authorities—JAA—have no plans at present to review aircraft cabin air quality issues. The airworthiness requirements addressing fresh air supply in civil air transport aircraft cabins have remained unchanged for some years and the CAA does not believe there is sufficient evidence to suggest that a further review is necessary.

  The European—JAA—airworthiness regulations include requirements for minimum fresh air ventilation flows expressed in terms of fresh air quantity per minute per person. These minimum flows must be provided in the event of a failure in the air supply system; normal flow rates would be appreciably higher. The CAA does not consider it necessary to make regular checks of air flow rates in aircraft cabins.
  517
  The JAA have reviewed the need for changes to aircraft systems to limit ozone levels and have concluded that no additional design features are required.

  Workers (Reduced Mobility)
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when she next expects to discuss with other EC member states and the European Commission the proposed Council directive on minimum requirements to improve the mobility of and the safe transport to work of workers with reduced mobility; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The directive is not currently under discussion. The agenda for Council meetings is a matter for the current presidency in consultation with the Commission.

  Glasgow Airport
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will sponsor a study of the environmental impact of aircraft noise in the urban area under the flight path of Glasgow airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  I understand that Glasgow airport has undertaken to operate a noise monitoring scheme agreed with the local district council. It also produces noise contours regularly and has a local consultative committee at which noise issues are discussed. In these circumstances, I do not see a need for a study by the Department.

  Transport Policies (Land Use)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the research work recently undertaken by his Department on the interaction of land use and transport policies and needs.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The consultants' report will be published shortly.

  Driver Sleepiness
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention in relation to driver sleepiness.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We have now considered the review of research on driver fatigue undertaken for the Department by the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention. As a result, we have commissioned the Transport Research Laboratory to manage a research programme into fatigue and driving which will involve Professor Home's department at Loughborough university.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions, and for how much mileage in each case, county highways have been redesignated as trunk roads in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The information is not readily available in the form required.

  Road Schemes, Oxford
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for a public inquiry into the north Oxfordshire tin hat scheme, the details of the Marston interchange and the A40 bypass north of Headington; and what consideration has been given to holding a joint inquiry into the schemes.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Marston interchange is part of the A40 north of Oxford scheme. Draft orders for this scheme are expected to be published under the Highways Act 1980 later this year, followed by those for the A40 Headington bypass. The need for, and timing of, public inquiries into the schemes will be decided in the light of objections received following publication of the respective orders.

  Rural Train Services
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with British Rail the extension of request stopping on rural lines as an alternative to the closure of smal rural stations.

  Mr. Freeman
  I expect British Rail to have considered all realistic options before proposing closure of any station. I understand that any savings that might arise from making an unstaffed station a request stop are unlikely to be sufficient to influence materially its viability.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the United Kingdom's international search and rescue commitments under(a) the Chicago convention on civil aviation 1947, (b) convention of the high seas 1958, (c) convention on safety of life at sea 1974, (d) the maritime search and rescue convention 1979 and (e) other relevant treaties or conventions to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 21 January 1993]: The United Kingdom's international search and rescue commitments under (a) international convention on civil aviation 1944—Chicago convention—are:
  "Each contracting State undertakes to provide such measures of assistance to aircraft in distress in its territory as it may find practicable, and to permit, subject to control by its own authorities, the owners of the aircraft or authorities of the State in which the aircraft is registered to provide such measures of assistance as may be necessitated by the circumstances. Each contracting State, when undertaking search for missing aircraft, will collaborate in co-ordinated measures which may be recommended from time to time pursuant to this Convention."

  (b) convention of the high seas 1958 are:
  "Every coastal State shall promote the establishment and maintenance of an adequate and effective search and rescue service regarding safety on and over the sea and—where circumstances so require—by way of mutual regional arrangements co-operate with neighbouring States for this purpose."

  (c) convention of safety of life at sea 1974 are:
  "Each Contracting Government undertakes to ensure that any necessary arrangements are made for coast watching and for the rescue of persons in distress at sea round its coasts. These arrangements should include the establishment, operation and maintenance of such maritime safety facilities as are deemed practicable and necessary having regard to the density of the seagoing traffic and the navigational dangers and should, so far as possible, afford adequate means of locating and rescuing such persons."
  519
  (d) international convention on maritime search and rescue 1979 are:
  "Parties shall ensure that necessary arrangements are made for the provision of adequate search and rescue services for persons in distress at sea round their coasts".

  There are no other relevant search and rescue conventions and treaties to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the names of members and organisations they represent at the United Kingdom search and rescue committee and the district search and rescue and safety committee responsible for south-west Wales.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 22 January 1993]: A local coastal search and rescue committee responsible for south-west Wales has yet to be established. The district marine safety committee for Wales is split into subcommittees concerned with specific areas. Those present at the meeting of the sub-committee responsible for Whiteford Point to Cardigan Island including Milford Haven, Pembroke Dock and Fishguard were:

  Mr. J. Leak—DOT (Chairman)

  Mr. J. Frost—MHPA

  Mr. J. Haines—Cory Towage Ltd.

  Mr. G. Taylor—Llanelli District Council

  Mr. D. Williams—Llanelli District Council

  Mr. T. Bennett—Preseli District Council

  Mr. R. Phillips—Carmarthen District Council

  Mr. C. Morgan—Saundersfoot Harbour Commissioners

  Mr. F. V. Mountney—South Pembrokeshire District Council

  Mr. T. Lloyd—Dyfed County Council

  Mr. N, Saul—Sealink UK Ltd.

  Mr. M. Earley—HM Coastguard

  Mr. D. Millar—HM Coastguard

  Mr. M. P. Jones—MAFF

  Capt. N. Sainsbury—Cardiff Marine Office, DOT

  Mr. N. J. Spring—Cardiff Marine Office, DOT

  Mrs. A. Hay—Cardiff Marine Office, DOT (Secretary)

  The members of the United Kingdom Search and Rescue Committee are as follows:

  Mr. C. J. Harris (Chairman)—DoT DMEO

  Cdr. D. T. Ancona—DoT Chief Coastguard

  Mr. J. Astbury—DoT HMCG

  Capt. R. Pomphrey—DoT DSG1B

  Mr. A. G. Thorning—DoT Civil Aviation Safety Adviser

  Ms. D. Parkin—DoT CAP2

  Mr. E. J. Glover (Secretary)—DoT MEAD

  Miss P. A. Brown (Assistant Secretary) DoT MEAD

  AVM A. B. Blackley CBE AFC RAF—AOSNI RAF

  Wg Cdr. M. J. Carlyle—MoD SAR (RAF)

  Wg Cdr. White—Wg Cdr. Air RAF HQ 18 Gp

  Mr. C. Kingham—MoD (Air)

  Cdr. P. G. Millar—MoD (DNW/WASF)

  Mr. J. R. G. Clark—MoD SEC (AIR)

  Mr. R. M. Wilton—British Telecom

  Mr. R. Burdess—British Telecom

  Mr. H. E. Brenchley—Meteorological Office

  Mr. I. Small—CAA C(G)2

  AVM J. F. H. Tetley CB CVO—RNLI

  Lt. Cdr. B. Miles—RNLI

  Cdre. G. R. Cooper—RNLI

  Mr. R. A. Hall—Chamber of Shipping

  Capt. J. R. Corke—UK Offshore Operators Association

  Capt. N. MacD Turner RD—Trinity House

  Mrs. A. Welch—The Royal Aero Club

  Mr. R. Sjoberg—Royal Yachting Association

  Mr. B. Hayman—Royal Yachting Association

  Mr. W. F. Hay CBE—Scottish Fishermen's Federation

  Mr. R. Allan MBE—Scottish Fishermen's Federation

  Mr. G. E. Lawry—Cornish Inshore Fishermen's Federation

  Mr. D. R. Bond—National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers (NUMAST)

  Mr. M. Howard—National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers (NUMAST)

  520

  Capt. D. Whatling—British Air Line Pilots' Association (BALPA)

  Mr. T. Santamera—National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT)

  Mr. J. Kinahan—National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT)

  Capt. W. A. Kirwan—Director, Irish Maritime Emergency Service (IMES)

  Capt. A. V. Cherry—British Air Transport Association (BATA)

  Mr. R. D. Mapleson—British Air Transport Association (BATA)

  Capt. D. M. Cowell—Isle of Man Government

  Mr. Jeffard—North Yorkshire Police

  Mr. F. MacLennan QPM FBIM—Deputy Chief Constable

  ACPO(S)—Northern Constabulary

  Mr. R. Evans—Assistant Chief Constable

  ACPO(W)—South Wales Constabulary

  Capt. R. M. Bullen—States of Jersey

  Capt. T. A. Spencer—States of Guernsey

  Capt. P. R. White—British Ports Federation

  D. C. G. Brook Esq. CB CBE—Civil Emergencies Adviser Home Office

  MV Braer
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the chemical composition of dispersants, including the half-life of biodegradable substances, used to date to disperse oil spilled from the MV Braer.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 14 January 1993]: I have been asked to reply.

  In general, dispersants are a blend of surfactants and solvents which have the ability to modify surface tension between the oil and the water, promoting the formation of oil droplets and helping to prevent the oil reforming into one mass. Dispersion of the droplets in the water column makes the oil more accessible to the natural processes of degradation. The precise chemical composition of individual dispersants is subject to conditions of commercial confidentiality under which manufacturers have provided the information.

  No specific tests are carried out on the biodegradability of the dispersants. However, data on the substances used indicate that they are not environmentally persistent and most would degrade within a few weeks.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Training Organisations
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change VAT regulations as they currently apply to organisations providing training opportunities to the unemployed.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs and the Department o f Employment are jointly consulting with training and enterprise councils and other training providers in order to assess the impact of VAT on Government-funded training schemes. It is too early yet to predict whether these consultations will result in a recommendation for a change in VAT legislation.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what advice was given to valuation officers on the special circumstances relating to farm properties in relation to valuation for the council tax;
  521
  (2) what instructions were given to district valuers on checking properties for restrictive planning covenants in favour of agricultural use when establishing valuations for council tax bandings;

  (3) what was the base level for estimating farm incomes to establish the valuations of properties for council tax bandings.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The banding of dwellings for council tax has not been carried out by reference to farm incomes. General advice was given to listing officers on the approach to the valuation of farmhouses. The way in which special circumstances relating to particular categories of property are to be taken into account is a matter for individual listing officers.

  Listing officers were instructed to make appropriate general inquiries from local authorities as to the existence of planning restrictions limiting dwellings to occupation by persons engaged in agriculture.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the instructions given to district valuers on checking whether properties were connected to water, gas or electricity when establishing valuations for council tax bandings.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No specific instructions were issued to listing officers about checking for these services. The availability of water, gas or electricity are factors taken into account in any valuation of property as part of normal valuation practice.

  Printed Products (VAT)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the current obligations on the United Kingdom under the existing treaties of the European Community in respect of VAT on printed products, including books and newspapers and (b) the additional obligations arising from the treaty on European union.

  Sir John Cope
  Article 189 of the treaty establishing the European Economic Community places upon member states the obligation to comply with European Community law. There are no additional obligations in this regard in the treaty of European union. Community law in respect of VAT takes the form of directives, of which the most significant is the sixth VAT directive, as amended. The right of the United Kingdom to continue with its zero rates, including those on books, newspapers and printed products, is fully protected by that legislation.

  Contractors' Payments
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress towards the introduction of new contracting terms requiring companies awarded Government contracts to pay their subcontractors promptly.

  Mr. Portillo
  Government Departments and agencies have confirmed that they have introduced a clause into their contracts for goods and services which requires the supplier or contractor to pay its suppliers or subcontractors promptly.

  Taxation
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, column 148, what information he has on the average income tax liability of each decile group of tax-paying married men for the years 1986–87 to 1989–90.

  Mr. Dorrell
  For years prior to the introduction of independent taxation income tax liability was calculated on a tax unit basis and a married couple was counted as one tax unit. The table shows the average income tax liability of those tax units comprising a married couple, and the figures include the liability on both the husband's and the wife's income.

  Decile groups of taxpaying married couple tax units Per cent.

  Average income tax liability (£ per year)

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Bottom 10

  180

  150

  140

  180

  10–20

  450

  430

  410

  520

  20–30

  720

  710

  680

  810

  30–40

  970

  990

  980

  1,100

  40–50

  1,300

  1,300

  1,300

  1,400

  50–60

  1,600

  1,600

  1,600

  1,700

  60–70

  1,900

  2,000

  2,000

  2,100

  70–80

  2,400

  2,500

  2,500

  2,800

  80–90

  3,200

  3,300

  3,300

  3,900

  Top 10

  8,300

  9,000

  9,200

  10,700

  Average

  2,800

  2,900

  2,900

  3,300

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Business Debt
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on progress towards improvements to court procedures for business debt recovery.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Both the Lord Chancellor and I recognise the difficulties that late payment causes the business community. Although it would not be equitable to single out business debts for special treatment by the courts, we are committed to improving the efficiency of the court system for the benefit of all court users. For example, procedures have been streamlined and simplified through initiatives such as the establishment of the computerised summons production centre and the county court bulk centre; more general measures for replies to summonses to be sent directly to plaintiffs and allow them to prepare a range of court documents, giving greater control over the speed with which their cases move through the system. Recent changes to the small claims procedure—October 1992—have reduced the number of times a party is required to attend court.

  Other improvements, such as a measure to encourage district judges to help unrepresented litigants present their cases and giving them the right to be represented by someone other than a lawyer at a small claims hearing, are of equal benefit to business men as to other litigants. During 1993 improvements will be made to a number of post-judgment procedures including administration orders and oral examinations.

  Legal Aid and Advice
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of the adult population of(a) Cornwall and (b) Devon is currently eligible for (i) legal advice and assistance and (ii) legal aid for civil purposes irrespective of the level of contribution; and what is his estimate for the proportion which will be so eligible after 1 April.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information is not available. The only estimates of eligibility which are available are those which are made for England and Wales as a whole.

  Retrials
  Dame Angela Rumbold
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many cases in the last year section 8 of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968 has been breached in that the retrial was not listed within the two-month period; and what action he is taking to ensure that the provisions of section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 regarding the period for listing a retrial are complied with.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  On three occasions during 1992 the time limits laid down by section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 were not met.

  As the right hon. Lady is aware from my previous reply on 11 December 1992, at columns 801–2, existing instructions to court staff are that defendants in such cases must be arraigned within two months so as to comply with the statute. Guidelines for Crown court listing to be published on 1 February 1993, which have already been dispatched for issue to the Crown court, state that the appellant must be arraigned on a new indictment within two months. The Registrar of Criminal Appeals will, in addition, when retrials are ordered in the future, change the letter which he always sends to the Crown court and the legal representatives of the parties notifying them of the Court of Appeal's order, stating in clear terms the need to arraign the defendant in two months.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Burglaries
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what statistics he has for house burglaries in Carrowdore, Ballywalter and Greyabbey districts in the Ards peninsula in each of the past three years; whether policing has been increased in these areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mates
  [holding answer 25 January 1993]: Total house burglaries reported to the RUC in the Greyabbey station area, which includes the villages of Carrowdore, Ballywalter and Greyabbey, for the last three years were as follows:

  1990–11 burglaries

  1991–15 burglaries

  1992–13 burglaries

  Policing in the area is an operational matter for the Chief Constable of the RUC. I understand that police patrols have been increased in the Greyabbey station area during the last six months.

  Training
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what monitoring exists to assess the Training and Employment Agency's programme to encourage the development of skills within the two communities; what numbers of men and women are being trained within each community; and what monitoring takes place to assess the long-term impact of such training.

  Mr. Atkin
  [holding answer 22 January 1993]: Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. S. Crozier. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 22 January 1993:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what monitoring exists to assess the Training arid Employment Agency's programmes to encourage the development of skills within the two communities; what numbers of men and women are being trained within each community and what monitoring takes place to assess the long term impact of such training. As Chief Executive of the Agency, I have been asked to reply.
  The Training and Employment Agency has instituted arrangements to collect information by which it can monitor uptake of all its employment and training services, by reference to religion, gender and disability. After a developmental period this information is now coming on stream. It is as yet incomplete, partly because there are still substantial numbers of people who entered our programmes before its collection commenced but its quality is steadily improving. The information will be monitored monthly.
  Because there is a constant flow in and out of our programmes, the figures change from month to month. However at the last count there was a total of 27,350 people receiving training in our programmes. Of those whose religion we have so far been able to determine, 7,061 were Protestant (47%) and 7,927 were Catholic (53%). We cannot as yet establish the gender split, within these groups. Overall however 62% of participants were male and 38% were female.
  Establishing the long term impact of training measures is by definition a long term process, and is difficult to do accurately or exhaustively. However we collect information about the numbers and proportion of trainees who secure recognised vocational qualifications and employment. We plan in future to analyse this information so that we can establish what proportions of successful trainees are Protestant or Catholic, male or female, or disabled.

  Civil Service
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what regulations exist preventing or limiting the employment of citizens from(a) the Republic of Ireland, (b) other European Community countries and (c) Commonwealth nations in the Northern Ireland civil service.

  Mr. Mates
  [holding answer 22 January 1993]: Rules relating to the conditions under which persons may be appointed to the Northern Ireland civil service are set out in the Northern Ireland Civil Service Commission General Regulations 1991, a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  In the case of citizens of Commonwealth nations a work permit under the Immigration Act 1971 is required.

PRIME MINISTER

  Kashmir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise the issue of the status of Kashmir and the human rights of Kashmiri people with the Indian Prime Minister during his forthcoming visit to India.

  The Prime Minister
  I expect my discussions with the Indian Prime Minister to include the situation in Kashmir and our concerns about human rights.

  Arabic-speaking Adviser
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will appoint an Arabic-speaking adviser as part of the staff in 10 Downing Street.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Office Running Costs
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps are being taken by him to limit or reduce the cost of running of his office.

  The Prime Minister
  My office is subject to the same efficiency and value-for-money initiatives as the rest of the civil service. Between 1989–90 and 1991–92, the cost of running my office fell by just over 2 per cent. in real terms.

  CD-ROM
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements are in place for Government Departments to offer financial assistance for CD-ROM applications for blind and visually impaired people; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Department for Education is providing £40,000 for the development of software which will enable blind and partially-sighted people to gain full access to CD-ROM materials. This is being undertaken in collaboration with the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Open university and will be completed later this year. The software will be published by the Royal National Institute for the Blind.

  Reimbursement of computer costs Total

  Reimbursement of computer costs Total

  GPFH 1991–92 computer costs as a percentage

  Reimbursement forecast computer costs Total

  GPFH 1992–93 computer forecast as a percentage

  FHSA

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  Per cent.

  1992–93 £

  Per cent.

  Cleveland

  164,551

  390,595

  47.77

  279,000

  35.48

  Cumbria

  207,618

  291,129

  38.67

  367,000

  34.60

  Durham

  315,675

  472,302

  34.87

  603,000

  17.91

  Northumberland

  163,208

  337,076

  39.85

  109,000

  30.28

  Gateshead

  139,978

  112,098

  46.37

  160,000

  68.13

  Newcastle

  94,301

  188,000

  21.28

  149,000

  34.23

  North Tyneside

  66,176

  130,985

  21.90

  155,000

  27.74

  South Tyneside

  22,738

  153,310

  10.46

  53,000

  37.74

  Sunderland

  99,868

  62,796

  1.64

  150,000

  3.33

  Northern RHA

  1,274,113

  2,138,291

  34.42

  2,025,000

  29.38

  Humberside

  327,888

  742,389

  52.87

  413,000

  57.63

  North Yorkshire

  334,616

  816,768

  60.06

  472,000

  75.64

  Bradford

  273,818

  210,981

  21.20

  304,000

  0.00

  Calderdale

  87,973

  147,520

  20.97

  124,000

  44.35

HEALTH

  Multiple Pregnancies
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 7 July,Official Report, column 147, if she has yet reached a decision on publishing the counselling guide about multiple pregnancies for patients attending infertility centres; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is our intention to fund publication and distribution of the booklet "The Prospect of Triplets and Quads". Arrangements for this are being finalised.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will estimate the reduction in turnover experienced by dental practices in Cornwall as a result of the Government's recent changes in the method of remuneration.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The most recent quarter for which figures are available shows that the turnover, as reflected in gross income received, of dentists in Cornwall and Isles of Scilly family health services authority has increased by some 20 per cent. by comparing October to December 1992 with the same period in 1990.

  GP Fund Holders
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total amount of the computer budget in general practice per family health services authority, regional health authority and nationally in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93, or estimates, and what was the percentage of that computer budget given to first, second and third wave GP fund holders for each FHSA, RHA and nationally in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information shown in the table is based on quarterly returns from individual FHSAs. The way in which the information is collected from, and supplied by FHSAs, means that in some cases it may not accurately reflect the split between reimbursement for non-fund holders' computers and those for fund holders. Figures in 1990–91 do not distinguish non-fund holders' and fund holders' computer costs.
  527

  Reimbursement of computer costs Total

  Reimbursement of computer costs Total

  GPFH 1991–92 computer costs as a percentage

  Reimbursement forecast computer costs Total

  GPFH 1992–93 computer forecast as a percentage

  FHSA

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  Per cent.

  1992–93 £

  Per cent.

  Kirklees

  90,101

  289,665

  5.83

  375,000

  40.53

  Leeds

  259,692

  455,401

  72.11

  489,000

  77.71

  Wakefield

  261,735

  284,355

  20.84

  310,000

  86.13

  Yorkshire RHA

  1,635,823

  2,947,079

  46.26

  2,487,000

  58.26

  Derbyshire

  471,473

  1,085,302

  62.22

  1,147,000

  79.08

  Leicestershire

  475,200

  457,765

  41.65

  852,000

  49.53

  Lincolnshire

  261,553

  425,853

  52.26

  656,000

  69.66

  Nottinghamshire

  402,328

  633,071

  24.92

  561,000

  48.84

  Barnsley

  54,686

  118,154

  0.00

  116,000

  63.79

  Doncaster

  166,544

  120,396

  26.88

  361,000

  44.60

  Rotherham

  77,973

  116,782

  30.98

  130,000

  44.62

  Sheffield

  185,997

  839,567

  2.69

  735,000

  17.41

  Trent RHA

  2,095,754

  3,796,890

  35.22

  4,558,000

  54.43

  Cambridgeshire

  243,895

  337,503

  0.00

  522,000

  4.60

  Norfolk

  340,698

  270,400

  4.61

  799,000

  67.08

  Suffolk

  131,596

  680,541

  27.50

  710,000

  23.38

  East Anglian

  716,189

  1,288,444

  15.49

  2,031,000

  35.75

  Bedfordshire

  170,555

  574,916

  12.37

  411,000

  65.69

  Hertfordshire

  619,934

  719,229

  61.46

  1,045,000

  76.56

  Barnet

  49,118

  190,236

  0.00

  100,000

  0.00

  Brent and Harrow

  82,239

  277,200

  0.00

  450,000

  55.56

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  250,407

  269,023

  13.21

  177,000

  64.41

  Hillingdon

  124,309

  145,243

  28.43

  125,000

  40.00

  Kensington, Westminster and Chelsea

  102,058

  237,140

  63.60

  340,000

  2.35

  North West Thames RHA

  1,398,620

  2,412,987

  30.70

  2,648,000

  56.34

  Essex

  420,739

  908,000

  .0.0

  864,000

  48.50

  Barking and Havering

  77,756

  189,657

  23.70

  91,000

  8.79

  Camden and Islington

  116,859

  122,793

  .0.0

  124,000

  8.06

  City and East London

  160,184

  230,000

  13.95

  136,000

  0.00

  Enfield and Haringey

  107,118

  129,176

  13.76

  251,000

  11.55

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  117,957

  161,736

  0.00

  140,000

  0.00

  North East Thames RHA

  1,000,613

  1,741,362

  5.44

  1,606,000

  29.02

  East Sussex

  243,918

  305,603

  47.63

  801,000

  81.52

  Kent

  411,913

  1,036,195

  49.11

  1,043,000

  57.81

  Greenwich and Bexley

  87,126

  167,616

  29.77

  290,000

  46.55

  Bromley

  105,764

  130,526

  37.09

  77,000

  28.57

  Lanbeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  135,139

  218,862

  13.67

  329,000

  0.00

  South East Thames RHA

  983,860

  1,858,802

  42.10

  2,540,000

  55.63

  Surrey

  395,220

  974,250

  40.27

  308,000

  60.39

  West Sussex

  216,829

  848,879

  42.23

  717,000

  41.98

  Croydon

  77,180

  185,371

  36.91

  181,000

  23.20

  Kingston and Richmond

  88,667

  311,207

  45.54

  175,000

  34.86

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  148,649

  421,660

  16.11

  322,000

  18.63

  South West Thames RHA

  926,545

  2,741,367

  37.53

  1,703,000

  38.17

  Dorset

  239,321

  739,422

  51.16

  472,000

  66.10

  Hampshire

  509,500

  923,102

  52.58

  617,000

  23.34

  Wiltshire

  209,551

  198,000

  8.08

  130,000

  19.23

  Isle of Wight

  49,054

  92,136

  78.64

  92,000

  23.91

  Wessex RHA

  1,007,426

  1,952,660

  48.76

  1,311,000

  38.37

  528 529

  Reimbursement of computer costs Total

  Reimbursement of computer costs Total

  GPFH 1991–92 computer costs as a percentage

  Reimbursement forecast computer costs Total

  GPFH 1992–93 computer forecast as a percentage

  FHSA

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  Per cent.

  1992–93 £

  Per cent.

  Berkshire

  200,482

  587,964

  44.18

  764,000

  65.71

  Buckinghamshire

  325,477

  631,026

  61.94

  657,000

  69.41

  Northamptonshire

  186,181

  534,029

  69.93

  437,000

  48.28

  Oxfordshire

  231,169

  670,835

  33.14

  205,000

  41.46

  Oxford RHA

  943,309

  2,423,854

  51.42

  2,063,000

  60.79

  Avon

  342,890

  650,000

  33.08

  613,000

  67.54

  Cornwall and Scilly Isles

  221,977

  241,900

  36.77

  247,000

  67.61

  Devon

  444,429

  1,071,252

  46.83

  1,110,000

  32.43

  Gloucestershire

  195,681

  422,702

  44.30

  424,000

  46.70

  Somerset

  250,570

  638,953

  27.01

  289,000

  21.45

  South Western RHA

  1,455,547

  3,024,807

  38.53

  2,683,000

  44.76

  Hereford and Worcester

  355,423

  473,700

  53.52

  644,000

  75.78

  Shropshire

  96,265

  297,328

  44.67

  158,000

  18.99

  Staffordshire

  291,961

  695,641

  28.34

  356,000

  16.85

  Warwickshire

  122,586

  457,340

  52.13

  466,000

  75.97

  Birmingham

  225,436

  374,906

  0.00

  374,000

  42.78

  Coventry

  69,344

  178,207

  33.67

  292,000

  38.36

  Dudley

  58,259

  64,695

  0.00

  417,000

  23.98

  Sandwell

  108,346

  313,951

  28.88

  271,000

  29.52

  Solihull

  94,236

  267,880

  55.25

  267,000

  86.89

  Walsall

  48,069

  127,429

  24.50

  216,000

  60.65

  Wolverhampton

  51,266

  77,138

  0.00

  100,000

  —

  West Midlands RHA

  1,521,191

  3,328,215

  34.61

  3,561,000

  49.06

  Cheshire

  644,647

  1,030,878

  15,85

  1,288,000

  19.02

  Liverpool

  121,994

  371,000

  0.00

  412,000

  20.39

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  152,865

  310,131

  62.87

  470,000

  55.32

  Sefton

  314,332

  264,038

  39.67

  260,000

  57.69

  Wirrel

  74,132

  408,187

  0.00

  391,000

  8.95

  Mersey RHA

  1,307,970

  2,384,234

  19.42

  2,821,000

  27.44

  Lancashire

  459,282

  672,519

  13.76

  771,000

  24.25

  Bolton

  150,175

  150,476

  52.01

  141,000

  81.56

  Bury

  48,107

  109,852

  0.00

  214,000

  0.00

  Manchester

  62,032

  209,285

  3.92

  234,000

  20.51

  Oldham

  70,779

  88,154

  34.92

  85,000

  35.29

  Rochdale

  118,082

  136,133

  24.09

  154,000

  35.06

  Salford

  47,086

  201,837

  0.00

  160,000

  18.75

  Stockport

  123,543

  175,398

  47.29

  215,000

  73.95

  Tameside

  67,211

  138,193

  25.02

  96,000

  53.13

  Trafford

  54,985

  90,814

  0.00

  131,000

  58.78

  Wigan

  103,448

  105,807

  0.00

  138,000

  27.54

  North Western RHA

  1,304,730

  2,078,468

  17.33

  2,339,000

  33.73

  England

  17,571,690

  34,117,460

  34.07

  34,376,000

  45.21

  Incontinence
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) men and (b) women in England and Wales suffer from incontinence.

  Mr. Yeo
  Estimates vary according to the definitions used by researchers, but up to about 3 million adults and children in England and Wales may be affected. A Medical Research Council survey showed a prevalence of urinary incontinence of 8.5 per cent. in women and 1.6 per cent. in men aged 15 to 64 and 11.6 per cent. in women and 6.9 per cent. in men aged 65 and over.

  Smoking
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the risk to women who are(a) smokers and (b) non-smokers and taking the contraceptive pill of a heart attack, stroke or other cardiovascular disease.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The risk of myocardial infarction, stroke and other cardiovascular diseases in young women is increased approximately three to four fold by either oral contraceptive use or by smoking. When the two are combined there is an approximately tenfold increase in risk overall.
  531
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the cost to the national health service of advice from doctors to their patients in respect of giving up smoking per year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the number of smokers who die each year in the United Kingdom as a result of smoking and smoking-related diseases.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is estimated that in the United Kingdom about 110,000 deaths each year are smoking related.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the number of deaths in the United Kingdom each year from lung cancer caused by passive smoking.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In its fourth report published in 1988, the independent scientific committee on smoking and health estimated the number of lung cancer deaths in non smokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke over most of their lives as"several hundred deaths per year".

  Breast Cancer
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of women with breast cancer in Britain have, since 1980, died within(a) one year, (b) three years and (c) five years of the original diagnosis being made; and what comparison she has made of the survival rates of women with breast cancer in other EC countries.

  Mr. Sackville
  The one, three and five-year relative survival rates—per cent.—for cases registered in 1981 in(a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland are given in the table. More recent figures for England and Wales are not available. Those for Scotland show no change in the five-year relative survival rate, but small improvements in the one and three-year rates. Figures on cancer survival are not published by any other EC country.

  One, three and five year relative survival (per cent.) of cases of breast cancer registered in England and Wales and in Scotland in 1981

  one year relative survival rate

  three year relative survival rate

  five year relative survival rate

  England and Wales

  86

  71

  62

  Scotland

  87

  72

  62

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had sight tests in Nottingham, North, or the next biggest geographical area for which figures are available, in(a) the last 12-month period for which figures are available and (b) 1 January 1988 to 31 December 1988; and what proportion of these were over the age of 65 years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Figures are not collected in respect of parliamentary constituencies. The numbers of national 532
  health service sight tests paid for in each financial year by the Nottingham family health services authority are shown in the table.

  Year

  Number of sight tests

  1987–88

  238,980

  1988–89

  254,830

  11989–90

  111,410

  1990–91

  82,950

  1991–92

  96,850

  1 From 1 April 1989, NHS sight tests were restricted to certain groups in the population. The sight tests paid for in 1989–90 include some conducted prior to 1 April 1989. The remainder paid for in 1989–90 do not represent a full year under the new system, because of the delay in payments. The figure for 1989–90 is not, therefore, directly comparable with that for 1990–91.

  The Department does not collect information on either the number of private sight tests carried out, or the number of people aged over 65 who have sight tests. The figures are collected by financial year.

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date she proposes to visit St. Bartholomew's hospital to discuss the Tomlinson report; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have visited St. Bartholomew's hospital twice to listen to views on the Tomlinson report, We expect to announce our policy on the future of London's health services and medical education shortly.

  Children in Hospital
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what examination she has made of financial hardship faced by families visiting children in hospital.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 20 January at column 321.

  Tuberculosis
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of tuberculosis have been reported in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Notifications of Tuberculosis1 in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland since 1985.

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  1985

  5,583

  707

  274

  83

  1986

  5,743

  756

  249

  108

  1987

  4,853

  560

  232

  99

  1988

  4,960

  528

  201

  86

  1989

  5,223

  533

  209

  94

  1990

  5,010

  563

  194

  131

  1991

  5,268

  546

  166

  96

  1 Excludes chemoprophylaxis.

  533
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what moneys are expended nationally on tuberculosis vaccinations in schools in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The National Health Service Supplies Authority purchases tuberculosis vaccine—BCG—on behalf of the national health service. It is for district health authorities to arrange for immunisation and costs vary from one authority to another.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of rickets and TB have been reported in the Liverpool health authority area in the past five years; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested about the number of cases of rickets is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. D. H. Tod, chairman of Liverpool health authority, for details. Information on the number of cases of tuberculosis in Liverpool is given in the table.

  Number of cases

  1991

  44

  1990

  55

  1989

  70

  1988

  49

  1987

  36

  Source: OPCS.

  Tobacco
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to license tobacco retailers.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on the advertising of tobacco.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government's policy on tobacco advertising is set out in the "Health of the Nation" White Paper.

  Children's Hospices
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children's hospices are funded by Government funds for(a) revenue costs and (b) capital projects.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department is giving direct assistance to voluntary organisations, in one case contributing to the running costs of an existing children's hospice and, in another, to the cost of planning a new hospice soon to be constructed. Support for this new development is from a £5 million programme of pilot projects which we are funding to identify good practice in the care of children with life-threatening illnesses. We are not providing any help with capital costs. Health authorities may purchase services for children with life-threatening illness from statutory and voluntary sector bodies, but no details of these are held centrally.

  Child Care
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress made towards implementing the European Council recommendation 92/241/EEC on child care.

  Mr. Yeo
  Local authorities, national voluntary organisations, child care providers in the private and voluntary sectors and other relevant organisations were sent copies of the recommendation 92/241/EEC on 11 January together with the Department's further guidance on the day care provisions in the Children Act—LAC (93)1. Copies of the recommendation and the guidance are available in the Library.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her Department's definition of informed consent under her Department's guidance for dealing with patients, in the context of women consenting to an abortion.

  Mr. Sackville
  Patients have the right under common law to give or withhold consent prior to examination or treatment. Informed consent as such does not form part of English law. Patients are, however, entitled to receive sufficient information in a way that they can understand about the proposed treatment, the possible alternatives and any substantial risks, so that they can make a balanced judgment. A doctor will exercise his or her professional skill and judgment in deciding what information a patient is given about a particular treatment.

  This principle applies to all forms of treatment, including abortion.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions exist for reporting physical complications following abortions which occur after the form notifying her Department of the abortion has been submitted.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no formal procedure for reporting complications occurring after an abortion has been notified to the Chief Medical Officer, but doctors can provide additional information.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if charities providing abortion services for the NHS through agency agreements with individual district health authorities may also enter into agency agreements with individual GP fund holders; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Terminations of pregnancy are not included in the list of goods and services which GP fund holders may purchase. We have no plans at present to change this.

  Consultants
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on relating the system of distinction awards for consultants to their performance, with particular reference to outcomes.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The leaflet "Consultants' Distinction Awards", issued in October 1990, sets out general guidelines on the criteria used in assessing consultants for
  535
  awards. A copy of the leaflet is available in the Library. This makes clear that, in considering consultants for awards, awards committees look for performance over and above what is normally expected in respect of service to patients, teaching and the management and development of the service.

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the reform of the system of distinction awards—merit payments—for consultants.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are at present no plans to change the distinction awards system.

  Hospital Visits
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list each ministerial visit to(a) Charing Cross, (b) Guy's, (c) London chest hospital, (d) Queen Charlotte's, (e) Queen Elizabeth hospital, Hackney, (f) Royal Brompton, (g) Royal Marsden, (h) St. Mary's, Paddington, (i) St. Thomas's, (j) St. Mark's, (k) St. Bartholomew's. (l) UCH-Middlesex,
  (m) the Royal National Ear, Nose and Throat, and (n) the Hospital for Tropical Diseases, since 23 October 1992; how long the Minister spent at each hospital to the nearest quarter hour; and if she will indicate for each hospital whether the Minister held discussions on the Tomlinson report with (i) management, (ii) consultants, (iii) junior doctors, (iv) nurses or (v) staff side.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In addition to visits by my colleagues I have either visited or had discussions with representatives of all the hospitals mentioned. I have visited St. Batholomew's twice to listen to their views on the Tomlinson report. I have also had meetings with professional, educational and trade union representatives.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the rules relating to the making available to NHS patients of services and equipment available for private patients in NHS trusts; and what is the position in respect of the laser treatment for myopia at St. James's hospital, Leeds.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The availability of such services within the National Health Service is dependent on the decisions of purchasers, who are responsible for assessing the health care needs of their resident populations.

  The corneal laser centre based at St. James's hospital, Leeds offers a service supplied by an independent company. The laser equipment will be used for the private treatment of short sight, a service currently not available under the NHS. It will also be made available to treat NHS patients with corneal scars. The revenue from leasing the premises and the royalties the trust receives from each operation provides additional funds for services for all patients at the hospital.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the basis of the standards set in the citizens charter for response performance of emergency ambulance services.
  536
  Mr. Sackville
  The patients charter performance standards reflect those first recommended to the ambulance service in 1990 as a national benchmark which all services should strive to meet or better.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring her Department is undertaking of implementation of care in the community in respect(a) of local authority variations around the United Kingdom, (b) existing proposed provision of residential facilities in the private sector and (c) the effectiveness of dialogue between interested parties over each individual client's needs.

  Mr. Yeo
  The social services inspectorate and regional health authorities are currently undertaking their fourth round of monitoring of the progress being made by English social services and health authorities towards the full implementation of the Government's community care reforms from April this year. This monitoring is paying particular attention to liaison between authorities arid between the statutory and independent sectors. The Department routinely collects data on the number of private residential care home places in England. Arrangment in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  West Midlands RHA
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will order the publication of the management letter by the district health auditor which was sent to the West Midlands regional health authority in December 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No. This is a management document. Its publication is a matter for West Midlands regional health authority.

  Mr. Joseph Raphael
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make a statement concerning the escape from custody of Joseph Raphael on 19 January;

  (2) what changes she intends to make in the procedures for the transportation of remand prisoners from hospital to court;

  (3) if she will make a statement on the escape by Joseph Raphael while being taken to the Old Bailey in the company of nurses from Cane Hill secure unit.

  Mr. Yeo
  I understand that Mr. Raphael was detained in the secure unit at Cane Hill hospital on 6 November 1992 under section 35 of the Mental Health Act 1983, which provides for an accused person to be remanded to hospital for a report on his medical condition. He was to appear at the central criminal court on 19 January 1993 on a charge of murder. He absconded from the custody of the nurses who were escorting him from the hospital to the court. He subsequently gave himself up to the police and was detained at Brixton prison.

  The Ravensbourne NHS Trust, which manages the Cane Hill unit, has stated that a decision was taken following clinical assessment to transport Mr. Raphael without a police escort. The trust is holding an internal

  537
  inquiry into the incident and the events leading up to it. We will be studying the inquiry report carefully and will consider in consultation with the Home Office what further guidance might be needed for hospitals and the police about their responsibilities in this area.

  Managerial Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many senior nurse manager posts there were in each region in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: Information on the number of nurse manager posts in each region is not collected centrally. The table shows the number of senior nurses in posts paid on review body pay scales in each year since 1989. There are in addition senior nurse managers on the pay arrangements for general and senior managers; the numbers of these senior nurses cannot be disaggregated from other senior managerial staff. The fall in nurse numbers is a result of the continuing transfer of senior nursing staff to the managerial grades and the growing numbers of Project 2000 trainees who are not counted in the manpower figures.

  Senior Nurses, by RHA, whole time equivalents

  September 1989

  September 1990

  September 1991

  Northern

  240

  150

  120

  Yorkshire

  200

  140

  170

  Trent

  250

  190

  160

  East Anglian

  90

  60

  60

  North West Thames

  300

  300

  150

  North East Thames

  350

  260

  210

  South East Thames

  240

  170

  120

  South West Thames

  180

  130

  110

  Wessex

  140

  110

  90

  Oxford

  130

  120

  120

  South Western

  140

  90

  70

  West Midlands

  310

  270

  240

  Mersey

  140

  100

  90

  North Western

  270

  250

  260

  SHAs

  50

  40

  40

  OSAs

  —

  —

  —

  England

  3,030

  2,370

  2,010

  Source: Non Medical Manpower Census, HAP(STATS)B, NHSME Figures are rounded to the nearest 10 wte.

  Radiation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what facilities and experienced personnel are available within the national health service to detect, study and report on the incidence of illness resulting from nuclear radiation contamination.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: Currently, there is no known method of directly identifying disease in an individual which has been induced wholly or in part by exposure to low levels of radiation in the environment. In order to establish whether an excess incidence of disease in a given population is associated in some way with external factors, accepted public health practice is to subject the available data to epidemiological study. The national health service employs public health professionals in each region and district whose responsibilities include monitoring the health of the local population and investigating unusual patterns of disease. Statistics on disease are also monitored at the national
  538
  level. In addition, the Department has established the small area health statistics unit which is concerned with the assessment of any risk to the health of the population from point source contamination. In relation to environmental radiation, the results of epidemiological studies are referred to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, a group of independent experts which was set up to assess and advise the Government on the health effects of natural and man-made radiation in the environment, and to assess the adequacy of the available data and the need for further research.

  Mrs. Tracey Evans
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will order a public inquiry into the circumstances which led to the discharge of Mrs. Tracey Evans from Brighton general hospital; what social services involvement occurred in this case; and what assessment has been made of the implications for the treatment of schizophrenics arising out of the case of Tracey Evans.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 22 January 1993]: No. The reports I have received from the local agencies involved indicated that there was nothing untoward which suggested that Mrs. Evans would harm her children.

  This is a tragic case and is one that will fall within the remit of the inquiry which the Government have asked the Royal College of Psyschiatrists to establish in consultation with the other relevant professional groups to
  "Inquire into the circumstances leading up to and surrounding homicides and suicides committed by people under the care of or recently discharged by the specialist psychiatric services, to identify factors in the patients' management which may be related to the deaths, and to recommend measures designed to reduce the number of such incidents".

EDUCATION

  Lingua Programme
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if pupils at independent schools are eligible to participte in the programme of exchanges under the Lingua programme; and what are the reasons for these arrangements.

  Mr. Boswell
  Under the terms of the Council of Education Ministers' decision of 28 July 1989, upon which the Lingua programme is based, eligibility for support for pupil exchanges is limited to pupils attending educational establishments supported with public funds. In line with this, pupils at independent schools in the United Kingdom are not eligible for support under the current programme.

  Socially Responsible Parenthood
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he has taken to develop a post-school education strategy aimed at promoting socially responsible parenthood as recommended in the Elton report on discipline in schools.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government's general policy for further and higher education is to create a framework to enable institutions to meet the widely differing needs of students. It is for institutions to decide which courses to
  539
  offer, and to help students to select those courses which meet their needs. The Government would expect institutions, including local authority adult centres, to take account of the need for education about parenthood, building on that provided in school in collaboration with other appropriate agencies, including the youth service.

  School Management
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many local education authorities have schools which take formal account of the views of pupils on matters relating to school management; and whether these arrangements meet the standards expected by his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally. Pupil participation in school management is a matter for individual schools and their governing bodies.

  School Governors
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many local education authorities provide regular training courses for school governors which meet the standards expected by his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  All LEAs arrange for training for school governors. The 1991 HMI report "The Quality of Training and Support for Governors in Schools and Colleges" found that 81 per cent. of training sessions inspected were sound or very good. Training and support were reaching a high proportion of governors.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the latest available figures for the number of pupils excluded from school(a) permanently and (b) temporarily.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has been monitoring permanent exclusions at maintained schools over a two-year period starting with summer term 1990 under the national exclusions reporting system—(NERS). Some preliminary findings from NERS were incorporated in our recently published discussion paper on exclusions. Some 3,000 pupils were permanently excluded in the first year of the NERS exercise. Information on temporary exclusions is not collected by the Department.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many local education authorities have schools with conditional re-entry agreements as a means of readmitting excluded pupils to schools; and what assessment he has made of their effectiveness.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  School Closures
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education on what occasions he has used his powers under the Education Reform Act 1988 to close schools whose governing bodies were deemed to be failing in the performance of their statutory duties.

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Schools (Communication Systems)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many local education authorities have formal systems of communication within their schools and between schools and parents, governors, their communities and outside agencies, as recommended in the Elton report on discipline in schools; what percentage of schools have such systems of communication; and to what extent they meet the standards expected by his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Health Education
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what plans he has to monitor the response of local education authorities to the ending of grants for education support and training—GEST—funding for health education co-ordination and the impact on the employment of dedicated health education staff;

  (2) what plans he has to monitor the continued provision of drugs education in schools from 1 April.

  Mr. Forth
  The monitoring arrangements for the GEST preventive health education programme were set out in the original draft circular inviting bids, which issued on 1 July 1991. Amongst other things, this made clear that LEAs would be asked to provide by July 1993 a brief report on the work undertaken in 1992–93 and its effectiveness. My right hon. Friend will look to the Office for Standards in Education to provide him with information and advice about all aspects of education provision in schools. This will include provision made for preventive health education, aspects of which are included in the national curriculum and must be studied by all pupils.

  Educational Psychologists
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many local education authorities have developed working relationships between schools and educational psychologists to provide advice on the management of behaviour in groups and in schools as a whole which meet with the standards expected by his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  St. Mary's School, Hendon
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects to determine the application by St. Mary's school, Hendon, to become a grant-maintained school.

  Mr. Forth
  No application for grant-maintained status from St. Mary's school, Hendon, has yet been received. Following the positive ballot result at the school in favour of grant-maintained status on 7 December, the governors must publish proposals within six months from that date and submit them to the Secretary of State for determination.

  Schools (Arson Attacks)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the latest available figures for the incidence of arson attacks in schools; and if he will make a statement.
  541
  Mr. Forth
  The number of incidents of arson in schools in England is not collected centrally. Information on the number of incidents of deliberate—or probably deliberate—fires in maintained primary and secondary schools in England is collected as part of the Department's annual survey of security in schools. In the financial year 1990–91 there were an estimated 3,100 such fires.

  Schools (Lunch-time Supervision)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many local education authorities provide lunch-time supervision; what percentage of schools in each local education authority provide such supervision; how much is spent; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which this supervision meets the standards expected by his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Schools Police Liaison
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he has taken to monitor the way in which local education authorities have assessed the number of schools in their areas which would particularly benefit from school-police liaison projects; and what percentage of such schools in each local education authority have these projects.

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, school governing bodies are required to report annually to parents on steps taken to strengthen links with the community, including the police. Advice on good practice in police/school liaison was contained in HM inspectorate's publication "Our Policeman" published in 1989. The Elton report on "Discipline in Schools", distributed to
  542
  all LEAs and schools in March 1989, also gave advice on links with the police. The Department is currently funding a research project by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders on the role of the education service in youth crime prevention. My right hon. Friend will wish to review the general question of links between schools and the police in the light of the outcomes of that project.

  Funding
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many local education authorities have made representations to him on the funding of education services in the last three months.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has received representations from a number of local education authorities.

  Surplus School Places, Hampshire
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total number of surplus school places in each district council area in Hampshire in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools; and what was the basis on which these figures were calculated.

  Mr. Forth
  The information is not available in the form requested. We estimate that in 1991 there were 24,719 surplus primary places and 10,373 surplus secondary places in Hampshire, representing 17 per cent. and 16 per cent. of total capacity respectively. These figures derive from the Department's survey of school capacity which was carried out during the 1990–91 academic year. Surplus place figures were calculated by comparing the capacity derived from the more open enrolment formula with the number of pupils on roll at each school.

  Schools Expenditure, Hampshire
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the capital expenditure on(a) nursery schools, (b) primary schools and (c) secondary schools in Hampshire in each of the years since 1987, expressed in 1987 values.

  Mr. Forth
  The table shows the information requested:

  Capital spending by Hampshire LEA on schools, expressed in cash terms and in 1987 values

  Nursery and Primary Schools

  Secondary Schools

  £'000

  £'000

  1987–88

  11,407

  7,306

  1988–89

  15,169

  7,015

  1989–90

  12,588

  5,846

  1990–91

  11,412

  7,438

  Notes:

  1. 1990–91 is the latest year for which data are available.

  2. Capital expenditure on nursery and primary schools is not identified separately in the returns made by local authorities.

  3. Real value figures were derived by applying the GDP deflators announced with the Autumn Statement.

  Nursery Education, Hampshire
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of three and four-year-old children attended nursery school or nursery classes in Hampshire in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Forth
  In each year between 1987 and 1991—the latest year for which information is available—approximately 5 per cent. of the local three and four-year-old population attended maintained nursery schools and classes in Hampshire.

  Mandatory Awards
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will review the arrangements for the provision of mandatory awards.

  Mr. Boswell
  These arrangements are already kept under periodic review.

  Schools ACGS: 1992–93 and 1993–94

  (£000s)

  LEA

  Total Schools ACG Bid 1992–93

  Total Schools ACG 1992–93

  Total Schools ACG Bid 1993–94

  Total Schools ACG 1993–94

  Avon

  8.904

  4,269

  13,012

  4,780

  Bedfordshire

  7,840

  3,789

  4,788

  2,827

  Berkshire

  21,703

  5,238

  22,707

  4,421

  Buckinghamshire

  12,412

  5,289

  13,016

  5,869

  Cambridgeshire

  26,667

  6,380

  21,740

  7,638

  Cheshire

  24,991

  8,605

  30,688

  9,676

  Cleveland

  6,760

  3,788

  9,396

  3,657

  Cornwall

  18,476

  4,443

  16,000

  2,864

  Cumbria

  19,115

  10,024

  20,260

  8,298

  Derbyshire

  41,748

  15,997

  40,245

  12,885

  Devon

  19,165

  9,855

  21,406

  10,592

  Dorset

  20,581

  4,735

  19,980

  5,196

  Durham

  27,504

  7,001

  40,197

  5,306

  East Sussex

  51,441

  17,076

  41,132

  11,020

  Essex

  56,032

  17,954

  44,992

  11,643

  Gloucestershire

  16,446

  6,980

  29,223

  8,598

  Hampshire

  17,377

  12,086

  26,375

  9,605

  Hereford and Worcester

  10,884

  3,331

  10,640

  2,396

  Hertfordshire

  23,519

  5,677

  17,980

  4,009

  Humberside

  21,275

  9,049

  24,479

  6,936

  Isle of Wight

  6,425

  1,584

  6,015

  1,939

  Kent

  39,229

  20,229

  38,444

  15,820

  Lancashire

  31,926

  20,456

  37,631

  11,129

  Maths and Physics
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what progress he is making in standards of teacher training in maths and physics.

  Mr. Forth
  All courses of initial teacher training for primary teachers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland must include at least 100 hours devoted to maths and 100 hours devoted to science. A number of courses for secondary teachers now provide for "balanced" science, including physics. Postgraduate teacher training courses in "balanced" science enable students whose initial degree was in one science to spend part of the course extending their knowledge of the others.

  Under the programme of grants for educational support and training, the Department for Education supports 20-day designated courses of in-service training to enhance the subject knowledge of primary maths and science teachers. They make a valuable contribution to improving teaching standards.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the bids for capital expenditure for education from shire counties in 1993–94 and 1992–93 and the annual capital guideline notified by the Department for Education for 1993–94 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Forth
  The figures in the table represent the bids and annual capital guidelines—ACGs—for county and voluntary controlled schools in 1992–93 and 1993–94. They do not include capital work at sixth form, tertiary and further education colleges, the responsibility for which will transfer on 1 April 1993 to the Further Education Funding Council, or capital work at voluntary-aided schools.

  The allocation figures also exclude resources issued during the current year by means of supplementary credit approvals—SCAs. No SCAs have yet been issued for 1993–94.
  545

  LEA

  Total Schools ACG Bid 1992–93

  Total Schools ACG 1992–93

  Total Schools ACG Bid 1993–94

  Total Schools ACG 1993–94

  Leicestershire

  25,919

  8,372

  16,310

  6,859

  Lincolnshire

  26,435

  12,263

  21,646

  10,471

  Norfolk

  9,347

  2,811

  9,457

  3,987

  North Yorkshire

  12,236

  6,222

  10,883

  5,296

  Northamptonshire

  8,087

  4,107

  8,603

  4,558

  Northumberland

  7,343

  2,516

  3,782

  2,199

  Nottinghamshire

  20,549

  5,182

  11,267

  2,989

  Oxfordshire

  20,179

  5,681

  25,525

  3,301

  Shropshire

  10,398

  4,109

  4,485

  3,842

  Somerset

  9,071

  5,134

  14,762

  4,207

  Staffordshire

  18,048

  7,805

  17,790

  6,041

  Suffolk

  18,343

  9,169

  21,070

  7,494

  Surrey

  17,976

  5,482

  26,031

  10,167

  Warwickshire

  10,802

  1,988

  12,011

  2,058

  West Sussex

  10,950

  3,645

  18,801

  4,277

  Wiltshire

  12,175

  4,137

  7,055

  2,518

  Notes:

  1. The figures do not include capital work at FE, sixth form or tertiary colleges as, from 1 April 1993, responsibility for the funding of capital work in such institutions will transfer to the Further Education Funding Council.

  2. The figures are ACGs only and do not include any schools supplementary credit approvals issued in year. No supplementary credit approvals for 1993–94 have yet been issued.

  3. The figures do not include work related to the technology schools initiative as these allocations are made via supplementary credit approvals.

  4. The figures do not include bids or capital allocations for work at voluntary aided schools.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Research and Development
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the Government's spending on civil research and development in the latest available year; and what were the comparable figures for the United States of America and Japan.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  Data in the 1992 annual review of Government-funded research and development show that Government spent £2,772.8 million—0.51 per cent. of GDP—in 1990–91 and an estimated £2,830 million in 1991–92 on civil research and development.

  In calendar year 1990, the latest year for which comparable figures are available, Government expenditure on civil research and development in the United States of America and in Japan was £14,524 million—0.44 per cent. of GDP—and £5,651 million—0.43 per cent. of GDP—respectively.

  Departments of Physics
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to maintain the dual support system in respect of departments of physics, not currently considered to be in the top research rank, to ensure that they have the funds to develop ideas that may move them up the scale.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  All university departments can apply for research council grants to support projects. Applications are considered on their merits. Institutions are free to use their block grants from the higher education funding councils to foster promising departments.

  KPMG Management Consultants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to KPMG Management Consultants over the past 12 months.
  546
  Mr. Waldegrave
  Contracts were awarded by the Office of Public Service and Science and its agencies to KPMG Management Consultants during the past 12 months for the following:

  CCTA—the Government Centre for Information Systems

  Distributed information technology infrastructure scoping study.

  Information systems strategy study.

  Infrastructure management scoping study.

  Speaker for managing change workshop.

  Business transformation scoping study.

  Office of Science and Technology
  Financial management survey of costing Research Council contracts with other Government Departments.

  Civil Service College
  Study of future financial structures.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of public expenditure was the responsibility of non-departmental public bodies in(a) 1979 and (b) 1992 or the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  Expenditure by non-departmental public bodies, which excludes national health service bodies, funded by the Government through grants and other support was 4 per cent. of general Government expenditure in 1978–79 and 4.6 per cent. in 1990–91.

  Citizens Charters
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his proposals for citizens charters as they affect young people under 18 years of age.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Young people benefit—as do all sections of society—from the better quality, more responsive public services promoted by the citizens charter initiative. More specifically, they will benefit from the publication, later this year, of charters setting standards of service for students in further and higher education.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will introduce a Bill on the freedom of information.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government will be publishing a White Paper later this Session setting out our further proposals for achieving greater openness and access to information.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what spending per capita on research and development is in each country of the European Community and the EC as a whole.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The latest figures for per capita spending on research and development in the EC are for 1990:

  Millions of Current Purchasing Power Parity £ per capita, 1990

  £

  Belgium

  165.66

  Denmark

  1170.81

  France

  252.66

  Germany

  306.78

  Greece

  119.65

  Ireland

  58.02

  Italy

  124.50

  Netherlands

  193.68

  Portugal

  119.84

  Spain

  57.18

  United Kingdom

  210.60

  EC Average

  186.90

  1 Nearest date to 1990.

  Note: Luxembourg is not separately identified in OECD R & D statistics.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what clinical research is carried out in the United Kingdom into tuberculosis; at what institutions; and at what cost.

  NDPBs

  Health Service bodies

  Total NDPBs and Health Service bodies

  Year

  Total

  Total staff

  Total gross expenditure £ million

  Total

  Total staff

  Total expenditure £ million

  Total

  Total staff

  Total expenditure £ million

  1979

  2,167

  217,000

  6,150

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1982

  1,810

  205,500

  8,330

  n/a

  n/

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1983

  1,691

  196,700

  9,940

  261

  1,072,300

  14,350

  1,952

  1,269,000

  24,290

  1984

  1,681

  141,200

  7,280

  259

  1,080,300

  15,420

  1,940

  1,221,500

  22,700

  1985

  1,654

  138,300

  7,770

  266

  1,071,100

  17,050

  1,920

  1,209,400

  24,820

  1986

  1,658

  146,300

  8,240

  355

  1,055,500

  14,160

  2,013

  1,201,800

  22,400

  1987

  1,643

  148,700

  9,100

  356

  1,047,600

  14,350

  1,999

  1,196,300

  23,450

  1988

  1,648

  134,600

  9,450

  359

  1,027,400

  15,500

  2,007

  1,162,000

  24,950

  1989

  1,555

  118,300

  9,410

  359

  1,035,100

  17,020

  1,914

  1,153,500

  26,430

  1990

  1,539

  117,500

  11,870

  355

  1,029,200

  19,370

  1,894

  1,146,700

  31,240

  1991

  1,444

  116,400

  13,080

  411

  1,026,300

  20,770

  1,855

  1,142,700

  33,850

  Percentage change 1979–91

  -33.4

  -46.4

  +112.7

  +57.5

  1-4.3

  1+44.7

  1-5.0

  1-10.0

  1+39.4

  1 Since 1983.

  n/a—Not available.
  548
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant-in-aid from this Department. The MRC is an independent body deciding what research to support on its own expert judgment.

  In the last financial year 1991–92, the council's expenditure for research directly relevant to tuberculosis was £808,000. This supported basic research at its own MRC tuberculosis and related infections unit at the Hammersmith hospital, and through grants to researchers at the Royal Postgraduate Medical School, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the Public Health Laboratory Service, London, and the university of Leicester. A further £327,000 was spent in 1991–92 on projects which may, in part, be relevant to the study of tuberculosis.

  The MRC is not currently funding any research into tuberculosis directly relevant to patients, but the council is always willing to consider for support soundly based new scientific proposals in competition with other applications.

  Research is also undertaken by higher education institutions, but details are not available centrally.

  Quangos
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give figures for the total number of quangos, together with the total number of staff employed and the total expenditure, including those connected with the health service, for each year from 1979 to 1991; and if he will give the percentage difference in each figure between 1979 and 1991.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  The available information is shown in the table; fuller details are published in "Public Bodies", copies of which are available in the House Library. The figures are not strictly comparable on a year-by-year basis because of the change of status of some major spending bodies.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Hendon Artists
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition of paintings by Hendon, South artists to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 22 to 26 March 1993.

  Machine Tool Technology
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to machine tool technology to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 1 to 5 March 1993.

  Staff Salaries
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission if he will set out the level of the most recent salary or wage increase given for this year for each grade of staff employed by the House, giving the effective date of the increase in each case.

  Mr. Beith
  Grades 1 to 3 in the service of the House are affected by the decision of the Government that, in common with Ministers and Members of Parliament, staff covered by the Top Salaries Review Body should receive no pay increase in 1993. However, the second stage of the 1992 TSRB award comprising a 3 per cent. increase of salaries in payment will be implemented with effect from 1 April 1993. This applies to staff of the House in grades 1 to 3.

  The most recent salary increases for other grades are as follows:

  Grade

  Percentage increase

  Effective date

  4–7

  3.9

  1 August 1992

  8 and below (including Catering grades)

  4.1

  1 April 1992

  The existing arrangements for discretionary performance-related pay will continue to operate.

  Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will introduce proposals to allow the tabling of questions to take place(a) by fax and (b) by electronic transfer.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no plans to do so.

  It is the long-standing practice of the House that each question should be tabled on the personal authority of an hon. Member, either in person or on his or her behalf by
  550
  another hon. Member, or in writing with a genuine signature. It would not be possible for the Clerks in the Table Office to verify that a fax or electronic message had been sent personally by an hon. Member. However, the hon. Member may wish to draw this matter to the attention of the Select Committee on Procedure.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he now expects to respond to the Procedure Committee's third report of Session 1990–91, HC 178, on parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on Thursday 22 October 1992, at column 363.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Cambridge Water Company (Judgment)
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effect on British industry of the retrospective provisions of the judgment in the case of Cambridge Water Company v. Eastern Counties Leather plc.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Eastern Counties Leather is petitioning for leave to appeal to the House of Lords. The Government will await the final determination of this case.

  President of the Board of Trade
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 13 January,Official Report, column 745, if he will now abolish the title of President of the Board of Trade; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  No.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for the United Kingdom national authority under the chemical weapons convention to include representation from the chemical industry, the scientific community and other concerned and interested parties.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The national authority will be an executive body. No decision has been taken about the involvement of the chemical industry, the scientific community, and other concerned and interested parties. Such involvement will be the subject of consultation in due course.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he is taking to ensure that British Coal's care and maintenance procedures in the 31 pits proposed for closure do not prejudice the outcome of his reviews; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Coaling and development work is continuing at the 21 pits subject to the coal review so there can be no question of the outcome of that review being prejudiced. British Coal has given frequent assurances in correspondence, to the Trade and Industry and
  551
  Employment Select Committees, and in court that it is preserving the fabric of the 10 pits so that if, at the end of the period of consultation, it is decided to keep any or all of them open, that will be possible. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has asked Boyds to report on whether the fabric of the 10 pits is being preserved in accordance with those assurances.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects Boyds to complete its report on the 10 pits proposed for immediate closure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend has asked Boyds to submit its final report by 15 March 1993. A copy of the full terms of reference of the Boyds study of the 10 pits is available in the Library of the House.

  Oil and Gas Exploration
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to protect wildlife sites and sites of special scientific interest in the firth of Forth from oil exploration and possible oil contamination arising from the Department of Trade and Industry's 14th round of offering coastal oil and gas exploration licences.

  Mr. Eggar
  The environmental sensitivities of all areas offered in the 14th offshore oil and gas licensing round, including any which encompass sites of special scientific interest or of particular wildlife value, have been considered on a block-by-block basis. Environmental conditions to be attached to blocks offered in the first two stages of the round have been drafted following agreement with the Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee; those for coastal blocks, including those offered in the Forth approaches, include requirements to consult these bodies and relevant local authorities regarding environmental protection measures before exploration commences. Other special conditions may include seasonal restrictions on exploration activities and controls on discharges from rigs and the chemical formulation of drilling muds.

  Corporate Communications Ltd.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has appointed inspectors to inquire into the actions of the auditors and directors of Corporate Communications Ltd.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I cannot comment on the affairs of individual companies. I am prepared to consider any information the hon. Member may provide in the usual way.

  Maxwell Companies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date Companies house was notified that the ownership of London and Bishopgate International had been transferred from Kevin Maxwell to L & B Holdings plc.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  On 24 May 1989.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response he has made to the findings by the Closkey Coal Information Services contained in the Easington district council submission entitled "The Case for Easington and Vane Tempest Collieries"; and if he will commission an environmental impact report.

  Mr. Eggar
  We are taking Easington district council's submission into account in the coal review, and hope to publish a White Paper setting out our findings as early as possible next month. The commissioning of an environmental impact report would be an operational matter for British Coal.

  Republic of Ireland
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the operation of the market development fund in the Republic of Ireland with respect to possible unfair competition for United Kingdom exports into the European single market and possible subsidy implications; what consideration has been given to the implications for manufacturing firms in Northern Ireland; what representations he has made to the authorities of the Irish Republic; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Officials in this, and other Government Departments, are watching closely the operation of the market development fund which is scheduled to terminate at the end of March 1993. My right hon. Friend raised our concerns with the Commission as soon as he heard of this scheme. These concerns included the incompatibility of the measures with the common market, the damaging effects on United Kingdom and other Community producers and the serious precedents it would set were the Commission to approve the measures. As a result of this approach, the Commission imposed a number of important restrictions on the operation of the scheme.

  British Steel (US Duties)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 4 December 1992,Official Report, column 459, what further discussions he has had with the United States about their imposition of duties on British steel output.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade raised this matter with the US Secretary of Commerce by letter on 11 December.

  Outstanding Debts
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on progress towards requiring large companies to state in their reports and acounts how quickly they pay outstanding debts.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms has today published a consultative document to take forward the commitment the Government have given that in future large companies will be required to state in their report and accounts how quickly they pay.
  553
  Late payment is a reflection of business culture which is intangible and notoriously resistant to change. The Government are using their influence to nudge a culture change in the right direction.

  A number of options have been considered as the best way of taking forward the commitment and these options are discussed in the consultative document.

  The Government-preferred option uses data large companies collect already, rather than requiring collection of new data which would be a burden on business. Suppliers and others will be provided with information they have not had previously.

  The consultative document also suggests which companies would be required to make this disclosure by proposing a definition of large companies.

  The Department is seeking comments on the consultative document by 26 March 1993 with a view to presenting the necessary regulations to Parliament and applying them to company accounts as soon as possible.

  Energy Strategy
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he is giving to the generation costs, and employment and investment levels of the nuclear and offshore gas and oil industries, relative to coal equivalents, in developing a national energy strategy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Many of these issues are being addressed in the coal review currently being undertaken by my Department.

  Wind Generation
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has further to increase the generation of wind-generated electricity in East Anglia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Wind-generated electricity is expected to increase in the future, encouraged by further orders under the non-fossil fuel obligation. There are no plans to promote wind energy selectively in particular locations.

  BCCI
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date he granted an extension to the liquidators of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International to the undertaking they gave on 14 January 1992 to hold a creditors' meeting.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  In view of the terms of the judgment of the vice-chancellor given on 2 March 1992 no formal extension was given to the liquidators in respect of the undertaking whch they gave on 5 December 1991 regarding the holding of a creditors meeting pursuant to section 141 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The liquidators have now sought and obtained the directions of the court with regard to the summoning and conduct of such a meeting which I understand will be held May 1993.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many compromises he has sanctioned in respect of the liquidation of the bank of Credit and Commerce International; and what is the value involved.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Twelve such sanctions have been given, 10 in respect of claims totalling £30,877,540 and two in respect of claims totalling 14,438,462 US dollars.
  554
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many meetings he has had with the liquidators of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  None.

  Colombian Coal
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations his Department have made to the EC Commission in support of British Coal's anti-dumping claim against Colombian coal imported into the United Kingdom through the EC.

  Mr. Eggar
  The responsibility for deciding whether an anti-dumping complaint should be formally investigated lies with the Commission. The Government have made it clear to the Commission that we look to it to take seriously its responsibilities in this area and therefore to consider British Coal's complaint carefully. We have also made clear that we have no objection to its opening an investigation.

  Electricity Generators
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will call for a report from the Office of Electricity Regulation on profits made by the electricity generators.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 22 January 1993]: When the Government set up the privatised electricity market it appointed the Director General of Electricity Supply—DGES—to regulate it. It is for the DGES to decide whether any action is called for over the profits made by the electricity generators. However, the terms of reference of the coal review announced on 26 October said that the review would, amongst other issues, consider in consultation with the DGES whether any company is abusing its position in the marketplace.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Press Regulation
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make it his policy to maintain press freedom.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what changes will be made concerning the Press Complaints Commission in the light of the report by Sir David Calcutt, QC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave earlier today to the question from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).

  National Lottery
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations he has received about his proposals for a national lottery.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have received a number of recent representations from a wide range of interested parties about the Government's proposals for a national lottery. Only a small minority of those representations were opposed to the establishment of a national lottery.
  555
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received urging the location of the headquarters of the national lottery in an area traditionally associated with the pools industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Department has received representations from the Liverpool chamber of commerce and from the editor of the Liverpool Echo, and from the Glasgow development agency. Bradford metropolitan borough council has also urged consideration of Liverpool as a location. The National Heritage Committee recommended that the headquarters of the office of the national lottery should be established in such an area.

  BBC Licence Fee
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received about the BBC licence fee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since the Department's establishment, we have received a total of 713 representations about the television licence fee. Matters raised included the level of the fee, possible concessions for particular groups and the operation of the concessionary licence scheme.

  Cathedrals
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what grants his Department is making to support the preservation of great cathedrals.

  Mr. Brooke
  In April 1991, the Government launched the cathedral repair grant scheme, aimed at assisting with the repair of cathedrals and comparable buildings of other denominations. A total of £11.5 million, spread over the three financial years 1991–92 to 1993–94, was provided to English Heritage for this purpose. Following the autumn statement, I was able to announce an additional provisional allocation of £4 million for each of the two years 1994–95 and 1995–96 in order to sustain this very successful scheme.

  Rugby League Grounds
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the operation of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 in relation to professional rugby league football.

  Mr. Brooke
  I am empowered under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 to designate for the purposes of safety certification any sports ground accommodating more than 10,000 spectators at which football, rugby or cricket is played. The purpose of certification is to secure reasonable public safety. At present, 25 rugby league grounds are designated under the 1975 Act.

  Highcliffe Castle, Dorset
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the future of Highcliffe castle, Dorset.

  Mr. Key
  The Buildings at Risk Trust has submitted to Christchurch borough council a business plan for the restoration of Highcliffe castle. I have agreed to meet my hon. Friend, and a deputation from the council, on Monday 15 February, to discuss the plan.

  Windsor Castle (Fire)
  Mr. Boyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he is now in a position to give an estimate of the cost of Windsor castle's restoration and the percentage to be met from public funds.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the question from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

  Theatres Act 1843
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the passing of the Theatres Act 1843.

  Mr. Key
  Although we have no particular plans to mark this anniversary, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having drawn it to the attention of the House. As he will know, the Theatres Act greatly liberalised the provision of theatre in London in the last century.

  Drug Abuse (Sport)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if, when he next meets the chairman of the Sports Council, he will discuss with him the problem of drug abuse in sport.

  Mr. Brooke
  During 1993, I expect to have a number of meetings with the chairman of the Sports Council to discuss issues of mutual concern, including the abuse of drugs in sport.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action he will take to counter the abuse of the taking or administration of drugs in sport.

  Mr. Brooke
  My Department is seeking to combat drug abuse in sport both nationally through support for the Sports Council's national drug testing programme and internationally through the Council of Europe's anti-doping convention and the memorandum of understanding with the Australian, Canadian and Norwegian Governments.

  Regional Orchestras
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his policy concerning regional orchestras.

  Mr. Key
  Under the arm's-length principle, it is for the Arts Council to set policies for the arts in line with the broad objectives agreed by the Government. As my right hon. Friend said in his statement to the House on 11 December,Official Report, columns 1123–33, the orchestras are unevenly distributed around the country, and their funding requirements needed to be assessed by comparison with each other. They will, therefore, continue to be funded directly by the Arts Council rather than the regional arts boards.

  Tourism
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he next expects to visit seaside resorts in the north-west to review progress in co-ordinating the marketing of tourist attractions inside and outside the United Kingdom.
  557
  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit resorts in the north-west in the immediate future. I am a regular visitor to the north-west and either my right hon. Friend or I would welcome an invitation to visit my hon. Friend's constituency as soon as an opportunity can be found.

  Pub Theatre
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received concerning assistance towards pub theatre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  Although I have received no representations about pub theatre, I am aware that the growth in pub theatre over the last two decades has added a new and lively dimension to theatre life in London and elsewhere. The funding of these theatres is a matter for the Regional Arts Boards. I understand that a number of pub theatres have received grants from, for example, the London Arts Board.

DEFENCE

  Northumberland National Park
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, for each of the last five years, the amount of land in the Northumberland national park used by the Army, Navy and Air Force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  That part of Otterburn training area which lies within the Northumberland national park area has been as follows:

  1988 23,364 hectares freehold

  1989 23,364 hectares freehold

  1990 23,364 hectares freehold

  1991 23,379 hectares freehold

  1992 23,379 hectares freehold

  Since 1991, about 3,640 hectares within the national park (including Kidland, Kidlandlee and parts of Harwood forest) have been licensed for use up to a maximum of 28 days each year. In addition, some training has been carried out on private land such as Thirwell common and Blakehope fell without charge and by prior arrangement with the owners.

  The land detailed is mostly used for training by the Army.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, for each of the forthcoming five years, the amount of land in the Northumberland national park expected to be allocated for use by each of the armed services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The future use of land within Northumberland national park for military training is under review at present. It is too early to say what the precise future requirements will be.

  Equipment (Exports)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each year since 1980 levels of exports of defence equipment in pound million to(a) NATO and other western European countries, (b) the middle east and north Africa, (c) other African countries, (d) Asia and the far east and (e) Latin America and the Caribbean.
  558
  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to table 1.12 of "Defence Statistics," 1992 edition, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. 1991 is the latest year for which these figures are available.

  KPMG Management Consultants
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to KPMG Management Consultants over the past 12 months.

  Mr. Aitken
  During the past 12 months one contract has been placed with KPMG Management Consultants; the contract covers the provision of out-placement services related to "Options for Change".

  Bosnia
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received regarding pay and allowances for British troops serving in Bosnia; whether he plans to introduce any special allowances for those troops; if he will list the comparative pay and allowances for British troops serving in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) BAOR and (c) Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have received a number of representations on this subject.

  The pay and allowances paid to military personnel depend not only on their location but on their rank, job and personal circumstances, including whether they are married or not. It is our general policy that normal provisions on pay and allowances apply wherever personnel are serving. Service personnel receive the 'x' factor (currently an 11.5 per cent. addition to basic pay) throughout their career, which recognises their liability to serve, on occasions, in difficult and demanding circumstances. Provisions also include the payment of local overseas allowance (LOA) to personnel deployed outside the United Kingdom to cover, where appropriate, the additional costs associated with living in the country concerned. The troops deployed from Germany to the former Yugoslavia continue to receive a significant element of their LOA (70 per cent. for married personnel and 40 per cent. for single personnel) in recognition of their continuing financial commitments in Germany. In recognition of the conditions under which troops are serving in the former Yugoslavia, we have introduced a special welfare package which includes free two-way aerogrammes and an allowance towards the cost of telephone calls for all troops based in the region.

  Nuclear Weapons Testing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the cost to the United Kingdom of radioactive decontamination and rehabilitation of Christmas island and Monte Bello island following weapons testing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Three independent studies by American and New Zealand experts have demonstrated that the levels of radioactivity on Christmas island—now Kiritimati—is consistent with that to be expected from world-wide fall-out. As for the Monte Bello islands, the report of the technical assessment group showed their
  559
  isolation and lack of potable water ensured visitations would be casual and that such visits would cause no radiological health concern. For both localities, therefore, no radioactive decontamination is either necessary or planned.

  HMS Ark Royal (Aircraft Landings)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of(a) the Sea Harrier and (b) the Sea King pilots who landed their aircraft on HMS Ark Royal on 15 January had not previously exercised landing of their aircraft on an aircraft carrier at sea.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about his plans to transfer the search and rescue unit from RAF Coltishall to RAF Wattisham; if he proposes to review the transfer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department has received a number of representations. There are no plans to review the decision.

  HMS Vanguard
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's latest assessment of the in-service date of HMS Vanguard.

  Mr. Aitken
  Vanguard remains on course to enter service towards the end of 1994 or early in 1995.

  Anti-ballistic Missile Systems
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment as to the operational effective range of the anti-ballistic missile systems deployed around Moscow.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Components of the ABM system deployed around Moscow include the short range Gazelle interceptor for engagements within the atmosphere and the Gorgon long-range interceptor for engagements beyond the atmosphere. The Gorgon is capable of engaging incoming warheads at ranges of several hundred kilometres.

  Ballistic Missiles
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how the downloading of Russian ballistic missiles under the terms of the START II agreement will be verified; and whether the downloading of Russian ballistic missiles precludes those missiles from being uploaded at a subsequent date.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  START II is a bilateral treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation. I understand that the comprehensive verification procedure agreed under START I will apply to the new treaty as well. The texts of both START treaties have been released. Implementation of the treaty is a matter for the states party to it.

  Polaris
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's latest assessment of the year in which the final Polaris submarine will be decommissioned.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We expect the last Polaris submarine to be decommissioned in the second half of the decade.

  RAF Carlisle
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the reason for the postponement of the planned £2 million capital improvements at RAF Carlisle; and when the improvements will now commence.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A study is currently being carried out, with the knowledge of the trade unions, into options for the rationalisation of RAF equipment supply depots To avoid pre-empting the results of that study, it was considered prudent to defer expenditure on the transportation shed at RAF Carlisle.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fallen Livestock
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new guidelines have been produced by his Department to local authorities on the provision of facilities for animal waste disposal following the publication of the fourth report of the Agriculture Committee, Session 1990–91, HC 493, on disposal of fallen livestock.

  Mr. Soames
  The Government reply to this report—Cm 1778—made it clear that it did not believe that it would be appropriate for local authorities to take on new functions on disposal of fallen livestock within their areas of responsibility either voluntarily or as a legal duty. The Department has issued codes of good agricultural practice for the protection of water and air which contain advice to anyone including local authorities on the disposal of animal carcases.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action has been taken by his Department since 1991 to tighten legal controls over the disposal of fallen stock.

  Mr. Soames
  The Animal By-Products Order 1992 came into effect on 1 January 1993. This requires anyone disposing of fallen animal carcases to ensure that they are either processed in establishments approved or registered for such purposes, buried or burned.

  The order increases the penalties that can be imposed on those found to be disposing and dumping fallen stock illegally.

  Hill Farmers
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on state-financed social payments, subsidies and other support schemes to supplement income available to hill farmers in other EC member states.
  561
  Mr. Curry
  Information on payment of compensatory allowances to hill farmers for 1987 to 1989 in all EC member states is available at page T/129 of "The Agricultural Situation in the Community—1991 Report", published by the European Commission. This publication is in the Library of the House. More recent information is not available. The Government do not have comprehensive details of expenditure on social and other national payments available to hill farmers in other member states.

  Hormone Substances
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people have been charged with offences under the Hormonal Substances (Food Source) (Animals) Regulations 1991 to date.

  Mr. Soames
  The Hormonal Substances (Food Sources) (Animals) Regulations 1991—SI 1991/1593—were revoked and replaced by the Animals, Meat and Meat Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) Regulations 1991—SI 1991/2843—which came into force on 8 January 1992. To date no persons have been charged with offences under either set of regulations.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the checks which take place for salmonella in live birds in Holland producing eggs that are being sold in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  I understand that official checks are carried out for the presence of salmonella in poultry brooding flocks in the Netherlands, but not as far as I am aware in commercial egg laying flocks.

  The EC Zoonoses directive—92/117/EEC—agreed at the December Agriculture Council, includes provisions for the control of salmonella in poultry. The directive comes into force on 1 January 1994, and from that date producers in all member states will be required to meet the standards set in the directive. We would expect the European Commission to ensure compliance with the requirements in other member states.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of egg imports are subject to testing for salmonella.

  Mr. Soames
  Checks for salmonella in imported eggs ceased from 1 January on the introduction of the single market. However, all eggs, including imported eggs, remain subject to checks at any stage of marketing.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of salmonella were reported in each month since January 1991.

  Mr. Soames
  The total number of incidents of salmonella in animals and birds reported to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under the Zoonoses Order 1989, in each month since January 1991 were:562

  1991

  11992

  January

  389

  275

  February

  371

  320

  March

  315

  290

  April

  318

  245

  May

  280

  183

  June

  300

  236

  July

  300

  282

  August

  298

  281

  September

  492

  298

  October

  500

  301

  November

  393

  270

  December

  315

  166

  TOTAL

  4,271

  3,147

  1 Figures for 1992 are provisional.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements exist for the removal of egg stocks from the market where sample testing of imported eggs reveals salmonella contamination.

  Mr. Soames
  All eggs on the British market, whether imported or home produced, may be subject to testing for salmonella. Any food, including eggs, which poses a threat to human health would be removed from the market under section 9 of the Food Safety Act 1990.

  Eggs
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedures common to all member states of the European Community exist for the inspection of eggs and chickens.

  Mr. Soames
  European Community legislation requires inspections of chickens and eggs for various purposes including animal health, trade and consumer protection. Detailed arrangements for such inspections are usually a matter for the competent authority in each member state.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedures exist to ensure that where containers carrying imported eggs are subject to random sampling, such sampling includes eggs from throughout the container and not just from those areas of the container which are immediately accessible to inspection officials.

  Mr. Soames
  Sampling arrangements are the same for both home produced and imported eggs. Arrangements take account of the need both to take representative samples and to facilitate the flow of trade.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the value, at 1980 prices, of hill livestock compensatory allowances in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Curry
  The figures requested are shown in the table.
  563

  Hill livestock compensatory allowances at 1980 prices1 £ per head

  Severely disadvantaged area

  Disadvantaged area

  Beef cows

  Higher rate sheep

  Lower rate sheep

  Beef cows

  Sheep

  1980

  35.00

  5.50

  4.25

  2. .

  2. .

  1981

  37.98

  5.59

  3.80

  2. .

  2. .

  1982

  36.63

  5.14

  3.50

  2. .

  2. .

  1983

  35.01

  4.92

  3.34

  2. .

  2. .

  1984

  33.36

  4.69

  3.19

  2. .

  2. .

  1985

  31.45

  4.42

  3.00

  15.72

  1.50

  1986

  37.23

  4.61

  3.07

  18.61

  1.54

  1987

  35.76

  4.43

  2.95

  17.88

  1.48

  1988

  34.08

  4.22

  2.81

  17.04

  1.41

  1989

  31.61

  3.92

  2.61

  15.81

  1.31

  1990

  28.88

  3.97

  2.38

  14.44

  1.19

  1991

  31.70

  4.38

  2.45

  15.85

  1.23

  1992

  30.54

  4.22

  2.36

  15.27

  1.18

  1993

  29.65

  3.04

  1.69

  14.82

  1.34

  1 Current prices deflated by the retail price index.

  2 . . Not applicable.

  Recycling (Horticulture)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what specific assistance is currently granted by his Department to promote the use of recycled waste in horticulture.

  Mr. Curry
  Advice on disposal, including the potential for recycling, of waste from agricultural and horticultural premises was included in the MAFF/Welsh Office code of good agricultural practice for the protection of air, issued in July 1992. The Ministry's professional advisory service, Agricultural Development Advisory Service, also offers free initial advice to growers on a wide range of environmental issues, including the recycling of waste.

  Dairy Inspection Charges
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 18 January, at column 74, regarding dairy inspection charges, for what reason no dairy inspection charges are levied in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Curry
  This is a matter for the respective Secretaries of State.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the European Commission and to other fishing nations requesting that other European fishing efforts in British waters be limited to an extent equal to that resulting from the days at sea limitations to be imposed on British fishermen.

  Mr. Curry
  The multi-annual guidance programmes which were agreed in December require all member states to take steps to reduce their fishing effort, but it is for individual member states to determine the balance between measures to reduce capacity and measures to reduce time at sea.

  Myxomatosis
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the veterinary medicines directorate will have completed its assessment of the current application from Intervet (UK) Ltd. to licence a myxomatosis vaccine.

  Mr. Soames
  The assessment of product licence applications against the Medicines Act's criteria of safety, quality and efficacy is a complex matter and is individual to each product. The application referred to is being assessed as rapidly as possible, consistent with the requirements of the Act.

  Badgers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many licences for fox hunts to damage and enter dogs down badger setts during the breeding seasons of(a) December 1991 to June 1992 and (b) December 1992 to June 1993 he has granted; and if he will give details in each case.

  Mr. Soames
  No such licences have been issued.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated cost to the meat and livestock industry of veterinary supervision in abattoirs.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on 11 January,Official Report, column 618.

SCOTLAND

  Children's Hospices
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the development of hospices for terminally ill children in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland gave to his question on 1 December, at column 186–87.

  Health Service
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland remuneration if he will list all appointments made as members or chairpersons and members-designate and chairpersons-designate of all national health service trusts and trusts-designate in Scotland as at 21 January and the annual scale of remuneration payable to each.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 January 1993]: The information requested is as follows.

  Annual remuneration £

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mr. A. B. Broomfield

  Aberdeen

  19,285

  Non-executive Directors

  Professor Graeme Catto

  Aberdeen

  5,000

  Professor Michael Meston

  Aberdeen

  5,000

  Mr. Harold Tocher

  Aberdeen

  5,000

  Dr. Fiona Lyle

  Laurencekirk

  5,000

  Mrs. Ann D. Scott

  Aberdeen

  5,000

  South Ayrshire Hospital NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mr. J. D. Brown

  Ayr

  17,145

  Non-executive Directors

  Mr. William M. Mowatt

  Ayr

  5,000

  Mr. Harold J. Currie

  Mauchline

  5,000

  Mr. Graeme McKinstry

  Ayr

  5,000

  Mrs. Anne Wilson

  Girvan

  5,000

  Mrs. Dorothy McLellan

  Symington

  5,000

  Royal Scottish National Hospital NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mr. A. D. Ward

  Uplawmoor

  17,145

  Non-executive Directors

  Mr. Willian Hughes

  Falkirk

  5,000

  Ms. Valerie Smart

  Falkirk

  5,000

  Professor Averil Stewart

  Linlithgow

  5,000

  Mr. David Tarr

  Bridge of Allan

  5,000

  Dr. Peter Williams

  Bridge of Allan

  5,000

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Health Care NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mrs. A. K. Bates

  Galston

  17,145

  Non-Executive Directors

  Mr. Ian Allison

  Ayr

  5,000

  Mr. David Gall

  Ayr

  5,000

  Mr. Robert Johnston

  Beith

  5,000

  Dr. Susan Kinnaird

  Troon

  5,000

  Mr. W. Scott McConnell

  Strathaven

  5,000

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mr. G. Bruce

  Thurso

  15,125

  Non-Executive Directors

  Mr. John Gunn

  Wick

  5,000

  Rev. Alexander Murray

  Lairg

  5,000

  Dr. Elizabeth MacKenzie

  Skerray by Thurso

  5,000

  Mr. John Rosie

  Thurso

  5,000

  Ms. Wilma Taylor

  Wick

  5,000

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trusts

  Chairman: Mr. J. S. Fair

  Dundee

  19,285

  Non-Executive Directors

  Mrs. Maureen Cane

  Broughty Ferry

  5,000

  Mr. Gordon Lowden

  Dundee

  5,000

  Mr. Robert Lyon

  Dundee

  5,000

  Mrs. Jacqueline Wood

  Dundee

  5,000

  Professor Heather Dick

  Dundee

  5,000

  Moray Health Services NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mr. J. Snedden

  Elgin

  17,145

  Non-Executive Directors

  Mrs. Marjory Adams

  Elgin

  5,000

  Mr. Russell Anderson

  Elgin

  5,000

  Mrs. Lydia King

  Lossiemouth

  5,000

  Mr. William Phillips

  Elgin

  5,000

  Mr. James Royan

  Elgin

  5,000

  566

  Annual remuneration £

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mr. W. Ritchie

  Kirkoswald

  19,285

  Non-Executive Directors

  Mrs. Angela Dunbar

  Saltcoats

  5,000

  Mrs. Kim Donald

  Fenwick

  5,000

  Mr. James Grier

  West Kilbride

  5,000

  Mr. Alan Stewart

  Kilmarnock

  5,000

  Mr. Keith Tulloch

  Monkton

  5,000

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mr. J. Kyle

  Gairloch

  17,145

  Non-Executive Directors

  Mr. James Gray

  Fortrose

  5,000

  Mrs. Flora Hunt

  Inverness

  5,000

  Mr. Alexander Morrison

  Golspie

  5,000

  Professor George McNicol

  Rosemarkie

  5,000

  Mr. Judith Robertson

  Inverness

  5,000

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mr. T. Gibson

  Paisley

  17,145

  Non-Executive Directors

  Mrs. Audrey Burns

  Houston

  5,000

  Mr. Allan Durward

  Bridge of Weir

  5,000

  Mrs. Marion Ford

  Paisley

  5,000

  Mr. Alec MacDonald Gaunt

  Paisley

  5,000

  Mr. George Murray

  Paisley

  5,000

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mr. G. B. McKelvie

  Auchterarder

  17,145

  Non-Executive Directors

  Mrs. Agnes Bowie

  Stirling

  5,000

  Mr. Graham Houston

  Dunblane

  5,000

  Mrs. Doris Littlejohn

  Bridge of Allan

  5,000

  Mr. Graeme Simmers

  Balfron

  5,000

  Mrs. Anne Walker

  Deanston

  5,000

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  Chairman: Dr. J. L. C. Dall

  Glasgow

  19,285

  Non-Executive Directors

  Dr. Robert Colville

  Glasgow

  5,000

  Mrs. Danielle Glasser

  Glasgow

  5,000

  Mrs. Lorna Howieson

  Glasgow

  5,000

  Mrs. Joan Mackenzie

  Glasgow

  5,000

  Mr. Desmond O'Brien

  Glasgow

  5,000

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mr. R. S. Watt

  Edinburgh

  19,285

  Non-Executive Directors

  Mr. Thomas Bennie

  Linlithgow

  5,000

  Mr. Jack Cunningham

  Armadale

  5,000

  Mrs. Irene Douglas

  West Calder

  5,000

  Mr. Peter Johnston

  Livingston

  5,000

  Mrs. Carole Stevenson

  Livingston

  5,000

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mr. A. Garland

  Glasgow

  5,000

  Non-Executive Directors

  Mr. Robert McEwan

  Glasgow

  5,000

  Mrs. Ann Moore

  Glasgow

  5,000

  Mrs. Agnes Stewart

  Glasgow

  5,000

  Mr. Henry Tankel

  Glasgow

  5,000

  Mrs. Susan Bell

  Biggar

  5,000

  Grampian Health Care NHS Trust

  Chairman: Dr. A. J. Taylor

  Fyvie

  19,285

  Monklands and Bellshill NHS Trust

  Chairman: Dr. G. Bell

  Bellshill

  19,285

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  Chairman: Mrs. J. Cameron

  Glasgow

  19,285

  567
  My right hon. Friend expects to announce shortly the names of the non-executive directors of the Grampian Healthcare, Monklands and Bellshill, and Yorkhill trusts.

  Health Promotion
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out the individual contributions made in an official capacity by Ministers in his Department towards his Department's health promotion campaign.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 January 1993]: In his foreward to the policy statement "Scotland's Health—A Challenge To Us All", my right hon. Friend set out some of the initiatives we would be taking to help promote good health in Scotland.

  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State is co-ordinating action on the policy statement; and, with his agreement, the chief medical officer has met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss ways in which these two bodies can contribute to health improvements in Scotland. In October he formally welcomed the launch of a major anti-smoking campaign by the Health Education Board for Scotland. Both he and I participated in a number of engagements during European Drug Prevention Week in November to emphasise the dangers of drug misuse to health.

  On 4 December my hon. Friend the Minister for industry and local government in Scotland met representatives of employers' organisations in Scotland to discuss health promotion in the workplace. He was much encouraged by the helpful and constructive views expressed at the meeting and by the general welcome given to our proposal to prepare a guide to good practice on health promotion in the workplace. Later this year my hon. Friend, the Minister for agriculture and the environment in Scotland, will be meeting representatives of farming, food processing and retailing organisations to discuss how they can contribute to improvements in the Scottish diet. Further ministerial activity will take place as appropriate to maintain the momentum generated by the policy statement.

  In money terms

  Deflated by retail prices index 1987–88=100

  Subsidy

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  Sheep annual premium

  6.24

  6.10

  6.94

  9.88

  16.03

  6.24

  5.81

  6.14

  7.98

  12.24

  Suckler cow premium

  33.40

  33.40

  47.43

  51.69

  59.64

  33.40

  31.83

  41.94

  41.76

  45.52

  Hill livestock compensatory allowances1

  Hill sheep

  6.75

  6.75

  7.50

  8.75

  8.75

  6.75

  6.43

  6.63

  7.07

  6.68

  Upland sheep

  4.50

  4.50

  4.50

  4.90

  4.90

  4.50

  4.29

  3.98

  3.96

  3.74

  Cows

  54.50

  54.50

  54.50

  63.30

  63.30

  54.50

  51.94

  48.19

  51.14

  48.32

  1 Rates payable in the severely disadvantaged areas.

  Road Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Alex Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many people have been charged by Scottish police forces for failing to report and stop at the scene of a road traffic accident, in each of the last five years; and if he will give a regional breakdown of these figures;

  Petitions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's policy for responding to the signatories of petitions; if it is his policy to respond to each of the signatories; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 20 January 1993]: My Department's usual practice is to respond to the organisers of a petition or the individual who presents it. If the organisation or person is not readily identifiable my Department writes to the first name on the petition. Responses are not sent to each of the signatories.

  Official Visits
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) dates and (b) reasons for each official visit he has made to Paisley since being appointed to his present post; what plans he has to visit the town; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 20 January 1993]: I attended the formal launch of the Glencoats area development in Ferguslie Park, Paisley on 4 October 1991. I have no plans to visit Paisley in the immediate future.

  Hill Livestock
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the subsidies available to hill livestock farming businesses over the last five years for which figures are available; and how they have varied in value at constant prices in relation to farm input costs and the retail price index over the last five years for which figures are available.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: The table shows the main rates of assistance available to hill farming enterprises, in money and real terms, from livestock subsidy schemes over the last five years. Information on the prices of input items of hill farming enterprises are not readily available. However, aggregate input costs which include input volume as well as price changes, have risen at a rate below the retail prices index.

  (2) how many people have been prosecuted for failing to report and stop at the scene of a road traffic accident, in each of the last five years; and if he will give a regional breakdown of these figures.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: The information is not available in the form requested. Table (i) gives the total number of offences under section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and corresponding earlier legislation, which were cleared-up by Scottish police forces. Table (ii) gives the number of

  569
  offences under section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and corresponding earlier legislation, which were

  Failing to stop or report a road traffic accident, or give information or insurance documents, by region, Scotland 1987 to 1991 (i) Number of offences cleared-up

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Borders

  207

  213

  195

  174

  144

  Central

  290

  346

  334

  334

  295

  Dumfries and Galloway

  359

  417

  496

  403

  471

  Fife

  625

  501

  524

  605

  476

  Grampian

  1,388

  1,277

  1,270

  1,313

  1,286

  Highland

  370

  340

  305

  310

  380

  Lothian

  1,879

  1,850

  1,578

  1,718

  2,058

  Strathclyde

  3,035

  2,932

  2,865

  2,831

  2,794

  Tayside

  709

  595

  666

  688

  584

  Orkney

  26

  37

  26

  37

  18

  Shetland

  40

  32

  43

  33

  34

  Western Isles

  32

  27

  40

  25

  50

  SCOTLAND

  8,960

  8,567

  8,342

  8,471

  8,590

  (ii) Offences proceeded against by court location

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Borders

  84

  82

  101

  99

  81

  Central

  241

  251

  244

  238

  229

  Dumfries and Galloway

  191

  265

  346

  354

  266

  Fife

  234

  199

  185

  198

  202

  Grampian

  686

  977

  777

  896

  977

  Highland

  233

  193

  165

  193

  216

  Lothian

  1,476

  1,255

  1,075

  1,206

  1,097

  Strathclyde

  1,418

  1,581

  1,389

  1,406

  1,380

  Tayside

  571

  528

  563

  509

  461

  Orkney

  38

  22

  18

  31

  13

  Shetland

  57

  20

  14

  14

  26

  Western Isles

  25

  18

  23

  38

  36

  High Court

  5

  4

  2

  7

  4

  Proceedings discharged before court appearance

  75

  66

  59

  41

  3

  SCOTLAND

  5,334

  5,461

  4,961

  5,230

  4,991

EMPLOYMENT

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will publish a table showing the(a) names, (b) place of residence, (c) current occupation, (d) salary, honorarium or allowance payable, (e) expected weekly time commitment, (f) date of appointment and (g) date of retirement of those appointed to serve on each local committee for the employment of disabled people; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  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 Mr. Gordon McMaster, dated 25 January 1993:
  As the Employment Service 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
  570
  proceeded against. Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 includes both failing to stop or report a road traffic accident and also failing to provide proof of insurance.

  Committees for the Employment of People With Disabilities (CEPD5). This is something which falls within the responsibility delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  Unfortunately, I cannot provide you with the information you require about the names, residence and occupation of people appointed to the Committees. There are 60 local Committees with a total membership of approximately 900 people and such information about the membership is not held centrally.

  Chairmen and members of Committees are not paid. Certain allowances may however be claimed and I am enclosing a note of the current rates.

  We do not expect any particular weekly commitment from people on the Committees, nor is there a record of the amount of time spent on Committee work. There are usually 2–4 meetings each year and events to promote people with disabilities.

  Turning to your question about the date of appointment and retirement, I regret I cannot give details about the date of appointment as such information is again not held centrally. Committees are normally reconstituted approximately every three years when all appointments are considered afresh. Committee Chairmen are appointed by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State on behalf of the Secretary of State. Members are appointed by my Regional Directors again on behalf of the Secretary of State. The Committees are next due to be reconstituted on 1 April 1994 and current appointments will terminate on 31 March 1994.
  571
  Committees have a duty to advise and assist the Secretary of State for Employment (in practice my local officials) on matters relating to the employment and self employment of people with disabilities in their areas. Their role includes:

  helping to influence and educate employers locally towards positive policies and action to promote the employment and progression of people with disabilities;

  promoting and marketing our services to people with disabilities particularly employers;

  a statutory role in respect of items referred to them in conjunction with registration of people as disabled and the provisions of the Quota Scheme.

  We value the help Committees give to promoting people with disabilities and in getting the important message across to employers that disability does not mean inability.

  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.

  Allowances for CEPD chairmen and members Subsistence allowance

  If lunch is not provided £

  If lunch is provided £

  Night subsistence

  Inner London

  98.70

  94.45

  Elsewhere

  85.85

  81.60

  Day subsistence

  More than 5 hours but not more than 8 hours

  4.25

  none

  More than 8 hours

  9.30

  5.05

  Financial loss allowance including loss of earnings and child case allowance

  £

  (i) Where the period during which loss or expense is incurred is not more than four hours—maximum of

  20.70

  (ii) Where the period during which loss or expense is incurred exceed four hours—maximum of

  41.40

  Maximum amount paid per day—

  41.40

  Mileage by private motor vehicle

  Engine capacity of car

  Up to 1500cc

  1501–2000cc

  Over 2000cc

  Up to 5,000 miles per year

  35.7p

  40p

  43p

  Over 5,000 miles

  17p

  21 p

  27p

  Redundant Workers
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to introduce a charter for redundant workers.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The redundancy payments service charter, which has been in operation since November 1991, lays down standards of service to be met in dealing with claims for statutory redundancy payments, as well as certain other debts against employers who have become insolvent. It prescribes target time limits within which claims will be met, and which have recently been enhanced.

  In December 1991, the Employment Service published its job seekers charter, which tells job seekers how the Employment Service can help them get back to work and
  572
  what happens when they claim unemployment benefits. All local offices display the standards and their performance against them.

  Unemployment Benefit Disqualification
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information is available regarding the length of periods of unemployment benefit disqualification imposed by adjudication officers in the area which includes the Derbyshire, North-East constituency.

  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 Mr. Harry Barnes, dated 25 January 1993:
  As the Employment Service 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 the length of periods of unemployment benefit disqualifications in the North East Derbyshire area. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  All decisions on claims for unemployment benefit are made by the independent adjudicating authorities.
  Information about the length of disqualification periods imposed is not collated or published as each is decided in the light of the circumstances surrounding the individual case. Without knowledge of these circumstances no meaningful interpretation of the information could be made.
  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.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information is available regarding the lengths of periods of unemployment benefit disqualification imposed by adjudication officers in the area which includes the constituency of Manchester, Withington.

  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 Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 25 January 1993:
  As the Employment Service 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 the length of periods of unemployment benefit disqualifications in the Manchester, Withington area. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  All decisions on claims for unemployment benefit are made by the independent adjudicating authorities.
  Information about the length of disqualification periods imposed is not collated or published as each is decided in the light of the circumstances surrounding the individual case. Without knowledge of these circumstances no meaningful interpretation of the information could be made.
  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.

WALES

  Transport Links
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make representations to the European Community to secure the inclusion of additional Welsh seaports in the draft maps outlining the trans-European transport network.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to the European Community concerning the possibility of including Cardiff Wales airport as a second-line hub airport within a trans-European airport network.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Government are currently considering their approach to the Commission's work on trans-European transport networks which are still at an early stage. My officials hope soon to meet the Commission's transport directorate.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what representations have been made by his Department to date to the European Community concerning(a) the future development of ferry ports in Wales and (b) the future development of transport links between Wales and the Republic of Ireland;

  (2) what representations he has made to the European Commission's directorates general XVI (inter-regional) and VII (transport) concerning the inclusion of Wales-Ireland transport links as part of the INTERREG programme.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My officials have had a number of discussions with their counterparts in the European Commission over links between Wales and the Republic of Ireland and my right hon. Friend intends to raise this matter at his next meeting with Commissioner Millan.

  Self-employment
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many self-employed people in Wales have reported(a) zero income and (b) after-tax losses in Wales in each year since 1990.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Reliable estimates for Wales are not available.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have been self-employed(a) in their main job and (b) in a secondary job in Wales in each year since 1990; and what are the numbers of self-employed (i) men, (ii) women and (iii) the percentage of the Welsh work force who have been self-employed in each year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The estimated numbers of people who have been self-employed in main and secondary jobs are given in the table. These estimates are subject to sampling variablity and are not reliable indicators of year to year changes.574

  Self-employed in main and second job by sex

  Thousands

  Spring

  Self Employed (main job)

  Self Employed (second job)1

  Self Employed in main job as a percentage of economically active

  1990

  All persons

  166

  18

  12.3

  Males

  128

  13

  16.7

  Females

  38

  —2

  6.6

  1991

  All persons

  161

  12

  12.0

  Males

  123

  —2

  16.3

  Females

  38

  —2

  6.5

  1992

  All persons

  168

  18

  12.7

  Males

  129

  11

  17.1

  z7Females

  39

  —2

  6.9

  Source: Labour Force Surveys

  1 Excludes those who did not state their status in second job.

  2 Estimates below 10,000 are not published.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many families with a self-employed main earner have been in receipt of(a) family income supplement and (b) family credit in Wales in each year since 1990; and if he will express this figure as a proportion of all (a) family income supplement claimants and (b) family credit claimants.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Estimates of the numbers in receipt of family credit, based on a 5 per cent. sample of awards, are given in the table. Family income supplement was replaced by family credit in April 1988.

  Family credit recipients in Wales

  Families with a self employed main earner

  Families with a self-employed main earner as a percentage of all cases

  April 1990

  4,100

  19

  April 1991

  3,740

  17

  April 1992

  3,920

  16

  Source: Department of Social Security.

  Quangos
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give figures for the total number of quangos in Wales, together with the total number of staff employed and the total expenditure, including those connected to the health service, for each year from 1979 to 1991, together with the percentage difference in each case.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The available information is shown in the tables, based on the figures published annually in "Public Bodies,".
  575

  Total number of public bodies in wales1 2 Table 1

  Year

  Executive

  Advisory

  Tribunals

  NHS

  Total

  Per cent difference year on year

  1978–79

  16

  12

  3

  9

  40

  —

  1979–81

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1981–82

  17

  19

  4

  10

  50

  —

  1982–83

  17

  27

  4

  10

  58

  +16

  1983–84

  16

  30

  10

  10

  66

  +14

  1984–85

  16

  31

  11

  18

  76

  +16

  1985–86

  16

  30

  11

  18

  75

  -1

  1986–87

  16

  30

  11

  19

  76

  +1

  1987–88

  17

  28

  11

  19

  75

  -1

  1988–89

  18

  30

  11

  19

  78

  +4

  1989–90

  18

  29

  11

  19

  77

  -1

  1990–91

  19

  31

  11

  19

  80

  +4

  Total number of staff employed by public bodies in Wales1 2

  Year

  Executive

  NHS

  Total

  Percentage difference year on year

  1978–79

  7,548.0

  350,321.0

  57,869.0

  —

  1979–81

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  1 April 1982

  7,393.0

  354,055.0

  61,448.0

  —

  1 April 1983

  7,082.5

  54,030.0

  61,112.5

  -1

  1 April 1984

  1,766.0

  54,121.0

  55,887.0

  -9

  1 April 1985

  1,749.0

  54,791.0

  56,540.0

  +1

  1 April 1986

  1,529.0

  55,602.0

  57,131.0

  +1

  1 April 1987

  1,570.5

  55,567.0

  57,137.5

  —

  1 April 1988

  1,548.0

  55,602.5

  57,150.5

  —

  1 April 1989

  51,565.0

  55,765.0

  57,330.0

  +1

  1 April 1990

  1,580.5

  55,851.0

  57,431.5

  —

  1 April 1991

  1,794.0

  55,517.5

  57,311.5

  -1

  Total expenditure by public bodies in Wales1 2

  Year

  Executive £ million

  NHS £ million

  Total £ million

  Percentage difference year on year

  1978–79

  212.32

  3411.00

  623.32

  —

  1979–81

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  1981–82

  310.50

  3765.30

  1,075.80

  —

  1982–83

  304.81

  737.82

  1,042.63

  -1

  1983–84

  130.11

  784.33

  914.45

  -12

  1984–85

  138.61

  5838.93

  977.54

  +7

  1985–86

  134.82

  909.43

  1,044.25

  +7

  1986–87

  133.45

  977.42

  1,110.87

  +6

  1987–88

  168.64

  1,082.25

  1,250.88

  +13

  1988–89

  223.51

  1,202.43

  1,425.94

  +14

  1989–90

  337.18

  1,285.86

  1,623.04

  +14

  1990–91

  379.67

  1,465.81

  1,845.48

  +14

  1 Source: Report on Non-Departmental Public Bodies published January 1980, Cmnd 7797.

  2 Source: "Public bodies", first published in 1982 and successive years by the Cabinet Office.

  3 Figures for NHS bodies are estimated. Not previously published in this format.

  4 These figures should be read in conjunction with the notes provided in the Cabinet Office publications "Public Bodies" for the appropriate year.

  5 Figures published in "Public Bodies" were misprinted. Amended figures are shown above.

  Business Advice Centres
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many clients have sought th assistance of each business advice center in Wales within each of the last three years; and what monitoring has been undertaken of the nature of the inquiries.

  Business Advice Centre

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1BAS

  2TS

  BAS

  TS

  BAS

  TS

  Ystradgynlais and Brecon

  685

  113

  465

  74

  630

  129

  Llandrindod Wells

  668

  67

  661

  57

  794

  144

  Welshpool

  1,412

  107

  940

  94

  1,040

  100

  576
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Many organisations in Wales, "centres" for giving advice to businesses. Information on total numbers of clients seeking advice from such bodies is not held centrally. However, the Development Board for Rural—DBRW—operates a network of business advice center and the information requested for those centres is as follows:
  577

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1BAS

  2TS

  BAS

  TS

  BAS

  TS

  Newcastle Emlyn

  747

  73

  1,033

  128

  1,011

  130

  Aberystwyth

  1,292

  120

  1,178

  97

  1,152

  69

  Dolgellau

  524

  125

  772

  100

  793

  59

  1 BAS—Business Advisory Sessions (number held).

  2 TS—Training Sessions (number held).

  The Development Board for Rural Wales monitoring includes a range of processes including customer-care questionnaires, independent reviews and evaluations of customer needs, as well as meeting representatives of the business advice centres monthly.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the business advice centres established in Wales within the last three years; and if he will make a statement outlining the main activities carried out by such centres.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given today. As regards the Development Board for Rural Wales network of business advice centres, two additional centres have been established at Cardigan and Lampeter. They primarily provide advice on business start-up, training, and access to information on premises and financial assistance.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been allocated by his Department to develop business advice centres in Wales within each of the last three years; and if he will list the amount allocated to each centre.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given today. The Development Board for Rural Wales has allocated funding to its business advice centres over the last three financial years, as follows:

  Business advice center

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  Ystradgynlais and Brecon

  21,000

  36,000

  36,000

  Llandrindod Wells

  14,000

  18,000

  18,000

  Welshpool

  14,000

  18,000

  18,000

  Newcastle Emlyn

  18,000

  18,000

  18,000

  Aberystwyth

  14,000

  18,000

  18,000

  Dolgellau

  14,000

  18,000

  18,000

  In addition, the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales have given funding for core services and special projects to Wales' 21 local enterprise agencies, which also provide business advice, as follows:

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  430,700

  370,400

  353,000

  Local Development Agencies
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to establish local development agencies to operate in the 10 areas which head the deprivation tables published by his Department with the duty of granting loans to assist unemployed people to establish their own businesses.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have approved local enterprise agencies in all but one of the areas concerned and I am
  578
  currently considering an application for the remaining area. These agencies provide a wide range of services to people considering establishing their own business, including advice on the Government's loan guarantee scheme.

  Disabled People (Unemployment)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current rate of unemployment among(a) disabled people in total and (b) disabled people of working age in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information on those with a health problem or disability which limits the kind of paid work they can do is available from the labour force survey, but is only collected for people of working age. It is estimated that, in the summer of 1992, 7 per cent. of such people were unemployed according to the International Labour Organisation definition. A further 12 per cent. said they would like a job but were not currently looking for work. These estimates are based on very small samples in Wales and may be subject to large sampling variability.

  Education Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was the indicative capital allocation for education in Mid-Glamorgan(a) for 1991–92 and (b) 1992–93; and what information he has of the actual expenditure by Mid-Glamorgan;

  (2) what calculation he has made in capital appraisals for Mid-Glamorgan in 1993–94 for the development of bilingual education.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Welsh local education authorities do not receive indicative capital allocations for education services. County councils receive annual basic credit approvals which are unhypothecated to particular services. Spending priorities between services and within services, including spending on bilingual education, are a matter for them. Actual capital expenditure on education services by Mid Glamorgan county council, including any financed from the authority's own resources, in 1991–92 was reported at £9.014 million and for 1992–93 is forecast by the local authority to be £8.226 million.

  EC Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the projects supported by the European regional development fund in Wales, by county, for each of the last three years.

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

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions, and for how much mileage in each case, county highways have been redesignated as trunk roads in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In the last 10 years only two such trunking orders have been made. These were:1982—The St. Clears-Nash (South Pembrokeshire) Trunk Road (Nash Finger Post—Waterloo Roundabout Trunking) Order 1982 (SI 1982 No. 437). A length of 2.81 miles.
  1987—The London—Fishguard Trunk Road (A48) and the Newhouse—High Beech Principal Road (A466) (County of Gwent) Order 1987 (SI 1987 No. 322) A length of 1.34 miles.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with Cardiff city council concerning the release of final tranches of urban development grant to the Brent Walker Welsh world trade centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office receives a written quarterly progress report from Cardiff city council on the Cardiff international arena—formerly the world trade centre. Frequent informal contact by officials is also maintained with the city council's monitoring team.

  Under the terms of the urban development grant agreement between Cardiff city council and Brent Walker plc, £3 million has been paid to Brent Walker for work undertaken and £0.25 million remains to be paid. The balance of the grant will only be released when the building has been completed to the satisfaction of the city council and the Department.

  Conwy Tunnel
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what analysis he has made of the cost control and contracting techniques used in the completion of construction of the Conwy tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I am satisfied that the financial aspects of the work carried out on the Conwy crossing, including cost control and contractual arrangements, are consistent with best financial practice as laid down in the Department's rules and instructions for dealing with all trunk road projects.

  Central Office of Information
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for what length of time the Central Office of Information will carry responsibility for his Department's printing and publicity contracts; and if he will place a copy of the letter of arrangement with COI covering the delegation of power to place his Department's contracts in the Library.

  Mr. David Hunt
  We will be reviewing the arrangements during 1993–94 and will change them if value-for-money and managerial considerations suggest that that is the right course.

  The relationship with COI is a long-standing one. The extent to which COI is used is a matter for administrative decision rather than specific contract.

  Butetown Link Road
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he had with the South Glamorgan county council concerning the application of a global settlement agreement with the contractors' consortium building the Butetown link road section of the south Glamorgan peripheral distributor road.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend met the leader of South Glamorgan county council on 16 November and again on 20 January when the financing of the Butetown link was discussed.

  Printing and Publicity Contracts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he was first informed of allegations of improper conduct in the placing of his Department's printing and publicity contracts; and what follow-up action he took.

  Mr. David Hunt
  On 28 April 1992 I was advised that a member of staff engaged in publicity work was to be dismissed for misconduct following an informal investigation. The matter was put in the hands of the police.

  A reorganisation of the department's systems for publicity management had been instituted in 1991 and is continuing.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which non-departmental public bodies are sponsored by his Department; which of these are audited by the National Audit Office; which firms of private accountants audit each of the others, by what method of tendering contracts to such firms are awarded; and for what duration.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [Pursuant to his reply, 10 July 1992, c. 360–61]: Three Welsh non-departmental public bodies were not included in "Public Bodies 1991" because of their establishment after its publication.

  Wales Youth Agency was incorporated on 1 April 1992. The agency is a company limited by guarantee. Messrs. Owens Thomas and Co., chartered accountants, were appointed as auditors on 18 December 1992. The appointment followed open competition.

  The Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and the Further Education Funding Council for Wales were established on 6 May 1992. In both cases the Comptroller and Auditor General is the auditor.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Carers
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his best estimate of the cost of continuing payment of invalid care allowance for a period of(a) eight weeks and (b) six months after their caring responsibilities come to an end to carers who have been receiving invalid care allowance for more than one year.

  Mr. Scott
  The estimated cost of continuing payment of invalid care allowance after caring ceases to carers who have been receiving the benefit for more than one year is £5 million for eight weeks and £16 million for six months.
  581
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will review the present rules governing carer premium and carers over the age of 65.

  Mr. Burt
  The carer premium is linked to entitlement to invalid care allowance and is primarily intended to give additional help to younger carers, many of whom previously had no premium. Additional help is given to people over 60 through the pensioner premiums. We have no plans to extend the carer premium to people who are unable to establish entitlement to invalid care allowance on age grounds.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many carers aged over 65 years receive(a) invalid care allowance and (b) the carer premium; and what proposals he has to increase the amount of financial support for older carers.

  Mr. Scott
  At 31 December 1992, 288 men over age 65 and 9,028 women over age 60 were receiving invalid care allowance. Separate figures are not held on the numbers of carers over age 65 who receive carer premium. We have no plans to increase the amount of financial support for older carers.

  Note: Separate figures are not available for female carers over age 65.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department spends on invalid care allowance and the carer premium; and what percentage of the total social security budget this figure makes up.

  Mr. Scott
  Expenditure on invalid care allowance and the carer premium was £262 million and £15.5 million respectively in 1991–92. This represents 0.02 per cent. of the total social security budget for that year.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much it would cost his Department to restore national insurance credits for short-term benefits through invalid care allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on 18 November 1992, at columns 252–53.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he plans to initiate a take-up campaign for invalid care allowance and the carer premium in light of the introduction of community care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The number of people in receipt of invalid care allowance continues to increase. We have no plans to initiate a take-up campaign at present, but we shall continue to monitor the situation.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he proposes to abolish the upper age limit for first claims of invalid care allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people currently receive invalid care allowance; and what percentage this is of the total number of people caring for 35 hours or more each week.

  Mr. Scott
  At 31 December 1992, there were 189,000 people receiving invalid care allowance. Figures showing the total number of people who are caring for 35 hours or more each week are not available.
  582
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate for the number of carers who are entitled to the carer premium; and how many are actually paid it.

  Mr. Burt
  We estimate that about 70,000 people are entitled to the carer premium because they have invalid care allowance, or would have it but for the overlapping benefit rules, and are claiming income support, housing benefit or community charge benefit. Premiums are awarded in those benefits where the qualifying conditions are met, so this would also be our estimate of the numbers who have it included in the calculation of their benefit.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of national average earnings the current level of invalid care allowance is; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The current rate of invalid care allowance is £32.55 which represents 10.69 per cent. of average national earnings. Invalid care allowance recipients may earn up to £40 a week, after deduction of allowable expenses, without affecting their entitlement. They may also be eligible to receive other social security benefits.

  Note: Average national earnings figure for April 1992 is £304.60 (Source: New Earnings Survey).

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much it would cost his Department to extend eligibility for invalid care allowance to carers providing care and support for a person who receives the lower rate care component of disability living allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people would benefit and what is his estimate of the cost of extending entitlement to invalid care allowance to those caring for a person who receives the lower rate care component of disability living allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Members to my reply to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs Ewing) on 18 November 1992 at columns 252–53, and to my reply to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) on 11 January 1993 at columns 676–77.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are(a) in receipt of and (b) estimated to be eligible for the carer premium; and what measures his Department is taking to increase take-up of the carer premium.

  Mr. Burt
  We estimate that about 70,000 people are currently eligible for, and receiving, the carer premium in income support, housing benefit or community charge benefit because they have invalid care allowance, or would have it but for the overlapping benefit rules. It is not possible to make a reliable estimate of the numbers who could become eligible for the premium were they to claim one or more of the benefits mentioned. The carer premium is already publicised in a number of ways and we continually monitor the provision of information about benefits.

  Income Support
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of claimants of income support in residential and nursing homes in each of
  583
  the last three years for which figures are available, in each year giving both the total figures and the numbers in receipt of the weekly rates for elderly people, very dependent elderly, mental disorder other than mental handicap, drug or alcohol dependency, mental handicap, terminal illness and physical disablement below pension age.

  Mr. Burt
  Estimates of numbers claiming each of the income support limits are shown in the table.

  Numbers of claimants

  (000s)1

  May 1990

  May 1991

  May 1992

  Residential Care

  Elderly

  58

  63

  63

  Very dependent/blind elderly

  31

  35

  40

  Mental illness

  5

  6

  10

  Alcohol and drug dependence

  3

  2

  3

  Mental handicap

  18

  21

  27

  Physical handicap below pensionable age

  7

  8

  9

  Others

  4

  2

  2

  TOTALS

  125

  137

  154

  Nursing Homes

  Others including elderly

  37

  49

  60

  Mental illness

  5

  4

  4

  Alcohol and drug dependence

  —2

  —2

  —2

  Mental Handicap

  1

  2

  2

  Physical handicap below pensionable age

  2

  5

  7

  Terminal illness

  17

  34

  44

  TOTALS

  64

  94

  117

  1 Numbers rounded to nearest thousand.

  2 Denotes figures under 500.

  Note: These estimates are based on the May quarterly, one per cent, samples of live cases.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the social fund budget allocations for individual district offices, following the social fund discretionary loans budget announced on 18 January.

  Mr. Scott
  Today a list of the new social fund budget allocations for district offices has been placed in the Library.

  As a result of increases in the discretionary social fund loans budget for this financial year, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State has changed two of the Benefits Agency's published targets for 1992–93. The revised targets are:

  (i) to keep to the gross allocation for social fund loans and grants of £317 million.

  (ii) recovery of Social Fund loans—£187 million.

  The new loan recovery target represents the higher level of recoveries which the Benefits Agency is expected to achieve as a result of the increased gross allocation for loans. We do not propose to increase the rate of recovery from individual customers or change their repayment arrangements.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action his Department is taking to help carers who have gone into debt as a result of the delays in payments of disability living allowance.
  584
  Mr. Scott
  Income Support is available under the normal rules for anyone who otherwise would be left without funds.

  Furthermore an award of invalid care allowance may be backdated for up to 12 months provided that entitlement to disability living allowance has been established for the relevant period.

  Community Care
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of severely disabled people who will have to go into residential care when the new funding system for community care is introduced in April; and if he will publish letters sent by officials of his Department during December 1992 to directors of(a) the independent living fund and (b) other relevant organisations about maximum payments for independent living.

  Mr. Scott
  The information on residential care is not available in the form requested. We do not intend to publish official correspondence.

  SERPS
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans he has to advertise the financial benefits of opting back into the state earnings-related pension scheme for those with personal pensions;

  (2) what is his estimate of the number of those holding personal pensions who would now benefit by opting back into the state earnings-related pension scheme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The 1 per cent. additional rebate, which will be paid to appropriate personal pension holders aged 30 and over from April this year, is intended to ensure that the majority of personal pension holders continue to find it worth while to maintain their personal pensions.

  Taking out and maintaining a personal pension is a matter of individual choice. The decision will be based on many factors, including age, earnings, likely future investment returns and future employment intentions. It is therefore not possible to say how many appropriate personal pension holders would benefit from returning to the state earnings-related pension scheme at any specific time.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements will be made under the successor scheme to the independent living fund in assessing care needs for awards; and what action will be taken in the event of reduction in support provided by a local authority.

  Mr. Scott
  Responsibility for assessing care needs will initially be with local authorities. People who are eligible for help from the new fund will also be assessed by social workers employed by the successor body. Details of how local authority arrangements will work, including interaction between local authorities and the successor body, have yet to be finalised.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what powers the successor independent living fund body will have to review the awards of existing beneficiaries.
  585
  Mr. Scott
  Subject to its cash limited provision, the successor body will have an unfettered power to review the awards of existing beneficiaries.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assumptions will be made in considering applications under the successor scheme to the independent living fund, on the level of support from local authorities for applicants; if this will be fixed on a local basis; to whom applications will be made; and if local authorities will be able to refuse awards.

  Mr. Scott
  Details of arrangements applying to local authorities are not yet finalised and are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements will be made under the successor scheme to the independent living fund for appeals by applicants in cases of disagreement between the trustees and local authorities or otherwise; what limits will be placed on payments and whether help for local authorities will count towards the limit; what criteria will be applied in deciding applications; and what arrangements will be made for local cash limits.

  Mr. Scott
  There will be no independent right of appeal available to those who apply to the successor body for new cases. It is right that the trustees should have the final say on expenditure for which they are responsible.

  There will be a ceiling of £500 per week for total costs of help under the scheme.

  Details of arrangements applying to local authorities are not yet finalised and are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  The people eligible for help from the body for new cases will be those severely disabled people aged 16 to 65 who are:

  (a) in receipt of the highest rate of the care component of Disability Living Allowance;

  (b) who, after paying care costs with help from the fund, are left with income at or about the level of Income Support; and

  (c) who would otherwise have to go into residential care.

  EC Social Security Schemes
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he next expects to have discussions with other EC member states and the European Commission on the proposed Council regulation amending regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and regulation (EEC) No. 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing regulation (EEC) 1408/71; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no current plans to discuss these draft amending regulations personally with other EC member states or the European Commission. However, officials are taking part in negotiations on behalf of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, within the normal Community machinery. Once these negotiations have been completed, reference will be made to the Council of Ministers for final approval by all member states.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Women Refugees
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has had on the particular needs and dangers facing women refugees; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will seek to amend the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees to define women as a social group facing persecution resulting from gender based discrimination, violence, sexual exploitation and traditional practices harmful to women.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  It would not be a practical proposition to amend the 1951 convention on the status of refugees. But I am well aware of the particular needs and dangers facing women refugees. Women are often in the majority among refugees. They may be separated from their husbands and relatives, struggling to look after children in difficult conditions.

  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has become increasingly aware of women's particular problems and needs, such as protection from violence, equal representation on refugee committees, family planning services and child care facilities. The high commissioner has introduced appropriate operational guidelines and appointed a women's co-ordinator.

  Tropical Rain Forests
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress was made during the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Community in implementing the fourth European Community action plan for the Environment as it relates to the conservation of tropical rain forests.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Under our presidency we achieved, with EC backing, the inclusion of follow-up to the UNCED forest principles in the remit of the UN Sustainable Development Commission, and the development of a consensus amongst tropical timber consuming countries that the sustainable production of timber should be the central objective of a renegotiated international tropical timber agreement. The Community and individual member states, including the United Kingdom, made progress towards the identification of incentives for the sustainable management of forests. The Community and many member states continued to undertake substantial programmes of development assistance in tropical forestry.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to support the development of a code of conduct to regulate the activities of European national companies operating in tropical rain forest regions.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have no such plans. Regulation of the activities of companies operating in the rain forests is the responsibility of the rainforest countries themselves. We are ready to consider requests from developing countries for help in the management of their forests including the development and strengthening of effective regulatory arrangements and institutions.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will publish the
  587
  results of monitoring carried out in relation to the joint Commonwealth Development Corporation and Kolombangara Forest Products Ltd. project, pursuant to plans elaborated in the 1989–1993 environmental working plan;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 3 December 1992, Official Report, column 310, if the Commonwealth Development Corporation has carried out an environmental impact assessment in relation to its involvement with the Liberty Club Ltd. tourist hotel development in Grenada.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As indicated in my earlier answer, decisions on individual investments are the responsibility of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Board. Consideration of the environmental aspects of proposed investments is an integral part of the corporation's project appraisal and approval procedures. The assessment and monitoring procedures for specific projects and the results of these are a matter for the corporation. I have asked the chairman to write the hon. Member and will arrange for copies of his letter to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to review the current level of tariffs on imports of tropical timber goods into the European Community in order to encourage trade in sustainably produced and value-added products.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have no plans to review these tariffs. Negotiation of such tariffs is the responsibility of the European Commission which is currently engaged in tariff negotiations as part of the Uruguay round on GATT.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 4 December 1992,Official Report, column 428, if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the ODA-supported assessment of the implementation to date of the international tropical timber agreement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We continuously review and assess the ITTO's performance. No report has been produced.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the Government's total contribution to the special account of the International Tropical Timber Organisation since 1987.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since 1987 we have committed US dollars 1,961,986 to projects financed through the International Tropical Timber Organisation's special account.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response ODA officials have made to a letter from Friends of the Earth, dated 20 November 1992, requesting detailed information on British support for the tropical forestry action plan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  ODA officials will reply to Friends of the Earth as soon as they have compiled the details requested. I will send the hon. Member a copy of their letter. A summary is contained in my reply to the hon. Member of 7 December 1992 at column 494.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what plans he has to 588
  discuss the conservation of tropical rain forests with Ministers from other European Community member states;

  (2) what plans he has to discuss the conservation of tropical rain forests with ministers from other European Community member states.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have no immediate plans to do so. Tropical forestry issues are discussed regularly within the European Community at official level.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 3 December, to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith),Official Report, column 310, what was the most recent FAO assessment of the rate of tropical forest loss before the one made in 1990.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The previous assessment in 1980 estimated the rate of tropical forest loss to be 12 million hectares annually.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to discuss with his European Community counterparts the renegotiation of the international tropical timber agreement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No Ministerial meetings are planned. Overseas Development Administration officials have frequent discussions with their European Community colleagues on the renegotiation of the international tropical timber agreement.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to establish a programme for the planting of trees in tropical countries to offset emissions of carbon dioxide.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our support to forestry programmes in developing countries through the aid programme is designed to encourage sustainable forestry and forest conservation and includes reafforestation activities. One of the advantages of successful implementation of these policies is to the global climate through carbon sequestration.

  International Development Association
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom proposals for the replenishment of the World Bank's International Development Association.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Lull) on 19 January at column 155.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what proportion of British aid is directly focused on the alleviation of poverty;

  (2) if he will publish in the next issue of "British Aid Statistics" a table showing the proportion of British aid directly focused on the alleviation of poverty.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The basic purpose of the aid programme is to reduce poverty in the poorest countries. We do this in a number of ways including supporting
  589
  sound policies that will encourage economic growth, ensuring that full account is taken of the impact of our projects and programmes on poor people and by projects which are specifically intended to help the poorest communities directly.

  Direct poverty alleviation activities are funded through a number of channels including through our bilateral country programmes, and our support for nongovernmental organisations. The overall figure for those activities is not currently available, although work is underway on a system for collating this information. We hope to include it in future editions of "British Aid Statistics". But this direct assistance is only a part of our total contribution to poverty reduction through multilateral as well as bilateral channels.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of aid for developing countries planned for 1993–94 and 1994–95 is already committed.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The financial management of the aid programme for developing countries over the survey period is exercised through spending allocations to individual programme managers for each of the three years ahead.

  It is the responsibility of programme managers to live within their spending allocations and make commitments accordingly. The forecast rate of expenditure in future years against any commitment will be subject to change.

  The latest position for 1993–94 will be reflected in the main estimates to be published in March.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what countries currently receive United Kingdom bilateral aid assistance in relation to the control of human population growth.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are currently providing bilateral assistance to population programmes in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria and Zimbabwe; we are also providing assistance to a non-governmental organisation working in South Africa. We expect to begin financing population projects in Tanzania and Uganda in the near future. In addition we are supporting NGO population projects in 17 countries through the joint funding scheme. Our aim is to enable more women and men to choose when to have children and to help meet the considerable unmet demand for safe and effective family planning and reproductive health services in developing countries.

  Brazil
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific activities have so far been conducted under the Overseas Development Administration-funded project in the Tapajos national forest in Brazil.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No logging activity has been started in the forest. An initial meeting of agencies involved in the project was held in Brazil on 15 December 1992, chaired by the director of the national forest. It was attended by representatives of the ODA, the International Tropical Timber Organisation (the managing agent) and all the Brazilian agencies involved. Two Brazilian environmental NGOs also attended. The meeting established the steering 590
  and consultative committees which will advise and monitor the project. A further meeting in February is planned to consider the work plan.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make available to the House a copy of an environmental impact assessment relating to the Overseas Development Administration-funded project in the Tapajos national forest in Brazil.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The objective of the project is to conduct controlled selective logging on a trial basis to see if it is possible to manage the forest for commercial purposes without causing long term environmental damage. The trial will be in an area of less than 1 per cent. of the national forest and will contribute to an on-going environmental impact assessment.

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) of 19 June 1992,Official Report, column 695, when the review of aid and trade provision will be published.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Following the review of the aid and trade provision, Ministers decided in the context of last year's public expenditure discussions that the scheme should continue. An announcement about future policy will be made to the House shortly.

  Developing Countries (Aid)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the net flow of private resources to developing countries for each year since 1979; and for each of these years what was the level of aid paid to these countries and the level of their debt interest payments.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The figures are as follows:

  ($ billion)

  Net Private Flows to Developing Countries

  Aid (oda) to Developing Countries

  Interest and Dividends Paid by Developing Countries

  1979

  54.0

  31.1

  n/a

  1980

  66.2

  37.8

  63.6

  1981

  74.3

  36.8

  86.4

  1982

  58.2

  33.8

  95.3

  1983

  47.9

  33.7

  90.6

  1984

  31.6

  34.7

  89.5

  1985

  30.2

  37.0

  92.8

  1986

  26.5

  44.5

  80.3

  1987

  33.7

  48.4

  73.6

  1988

  43.9

  51.5

  93.4

  1989

  48.6

  51.4

  93.4

  1990

  52.6

  63.0

  93.3

  11991

  55.4

  62.0

  96.1

  Source: OECD.

  1 Provisional figure.

  Russian Federation
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much funding from the know-how fund is being given to assist the current symposium in parliamentary democracy for members of the symposium in parliamentary democracy
  591
  for members of the supreme soviet of the Russian Federation organised by the department of politics of the University of Leeds; which parliamentary parties have been invited to participate; and what attention the symposium is paying (a) to the conflict in Ireland and (b) the role of regional parties in the House of Commons.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The know-how fund has allocated £60,000 towards the costs of this symposium. I understand from the organisers that Members of Parliament from the following parties have been invited to participate in various stages of the course:

  the Conservative Party

  the Labour Party

  the Liberal Democrat Party

  the Ulster Unionist Party

  the Scottish National Party

  Plaid Cymru

  the Democratic Unionist Party

  the Social Democratic and Labour Party

  the Ulster Popular Unionist Party

  The symposium will include during its three week programme separate discussion, each of one and a half hours, on the situation in Northern Ireland and on the role of regional and nationalist parties in Parliament.

  World Bank
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts have been made by his Department to secure greater public scrutiny of the activities of the International Development Association of the World bank.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The World bank circulates monthly an operational summary containing information about all projects which it is considering for possible financing, and their environmental categorisation. This includes projects financed under the International Development Association as well as those financed on normal Bank terms. Copies of the operational summaries are available in the libraries of the House. All financial decisions made by the board and a wide range of technical and policy papers are also published.

  Bank procedures require that information on projects with potentially significant environmental impacts is made available to the local groups and non-governmental organisations in the borrowing country well in advance of consideration of the project in the board. We have supported the development of these arrangements.

  Development Banks
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to publish the Government's voting position on all multilateral development bank board decisions.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The proceedings of the boards of the multilateral development banks are confidential so as not to inhibit full and frank discussion.

  Liberia
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what humanitarian aid and other forms of assistance is being provided from his Department to the economic community of West African states and to United Nations and other agencies in their 592
  efforts to overcome the problems created by the spillover of the conflict in Liberia into Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have supported strongly in the UN and elsewhere the efforts made by ECOWAS to bring about peace in Liberia, which will also be an essential element in resolving Sierra Leone's problems. The UK's humanitarian aid to the region as a whole arising from the Liberian conflict amounts to some £8.4 million (including contributions made through the EC), of which £1.1 million has been provided for assistance to Sierra Leone.

  Kenya
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will now press for suspended bilateral and multilateral aid to Kenya to be released.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Britain has not suspended bilateral aid to Kenya. Our development assistance programme, worth £29 million in 1991–92 continues.

  In common with other donors, we have withheld provision of new balance of payments assistance pending economic and political reforms. Recent progress on the political front has been commendable culminating in the multi-party elections held last month which we and international observers believe constituted a major step on the road to democracy. Economic progress will be examined in a forthcoming IMF review of Kenya's economic reform programme. We and other donors will take account of the outcome of this review in considering future policy.

  Overseas Aid Review
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason statistics on official and private flows to developing countries, with breakdown, and the percentage shares of gross national product involved were dropped from the 1992 British overseas aid review; why the review's publication date was delayed until December 1992; and if he will make it his policy to reinstate the figures for official and private flows, broken down by categories as in the 1991 annual review, and expressed as percentages of gross national product, for subsequent years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 18 January 1993]: Tables giving statistics on official and private flows to developing countries and the percentage shares of gross national product were not included in the 1992 edition of the "British Overseas Aid Annual Review" following an internal review of the format, presentation, content and style of the review.

  Individual tables taken from "British Aid Statistics" are available free from ODA information department.

  The review was published at a later date than in the past to coincide with the availability of "British Aid Statistics" which was published later this year following the decision to show tables on a financial rather than calendar year basis.

  A decision of the format of the 1993 annual review and the information to be contained within it will be taken later this year, taking account of all views expressed on the 1992 review.

ENVIRONMENT

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he had held or plans to hold with the National Association of Waste Regulation Officers relating to inconsistency of penalties for waste disposal offences; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. We understand that the National Association of Waste Regulation Officers is looking into this issue following some recent court cases, but it has so far made no representations to the Department. Within the maxima laid down by Parliament, it is for the courts to determine the most suitable sentence in the light of all the circumstances of the offence and the offender.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans there are to bring down the amount of lead in United Kingdom drinking water in line with the World Health Organisation guideline of 10 micrograms per litre.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 20 January, at column 265.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations have been made by his Department to the United Nations on the provision of verification of compliance within the framework convention on climate change following the United Nations conference on environment and development.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom believes that effective mechanisms for reporting and review of measures taken under the framework convention on climate change are vital for its effective implementation. We reiterated this point at the December 1992 meeting of the intergovernmental negotiating committee on the convention—INC—which took decisions on a plan of work in preparation for the first meeting of the parties to the convention. Among the issues which the INC will consider is the review of information communicated by developed countries on policies and measures for the mitigation of climate change.

  Pit Closures
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to recognise special needs in coal mining areas more quickly; and how quickly it is intended to make such assistance available where collieries close arising from the current coal review.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My Department is making available £5 million under the coalfield areas fund for assistance for areas which may be affected by possible closures. A total of £1.8 million is being made available to the Tyne and Wear development corporation, to support projects aimed at making land quickly available for manufacturing jobs. We are considering enterprize zone designation in areas affected by the possible closures.

  These initiatives are part of the substantial packages of measures announced by the President of the Board of
  594
  Trade on 13 and 19 October 1992. Decisions on the implementation of these measures will be taken in the light of the outcome of the coal review.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what consultations he has had with local authorities and their associations concerning the conduct of the review of urban programme authorities and the use of 1991 census information; and what plans he has for further consultations;

  (2) what work has so far been undertaken by his Department in relation to the review of the list of authorities eligible for funding under the urban programme and successor arrangements;

  (3) what draft criteria have so far been devised for use with the 1991 census data for reviewing the list of authorities eligible for funding from the urban programme and successor arrangements.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has commissioned research into the compilation of an index of urban conditions using 1991 census and other data. The purpose of the index is to consider the needs of urban areas, and it will be used to inform decisions on the future share of urban policy, including the review of urban priority areas. The local authority associations were represented on a steering group to oversee preliminary work on the index. We have since done further work to produce a range of indicators, which will include factors such as unemployment, housing and education. We will be offering the local authority associations the chance to comment on these shortly.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library copies of all letters sent out by his Department dealing with bids for urban programme funding for 1993–94 between 15 October and 13 November 1992.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each urban programme authority how much funding Gateshead has received under the urban programme at 1992 prices for each of the last three years; how many projects have been supported; and how many people have been employed by them in jobs and in training schemes.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 21 January 1993]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my replies to his previous questions on 14 January, Official Report, column 766, and 13 January, Official Report, column 656.

  Whales
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to support proposals prepared by the French Government for discussion at the next meeting of the International Whaling Commission in relation to the creation of a whale sanctuary in the seas around Antarctica.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  The French proposal for a whale sanctuary in the Antarctic, put to the International Whaling Commission

  595
  —ICW—at its 44th meeting in Glasgow last June, is due for further consideration when the Commission meets in Kyoto in May of this year. The United Kingdom was one of the countries which encouraged the IWC to undertake further work on this and related issues. We shall play a full part in its further consideration, liaising with other IWC contracting parties and with the environmental organisations with whom we work closely.

  Oil and Gas Exploration
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are being taken to protect wildlife sites and sites of special scientific interest in the Wash, north Norfolk coast, Cardigan bay, the Dorset heritage coastline and Flamborough head from oil exploration and possible oil contamination arising from the Department of Trade and Industry's 14th round of offering oil and gas exploration licences.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am satisfied that the consultations carried out before issue of oil and gas exploration licences, and the special conditions attached to those issued by my right hon. and learned Friend safeguard such environmentally sensitive areas.

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the costs to the Exchequer in connection with the present local government review.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The main cost to the Exchequer is that of the Local Government Commission, estimated at £3.259 million for 1993–94, its first full year of operation. A small staff commission is also planned. Within this Department there are seven administrative staff working mainly on local government reorganisation issues, at an annual salary cost of around £160,000.

  Frogs and Toads
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has of any change in the population of frogs and toads; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Within Great Britain the Joint Nature Conservation Committee advise that the conservation status and recent trend for each species is as follows:

  Population status

  Trend

  Common frog

  Widespread

  Slight increase

  Common toad

  Widespread

  Slight decrease

  Natterjack toad

  Threatened

  Slight decrease

  All three species are given protection by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The common frog and common toad are covered by provisions relating to sale. As a species, the natterjack toad is fully protected under the Act. In 1992, English Nature announced that the natterjack toad would be included in its "recovery" programme. The objectives of the recovery project are to maintain existing populations and re-establish the species on suitable sites.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many court cases have occurred to date relating to section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and of these cases, how many have resulted in successful prosecutions.

  Mr. Maclean
  The offences provided by section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 were partially implemented on 1 April 1992; summary information on prosecutions for this period is not, as yet, available.

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the entitlement to housing revenue account subsidy for each local housing authority in England in 1993–94, indicating separately the housing element and the housing benefit element and the amount by which HRA subsidy falls short of the total to which the authority would be entitled if rent rebate costs were met in full by subsidy and also the housing stock in the area and the average weekly contribution per tenancy towards the cost of rent rebates in each authority.

  Mr. Baldry
  While broad estimates can be made at national level, it is not possible to provide the information requested for each authority. The housing benefit element of HRA Subsidy claims for 1993–94 will depend on yet to be taken decisions by local authorities on their rents for that year and on the take up of benefit. The housing element of HRA subsidy claims will also, to a lesser extent, be affected by authorities' own decisions. I will write to the hon. Member after April when information on 1993–94 subsidy claims is available.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals to provide that builders of new houses are not liable to make council tax payments unless they are designated occupiers of the new-build houses.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue new guidance to local authorities on defining "substantially completed", in the context of the building of new houses and the liability of builders for community charge and council tax payments.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No. For the purposes of the council tax, billing authorities will serve a completion notice where the new building in question can reasonably be expected to be completed within three months.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals to simplify the certification procedures for the buildres of new houses currently in force in relation to the council tax.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Billing authorities will serve a completion notice on the owner of a new building when the work remaining to be done can reasonably be expected to be completed within three months. This brings the procedure for serving completion notices in respect of domestic property into line with current practice in respect of non-domestic property.
  597
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reduction in council tax will be available to disabled persons in band A properties.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answers I gave the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms. Anderson) on 5 November 1992,Official Report, column 370, and 18 November 1992, Official Report, column 203.

  Water Metering
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received to his consultation paper "Using Water Wisely" to date; and how many of these representations have expressed opposition to a United Kingdom water metering scheme.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have received 343 responses to the consultation paper. Forty-eight respondents indicated opposition to metering. It is for each company to decide the method of charging its customers.

  Birds
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has as to changes in the population of robins and other species of British birds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The British Trust for Ornithology's common bird census report for 1991 revealed significant declines in the populations of 20 species, including robins, little owls, skylarks, blackbirds, songthrushes, house martins, bullfinches and yellowhammers. Five species including sparrowhawks and kestrels had increased in numbers. The BTO report indicated declines over a wide range of habitats.

  For many species the declines are considered to be normal fluctuations and numbers could be expected to be regained quickly. The bad climatic conditions in the spring of 1991 was a factor and some migrant warbler species wintering in Africa were affected by drought conditions there.

  Timber
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has made to the convention on international trade in endangered species to secure the inclusion of additional timber species on its lists, since May 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. Additions to the appendices to the convention are considered at the biennial conferences of the parties. At the conference last March, we proposed successfully that African teak(Pericopsis elata) should be listed. We also supported the listing of American mahogany (Swietenia mahogani), Lignun vitae (Guaiacum officinale), and Brazilian rosewood (Dalbergia nigra).

  We shall be considering what proposals to put to the 1994 conference in due course, on the basis of scientific evidence.

  Manchester Olympics Bid
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on Government support for the Manchester 2000 Olympics bid.
  598
  Mr. Redwood
  The Government are backing wholeheartedly Manchester's bid for the 2000 Olympic games and the Prime Minister and other Ministers are actively involved in promoting it. We are providing up to £75 million support. Of this, £2 million is in aid of the bid itself, matching private funds raised; and up to £73 million is towards the construction of an Olympic arena, a national cycling centre and the acquisition and preparation of the site for the main Olympic stadium.

  We look forward to welcoming members of the International Olympic Committee when they visit Manchester over the coming months in preparation for their decision on the host city in September 1993.

  Valuation Officers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has given to valuation officers with regard to rating as one unit households which include a granny flat so that children can care for their parents at home.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1992—SI 1992/549—requires listing officers to treat as a dwelling for the purposes of council tax each self-contained unit constructed or adapted for use as separate living accommodation. Granny flats are therefore treated in the same way as all other domestic property. The council tax bill for one resident will be subject to a 25 per cent. discount. The bill will be further reduced—in some cases to zero—by council tax benefit, depending on the income and circumstances of the resident.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many families were placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, annually, in each year since 1987,(a) England and (b) each English housing authority.

  Mr. Baldry
  Estimates for the calendar years 1987 to 1991 of the average number of households in England who were being dealt with under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985 and were temporarily placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation are given in the table.

  Average for year ending December

  Households in bed-and-breakfast

  1987

  10,430

  1988

  11,080

  1989

  11,500

  1990

  11,810

  1991

  12,470

  At 30 September 1992 the number of households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation had fallen to 10,390 households.

  I have today placed in the Library a table giving the information as reported by local authorities in England for each year from 1987 to 1991, the last complete year available.

  Councillors (Attendance Allowances)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority councillors have claimed attendance allowance in the last financial year.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My Department does not collect this information.

  Thorne Moors
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to sign the English Nature/Fison's/Department of Environment agreement on Thorne Moors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 8 December 1992 to the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), at column 575.

  PSA Building Management
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will offer the PSA Building Management businesses for sale.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am pleased to announce that I am today offering the five PSA Building Management businesses for sale by competitive tender. This follows the sale of PSA Projects last month, and marks the start of the final stage in the privatisation of PSA Services.

  The sale will be advertised in the United Kingdom and other EC countries from tomorrow. Copies of the sale memoranda will be available from my advisers, Coopers and Lybrand. These will be sent, on request, to all bona fide prospective purchasers.

  I would prefer to sell each of the five BM businesses to a different purchaser. However prospective purchasers will be permitted to bid for more than one business.

  Preliminary bids need to be submitted by 9 March. Shortlisted bidders will then be provided with more detailed information and invited to make final offers.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those nations known by her Majesty's Government to have ratified agreements made at the Earth summit, stating for each which agreements have been ratified; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [pursuant to the reply, 4 December 1992, c. 580.]: I understand that Canada has also ratified the conventions on climate change and biological diversity.

  Helping the Earth
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the cost of the Helping the Earth campaign.
  600
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: The cost of the three-year domestic publicity campaign is about £14 million. Each reduction of 1 per cent. in the country's energy expenditure saves some £500 million.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the difference in expenditure, for each new Commonwealth child, required and identified within standard spending assessments; and how this figure was calculated.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 19 January 1993]: There are a number of elements within standard spending assessments—SSAs—where ethnicity is used in combination with other factors as a measure of social conditions. At no point are the children of heads of household born in the new Commonwealth identified as a separate ethnic category. It is not therefore possible to identify the separate contribution of these children to SSAs. The weight given to social indices within SSAs follows extensive analysis and discussion with local authority representatives.

  Mains Drainage
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many communities(a) in England and Wales and (b) in the Thames Water Utilities Ltd. area, and having 125 or more close-built properties, are not on mains drainage; whether it is his policy to ensure that such communities are put on mains drainage; and in what circumstances any communities will be put on mains drainage other than by requisition.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 21 January 1993]: Information about the numbers of communities of 125 or more close-built properties not on mains drainage is not held centrally.

  The circumstances in which communities may be connected to mains drainage other than by requisition are explained by the Office of Water Services, in its "Information Note (No. 11) on First Time Rural Sewerage", copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  The Department encourages first time connections to mains drainage and mains water supplies in rural areas by providing a grant covering 35 per cent. of eligible scheme costs in response to requisitions by local authorities or owners or occupiers.

  In the light of concerns that have been expressed to me about the arrangements for rural water and sewerage services I am considering whether any changes to the legal and financial framework are desirable.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.

Pigs' Kidneys: Consumer Safety
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the sale of pork chops with the kidney attached poses a risk to health; whether their sale is now prohibited; and, if so, whether this is by United Kingdom or European Community law.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, diseased pigs' kidneys may show signs of nephritis, tumours, cysts or chronic abscesses and pose a risk to human health. In order to undertake a thorough check for these conditions—which can also have a bearing on the fitness of the carcase as a whole—the kidneys must be separated from their fatty and perirenal coverings. Separation is a requirement under the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992, which implement in Great Britain the EC Red Meat Directive 91/497.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that delightfully bureaucratic reply to my Question. Why is it easier to diagnose such fearful diseases when the kidney is attached to the body as opposed to the chop when it is cut in half? Is my noble friend's new title "Minister of Deregulation", in which case can he do all in his power to make sure that such regulations as these are cauterised because, frankly, they make the lives of those of us in productive industry or in agriculture quite impossible?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as regards my noble friend's second point, many of us in this House have considerable sympathy with the sentiments that he has expressed. In MAFF and certainly in many other government departments the deregulation initiative is progressing with considerable energy. As regards his first point, the diseases and conditions which may be indicated by an examination of the kidneys are not easily detected unless the whole kidney can be seen. To carry out a proper examination of the kidney without splitting the perirenal capsule would be rather like trying to read a letter without opening the envelope.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, how is it that these regulations have only now appeared? Was it only in 1992 that it was realised there was a serious danger from kidneys being attached to pork chops?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the separation of kidneys from the fatty and perirenal coverings has been a requirement for all pigs in this country since May
1030
1991. However, it has been a requirement in EC legislation for many years prior to that, but only for the export market.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there appears to be some confusion on this important matter? The Institute of Environmental Health Officers has said that it is entirely acceptable within the regulations for the meat inspector to remove the kidney from the perirenal sac while still attached for visual inspection and then to replace it in the sac so that the chops can have attached kidneys. To put it another way, the inspector could take the kidneys out, shake them all about and then return them in a sort of porcine hokey-kokey. What increase in human welfare and reduction in food poisoning is expected as a result of these regulations on the supply of pork chops and kidneys if kidneys were to be separated rather than being allowed to cohabit with pork chops?
Earl Howe: My Lords, eating kidneys containing tumours, cysts or abscesses could lead to illness in humans. A failure to detect their presence could lead to carcasses with diseases such as leptospirosis entering the human food chain with consequent risks to consumers or to people who handle the meat.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, while paying tribute to the immense scientific learning displayed in the answers, as the regulations are comparatively recent can the Minister give us any instance of any damage to humans having been suffered from having eaten a pork chop with the kidney attached?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I must confess to my noble and learned friend that I can cite no case histories but we should not overlook the benefits which arise from this directive, the chief of these being an improvement in public confidence accorded to the British meat industry at a time when the scares over salmonella and BSE have done considerable damage.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that this welter of regulations not only from Europe but from our own Department of Health is very worrying? Is he aware that, as far as one can see, if these regulations continue to be imposed as at present half of our abattoirs will be closed down? What will happen then?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that new regulations should be resisted wherever possible and that existing regulations should be the subject of a root and branch examination by all government departments. That is exactly what is now happening.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that as he cannot cite any cases of illness having arisen, the testing of kidneys may be a matter which could be re-examined under subsidiarity so that this nonsense can be removed?
Earl Howe: My Lords, although I said that I could cite no specific case histories, that does not mean that

1031
there are not potentially serious consequences which could arise from failure to implement the directive. I cannot emphasise that strongly enough.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Earl inform the House whence this idea originated? Have any medical papers been published on the subject, either at home or abroad? Has it been enlarged on in the veterinary journals, or in the Lancet or the BMA Journal? It seems to have come into the public eye very suddenly. Does not the noble Earl agree that the regulation is a lot of nonsense and the sooner we get rid of it the better?
Earl Howe: My Lords, when examining the burden imposed by any regulation or directive one has to consider the cost of complying with it. I suggest to the noble Lord that the cost of complying with this regulation is minimal in terms of the extra effort required in the slaughterhouse.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, what happens to the kidney when it is detached? Is it sold or is it destroyed?
Earl Howe: My Lords, if the kidney is found to be healthy it is naturally concluded that the carcass itself is healthy. There is then no reason why both should not be sold on to the market in the normal way.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, will my noble friend respond to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Finsberg? It strikes me that the question of subsidiarity is relevant in this case. If the British Government decided that the regulations were not necessary would it be possible not to apply them in Britain on the grounds of subsidiarity?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I cannot agree with that proposition. The new regulations are a key element in the Government's strategies for improving public protection and helping the meat industry to compete effectively in the single market, where meat hygiene is very important.
GATT Negotiations: Progress
2.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in negotiations to conclude the Uruguay Round of GATT.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, since the European Community and the United States reached agreement on the agricultural elements of the Uruguay Round last November, discussions have accelerated in Geneva on the remaining issues in other areas. However, while negotiators are close to agreement on all the main issues it has regrettably not yet been possible to reach a final agreement.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can she tell noble Lords where the difficulty in reaching agreement arises and from which country?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, considerable discussion is still taking place among various countries on a number of issues. For example, there has been discussion with Japan, Indonesia and Korea on the subject of rice. Canada raised the issue of dairy products and poultry, and the United States attempted to re-open some of the Dunkel text. I am pleased to say that my right honourable friend Sir Leon Brittan made it quite clear that the latter was unlikely.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, when the noble Baroness considers the many countries which will be affected by the Uruguay Round will she bear in mind the interests of our friends in Australia and New Zealand who would be seriously damaged if anything went wrong at this stage? Will she ensure that progress is made before the deadline of 1st March when the American fast-track procedure is completed? Will she also keep in touch with and consult the governments of Australia and New Zealand?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, that the Government recognise that it is crucial that the agreements should be signed before the deadline for the fast-track procedure in the United States. I am pleased that the Council meeting in Edinburgh, under the chairmanship of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, also agreed on the need for very early conclusion of the matter.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether there has been any indication so far from President Clinton's new administration as to whether that new administration takes the settlement of the Uruguay Round as seriously as the administration of President Bush?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to say that President Clinton has stated his support for a GATT settlement and that he is committed to reaching agreement. He has a full economic agenda at the start of his term, and we have to ensure that he continues to focus on GATT.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, bearing in mind the serious employment situation, highlighted in your Lordships' House at Question Time last Thursday, will the Minister give an undertaking that she will impress most forcibly on anyone conducting negotiations on behalf of the United Kingdom that no agreement will be signed which benefits other nations but puts further jobs in the United Kingdom at risk?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, such is the benefit of signing the GATT agreement to the whole of the world's economy—we estimate that it is probably worth 60,000 British jobs—nobody could be keener about, and more dedicated to, ensuring that it is signed than this Government.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that her answer means that all parties to the proposed GATT agreement accept that it should not have further implications for agriculture than are now contained within the CAP?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to assure my noble friend that the agricultural deal struck with the United States last November is a good one for the Community. Commission analysis shows the deal to be compatible with reforms to the CAP regimes agreed last summer.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House whether the French Government support the reforms to the CAP?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that I find it difficult to speak on behalf of the French Government. Perhaps I may suggest that with regard to their farmers and an election, there could well be various scripts in France. However, France will gain much from GATT agreement—for example, as the world's third largest exporter of services. French Ministers agree that they will need to review the whole agreement once it is finalised. However, I repeat that the Edinburgh Summit was unanimous in agreeing the need for conclusion.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the noble Baroness indicate whether the United States has shown any sign of relaxing its iniquitous ban on the liberalisation of its coastal trades in the maritime sector which prevents foreign ships from trading directly between American ports? Will she also indicate whether the United States' present administration has made a detailed offer on textiles?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I prefer to stick to the straightforward question of a GATT settlement. However, I am pleased to say that in order to ensure that the textile industry has some stability it has been agreed under the UK presidency that we shall continue to extend the provisions of existing bilateral agreements for a further two years. That should ensure that matters go forward.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does not the Minister recognise that the liberalisation of services is an important part of the current negotiations? Am I to understand from her answer that the British Government have made no impact on the negotiations via the Commission on behalf of the Community about this iniquitous ban on maritime trade so far as concerns coastal ports?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I believe that everyone is agreed that the pressure and predominance that this country gave to the successful negotiations on all fronts of GATT during its presidency was second to none.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would my noble friend care to forecast the date by which agreement will finally be reached?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I must confess that I wish I could be helpful to my noble friend. I cannot. I simply say that I suspect the wish of everyone in this House is that it is at the soonest possible moment.
St. Bartholomew's Hospital: Tomlinson Report
2.53 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received any representations from the consultants, doctors and other staff of St. Bartholomew's Hospital following publication of the Tomlinson Report; and whether they will ensure the future survival of the hospital.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, we have received a number of letters from members of staff of St. Bartholomew's Hospital. We have taken account of all those comments and of the proposal to restructure the hospital as suggested by the management of Bart's. We shall shortly make clear our proposals for individual institutions when we outline our policy for the future of London's health services.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and acknowledge the research that has taken place. Is she aware that many people, including the staff of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, believe that while the Tomlinson proposals are quite reasonable in some areas the axe is being wielded rather fiercely on one of Great Britain's hospitals of international fame? St. Bartholomew's is a hospital which undertakes so much that even the businessmen of the City of London have launched an appeal not to damage or wreck it. Such damage could have a serious effect on the City of London's business. Will those points please be considered?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes.
Lord Braine of Wheatley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in the light of a red alert regarding hospital bed shortages in the region issued by the North-East Thames Authority, the Tomlinson Report's recommendations to close down a London hospital are now seen to be seriously flawed? Is she aware that since Christmas St. Bartholomew's Hospital—it is surely one of the finest hospitals in Europe—has had up to 17 patients sleeping in casualty wards although it has opened up 18 additional beds? Is my noble friend's department aware that it is necessary to carry out a realistic reappraisal of hospital closures in London, and to do so quickly?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that speed is of the essence. One of the things that we do not want in London is planning blight. We need to make the decisions quickly. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be doing that shortly.

1035
I should like to say to my noble friend that the alert was not a red alert, which stops all but emergencies, but was in fact a yellow alert, which urges health authorities to reduce elective admissions. I understand the paradox of the beds in London. However, taking account of education and research, London has more acute beds per head of population than elsewhere. We know that inner London hospitals are less efficient in their use of beds and that the concentration of specialty provision skews the way the beds are used. That makes it more difficult for London GPs to gain access to hospital beds.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that St. Bartholomew's has had an orchestrated appeal. For example, the Evening Standard has done nothing else but state that St. Bartholomew's should be kept open. Is the Minister aware that some of us, not only on this side of the Chamber but on the other side too, are also much concerned with the Tomlinson Report as a whole? It is suggested that Guy's Hospital should be merged with another. I think that that is monstrous. Is it not time that we had a statement saying, for example, that Guy's will be left alone?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is great acceptance in the country that something has to be done to grasp the nettle of London. Otherwise it will continue to spiral downwards, giving the people of London a very poor service and sucking in resources from the remainder of the country. This year alone we are propping up London by £50 million. London receives 20 per cent. of the NHS resources although it has only 15 per cent. of the population. It really is time that the nettle is grasped.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, will the Minister accept that within both Guy's and St. Thomas's the proposals to merge the management and to move towards further provision for improving services of those two great hospitals have wide support? I declare an interest as a potential candidate for the chairmanship of that combined institution. Perhaps I may also urge upon my noble friend that in all these matters the weight of the argument should be what determines the decision rather than the loudness of voices of protest which are raised.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. It is important that the issue is well debated. We have consulted on it. My noble friend the Secretary of State will be making her decision shortly. I shall bring it with pleasure to this House.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give the House the assurance that when coming to a conclusion as to the action that they propose to take on the Tomlinson Report, the Government will bear carefully in mind that the report discloses few, if any, visits made by the author to the installations recommended for closure? Will they bear in mind that it requires a physical review of the facilities to be removed and/or sold before any conclusion is reached? Will the noble Baroness bear in mind that there are dangers in relying too heavily
1036
upon statistical data and less on practical experience and visits to the installations when considering this important matter?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, Sir Bernard Tomlinson and his team made a number of visits to institutions. My noble friend the Minister for Health has spent the last three months visiting all the institutions concerned, in some cases making a second visit where he felt that that was necessary. I agree that seeing is worth a thousand words.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, is absolutely right? Should not all the great hospitals that have been mentioned, not just one, recognise that primary care is of the greatest importance? We must have a primary care system as well as having good hospitals.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend. A major plank of the Government's strategy will be to improve primary care in London.
Lord Desai: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with the BMA that the crisis at the heart of London is caused by the internal market and underfunding? Will she promise to pay attention to whether the internal market rules could be revised to help London?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the BMA usually plays the same song; we know it well. I believe that we should listen to Sir Bernard Tomlinson, who came in as an independent adviser. He said that the issue in London was not under-resourcing.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the management consultants—the well-known firm of Ernst and Young—said that the restructuring proposals were flawed. They did not take sufficiently into consideration that 300,000 commuters come into the area every single day. Ought that not to be taken into consideration before St. Bartholomew's is savagely axed?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, Ernst and Young were employed by a certain hospital. On the question of commuters, 300,000 come into London, many to the City. That area is also served by six other teaching hospitals which are in close proximity to Bart's.
Trustees: Demerged Shares
3.2 p.m.
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will amend and clarify the law relating to the treatment of demerged shares received by trustees.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, we have no plans at present to legislate in this area.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that somewhat negative reply. Is he aware that the present state of the law means that trustees

1037
have partially to break the terms of their trust deeds? Where demerged shares are received by them, they no longer form part of the capital of the trust but have to be distributed to the beneficiaries.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, of course legal advice should always be taken in deciding these matters. But our feeling is that the demerged shares should be treated as capital and not as income.
House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee Report
3.3 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the 3rd report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. Membership of Sub-Committees
The Committee has appointed Lord Richard as a member of the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee in place of Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos.
2. Accommodation: 6–7 Old Palace Yard
The Committee has agreed that as recommended by the Administration and Works Sub-Committee plans should be developed for occupancy of 6–7 Old Palace Yard to include peers and their personal staff, a secretarial agency, certain staff in the Parliament Office and a residential flat relocated from the Palace of Westminster. The Committee has agreed that English Heritage be invited to advise on the installation of a lift in 6–7 Old Palace Yard.
3. Net Subheads
The Committee has agreed that the House of Lords should move to a net subhead regime from 1 April 1993.
4. Authorisation of Select Committee visits
The Committee has agreed to new arrangements for the authorisation of overseas visits by Select Committees. Such visits will be subject to the approval of the Chairman of Committees and the Clerk of the Parliaments, with the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee considering appeals from their decisions.
5. Shorthand Writer to the House
The Committee has approved a draft agreement between the two Houses and Gurneys, setting out a new basis for the services provided by the Shorthand Writer to the House and new charging arrangements.
6. Internal audit
The Committee has approved proposals for new internal audit arrangements for the House of Lords. The House will employ its own internal auditor instead of having a share of an auditor employed by the House of Commons on behalf of both Houses.
7. Parliamentary Data and Video Network
The Committee has agreed that the House of Lords should pay a share of the cost of certain staff employed by the House of Commons in connection with the creation of a Parliamentary Data and Video Network.
8. Additional expenses for disabled Peers
The Committee has approved the reimbursement of costs incurred by Lord Ashley of Stoke in having a transcription of proceedings transmitted to a monitor which he can read in the chamber.
9. Staff of the House
The Committee has approved the creation of additional posts, as follows—

—Third Counsel to the Chairman of Committees, a part-time appointment initially for one year

—additional Grade 7 in the Establishment Office.

The Committee has also approved the extension for a further year, until January 1994, of a temporary post of Hansard word processor operator.
10. Flexible grading
The Committee has approved a proposal that the ceiling on appointments of Principal Clerks (Civil Service grades 3 and 4) should be raised from 4 to 6, of which not more than 4 should be at Grade 3.
11. Appointments and promotion
The Committee was informed of the following appointments and promotion—
Mr J L Goddard to be a temporary Senior Clerk for two years with effect from 12 October 1992.
Mr D J Batt to be a Clerk with effect from 13 October 1992.
Sir James Nursaw KCB QC to be Third Counsel to the Chairman of Committees (part-time) from 9 November 1992, initially for one year.
Mr M G Pownall, Principal Clerk of Committees, promoted from Civil Service Grade 4 to Grade 3 from 19 October 1992.
12. Security and fire prevention
The Committee has agreed that Peers should carry their photo-identity passes when present within the parliamentary precincts. They do not need to wear them, but to do so would help the security force and could reduce inconvenience to Peers.
The Committee has taken note with approval of new and more stringent fire safety procedures with contractors which will be included in all new contractual documents.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I wish to thank the Committee for the work it has put into producing the report. I should also like to thank the members for what is absent from the report—there is no mention of television documentary programmes about your Lordships' House. When we debated the second report there was mention of a series of six being done with the BBC. I suggested to your Lordships that we ought to see the programme produced for "Cutting Edge" before we committed ourselves to further programmes. Having heard some of my colleagues discuss the programme for "Cutting Edge", I feel that there should be no further talk of documentaries about your Lordships' House. I welcome the absence of any mention of them in the report.
I wish to concentrate on the matter of Nos. 6 to 7 Old Palace Yard. There is talk of English Heritage being consulted about the installation of a lift, and the necessity for a lift is recognised. There is a certain lack of mobility among Members of your Lordships' House which we all acknowledge, and I have been over there to inspect the building. Unless English Heritage can produce a magic carpet, I find it difficult to see how a lift of any size could be installed without doing substantial damage to the internal fabric of the building. Surely there can be no conception of having a lift on the outside of the building because it would spoil the appearance not only of the building itself but also the general view of the entire Palace. The area is increasingly familiar to most people in the country because so many interviews are conducted on the grass.
I am interested to know how the installation of a lift can be achieved. Even if it could be installed without serious damage to the building, the problem of your Lordships getting to Divisions would still need to be faced. There is a busy road and because of the restrictions of the building, the lift would probably not

1039
be adequate to take all those who wished to use it at any one time. I can imagine difficulties, particularly if the Government lost a vote by a very small minority.
There is also a matter which I noticed at the weekend. I apologise to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for not giving him notice of it last week, but I picked it up only over the weekend, principally because I went to pay a bill at the secretarial agency. I noticed that it is proposed that the agency should be moved to Nos. 6 to 7 Old Palace Yard. The original proposal was that it should go to Millbank, before the difficulties with that building were appreciated in this instance. I find it extremely worrying. It is quite inconceivable that Parliament should not have secretarial agency services within the building.
I was given a letter about that from the Lord President of the Council, who was replying to a Member of another place who had sent him representations about the projected possible moving of the secretarial agency to No. 7 Millbank. The letter from the Lord President is dated 24th July 1992. It states:
"Thank you for … the representations [about] the Susan Hamilton Services. I have checked up on this matter with the House of Commons authorities, although the responsibility for the locating of the Susan Hamilton Secretariat lies solely with the House of Lords, and they have reassured me that there are no plans to move them to Millbank. They recognise that this would be most inconvenient to Peers and Members alike".
It is not simply the distance to Millbank which is a great inconvenience. It is the crossing of the road outside, which must be one of the busiest in London. Since Members of your Lordships' House who make use of the secretarial agency outnumber those of another place, it is a most germane point. Perhaps we could be told whether there has been any study of the possible financial effect in terms of loss of business on the agency if it were to move across the road. It is conceivable that the thought of leaving the building, certainly in the inclement weather we have had in the past months, and crossing that difficult road might reduce the agency's business to the point where it was no longer viable. If it became non-viable, we should have to have services of some kind. They would either have to be provided by the House itself, or some other outside agency would have to be enticed into the building.
The present agency has been here for 27 years. I imagine that, if it did not survive, the difficulties of getting someone else to take on the task would be great. So I ask for serious consideration of the matter. Perhaps we can have reassurance that the sentiments of the Lord President in another place will find sufficient echo here for there to be reconsideration of the matter.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the noble Lord raised the matter of the television programmes. There is no mention of this in the report, as he correctly diagnosed, because I believe we all wished to put behind us the unfortunate experience which we endured in the "Cutting Edge" programme. The Clerk of the Parliaments wrote an excellent letter to the chief
1040
executive of Channel 4 which elicited a reply that was less than satisfactory. The whole House might care to acknowledge that the best retort that could be made was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in the "Right to Reply" programme, when she most eloquently turned the producer of that programme into what I hope I may be excused for calling "mincemeat".
The accommodation at 7 Old Palace Yard has been heavily discussed both by the accommodation group and by the Administration and Works Committee. There is naturally a reluctance on the part of all those who are presently accommodated in the Palace of Westminster to move across the road. But it is only across the road, and it is a great deal less distance to travel than it would have been had we been moving people into No. 7 Millbank.
The matter of the lift is fraught with difficulty. As it is a Grade 2 listed building, we have to defer to English Heritage; and we ourselves would not wish to do anything destructive to what is a very pleasant building. I would not say that it is one of the greatest beauty, but it is a good building and we do not wish to do it damage. There are two worries in the mind of English Heritage. One is that the overrun of the lift would have to go through the roof a bit. We have agreed therefore that we will stop it at the second floor. There is another worry regarding the basement, where there is a stone arch which it is anxious should not be interfered with. The director of works staff are still working on detailed designs for the lift. It will be a small one. We are anxious to make it big enough to take a wheelchair, but I think that that may prove impossible. No decision has yet been reached. We shall certainly treat the building with the respect which it deserves.
With regard to moving the secretarial agency, it was finally decided that this was one of the activities that could go across the road. I accept that it is not ideal, but one has to reach a balance between the best interests of Peers and those who serve them. If we are successful in our negotiations with the Westminster City Council we hope to have a Pelican crossing immediately opposite the building which will enable us to get across the road with due dispatch. But that matter is not yet resolved. I accept that it is arguable as to the inconvenience of moving this agency. There is a meeting of the Administration and Works Committee tomorrow and, if the noble Lord wishes, I shall see that the matter is brought up for further consideration.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Lord some questions. The first is one of principle. One observes from this third report that the committee has agreed a whole series of actions. I have been in this House for only 18 years so far, but I am bound to consider the possibility that there may be occasions when the House as a whole might disagree with some of the items which have apparently already been agreed by the Select Committee. Therefore my first question is this. What happens if the House as a whole—the House includes a majority of Back-Benchers as distinct from Members on the Front Benches on all sides—on reading the report says, "We

1041
don't like this. We don't think this is necessary; we don't think it is right"? There are a number of alternatives. I am afraid that the Standing Orders of the House are of no comfort to anybody on this matter because the House of Lords' Standing Orders are completely silent on it.
Suppose, for example, we moved an amendment to the report. First of all, is it a proper thing to do? And if an amendment deleting a certain item were carried, would the Select Committee in itself have power to cancel the agreement it had already reached in the name of the House? How is the House able to exercise some control?
I observe from the report that the Select Committee is appointed to consider the House of Lords' Offices. It can go on considering for as long as it likes, but I should have thought it would be more proper if it were to submit its report in the form of proposals to the House to agree that certain things be done or to recommend that certain agreements are reached rather than deciding on its own—with, quite clearly, the concurrence of both Front Benches —that certain things are appropriate, so that the House, after seeing the report, can either reject it in toto, which would be against the traditions of the House, but would be denied any way of amending it.
I should like to refer to certain specific instances in order to emphasise my point. Paragraph 4 states:
"The Committee has agreed to new arrangements for the authorisation of overseas visits by Select Committees. Such visits will be subject to the approval of the Chairman of Committees and the Clerk of the Parliaments, with the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee considering appeals from their decisions".
I am second to no one in your Lordships' House in my admiration for and respect for the Clerk of the Parliaments, who is the custodian of the procedures of the House and many other matters. However, I query putting the Chairman of Committees into a position where there might be a disagreement between himself and the Clerk of the Parliaments as to what ought to be done. I speak subject to correction, but surely that places the Clerk of the Parliaments in a rather unfortunate position. In any case (again I speak subject to correction) I believe that making arrangements between the House and the authorities concerned for Select Committees to undertake overseas visits is of sufficient importance to be referred to the House rather than left as it is.
I see that we are now to employ our own internal auditor, as distinct from having a share of an auditor employed by the other place. I think the House ought to be given some reason for that.
I note that paragraph 3 states:
"The Committee has agreed that the House of Lords should move to a net subhead regime from 1 April 1993".
The mind boggles at the consequences of moving to a "net subhead regime", whatever that may mean. Is it a question of identifying the Votes under which our expenditure is undertaken? Surely some explanation can be given.
I observe on the staff of the House that the committee has approved the creation of additional posts, including a third counsel to the Chairman of Committees. I am quite sure that the noble Lord needs to be assisted in these matters; but once again as a
1042
Back-Bencher I am not quite satisfied that these matters have received the attention of the House as a whole before decisions have been made. Therefore, will the noble Lord give some consideration to the question of coming to the House before agreements are reached, rather than afterwards? I should not have thought that that suggestion would involve him in very considerable inconvenience. The House is composed of very reasonable men and women who are in favour of established authority—apart from the occasional dissident who is inflicted upon us from time to time. I urge the noble Lord to give those matters consideration.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I was chairman of the accommodation group which looked at 6–7 Old Palace Yard. I should like to say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, that many people, including Peers, do not wish to move out of this building. Frankly, if Peers are to have desks in this building in the numbers that are required for us to do our jobs properly, somebody will have to move out. We put to the Offices Committee that precedence should be given to working Peers, even at the expense of people in the secretarial bureau, for example.
It is true to say that we could debate all those matters. Sub-committees of your Lordships' House often debate such matters for up to an hour at a time. If noble Lords wish to bring an issue to the Floor of the Chamber, we could debate it for six or seven hours at a time and everybody could join in. However, the present system whereby recommendations are brought forward from the various sub-committees and endorsed or otherwise by your Lordships' House is preferable.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I, like the Lord Privy Seal, desire to make the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, as happy as possible. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the House has to delegate some of the tasks of administration to other bodies. There are already two sifting committees. Matters begin at the Administration Committee and then go to the Offices Committee, which is a large body, although not so big as it once was. It numbers 30. Back Benchers are widely represented on that committee; in fact they outnumber all the usual channels, who make Back Benchers so frightened. The situation is therefore receiving all the attention that it deserves.
It is for the House to approve or not decisions that have been reached by the Offices Committee. We could make the reports longer, which would give more detail. But it is also possible for me now to attempt to fill in some of the details about which the noble Lord is curious.
The authorisation of overseas visits is a liberalisation of the previous policy whereby matters had to go before the Finance Committee. It is very rare that disputes arise as to whether visits abroad should take place. It is almost invariably the European committees that wish to do the travelling.
The Clerk of the Parliaments, as the accounting officer, is responsible for ensuring that too much money is not spent on such activities, but an appeals

1043
procedure is available. The Finance and Staff Committee can be brought together if anyone feels that they have been declined the right to do all the travelling that they feel it is right and proper for them to do.
I should like to turn to the subject of the internal auditor. As the noble Lord will know from his professional experience, it is common practice throughout industry and commerce for internal auditors to take on some of the work of external auditors. We found that we were ahead of another place in the implementation of Ibbs. It was felt that it would be helpful for this House to proceed. There is quite enough work to do under the new regime, bearing in mind the responsibilities that Ibbs has placed upon us to account properly for all our expenditure.
The net subhead regime is a matter upon which one requires guidance when one first hears about it. I certainly had to seek guidance. The changeover to a net subhead regime in the House of Lords votes means that in future money voted for expenditure by the House will be expressed net of receipts. At present, the subheads of the vote provide for gross expenditure and receipts, for example, from Private Bill fees and from the refreshment department, to be itemised separately as appropriations in aid. The change has been made, with Treasury agreement, as part of the reform of financial management within the House. The same change has been agreed for the House of Commons. The advantage of the House operating the system is that the House benefits from any receipts over and above forecast levels instead of surrendering the surplus to the Treasury. The downside is that if receipts fall below the estimated level, then expenditure must fall correspondingly.
As to the third counsel, I am in need of all the counselling I can get, as noble Lords are aware. In this instance we have been fortunate enough to bring on board Sir James Nursaw, who has recently ceased to be Treasury Solicitor. He is not, alas, going to counsel me, but will help the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, is the chairman. Sir James has been appointed on a temporary and part-time basis, but his services will be much appreciated by that committee.
I believe that I have answered all of the questions that have been raised by noble Lords.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend clarify a point that I did not clearly understand? He said something to the effect that the recommendations from Select Committees were subject to the approval of the House. In a sense the Motion which the noble Lord has moved is intended to give that approval. However, where specific expenditures are stated in this document to have been approved by the Select Committee, can the noble Lord state whether that means what it says or whether it means that they are recommended by the Select Committee for the approval of the House?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the House could, if it so chose, negate the decisions made by the
1044
Offices Committee. That would create a great deal of difficulty. But it is one of its powers and, as the noble Lord states, that is the reason why I am moving the Motion. If steps were taken to refer the matter back, we would come forward with alternative proposals. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Agriculture Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Applications for approval]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert:
("(1A) Any scheme which is approved by the authority in accordance with this Part of the Act shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the day on which the scheme was approved (but without prejudice to anything previously done under the scheme or to the approval of a new scheme) unless before the end of that period the scheme is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(1B) In reckoning any period for the purposes of subsection (1A) of this section, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
(1C) Any document containing the details of a scheme produced for the purposes of subsection (1A) above shall exclude all matters which are in the view of the authority matters of commercial sensitivity.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill is an enabling Bill. Only the marketing boards can bring forward reorganisation schemes for the successor bodies. The authority can suggest amendments to those schemes, or reject them, but the authority cannot bring forward its own scheme in substitution for that which is brought forward by the marketing boards.
The Bill lays down clear criteria in Schedule 1 that enable the authority to judge the various schemes. Those criteria can be amended and approved as the Bill is debated here and in another place. I congratulate the Minister on picking up a few points made at Committee stage. We welcome the amendments that he will be moving in order to improve the criteria in respect of consultation and competition.
One thing that is missing from the Bill is a provision for Parliament to examine whether the authorities have satisfied the criteria that have been laid down by Parliament. I should like to repeat remarks that I made in an earlier debate and wildly mix my metaphors. We are being asked to buy a cow in a poke, which would be the offspring of a cosy stitch-up.
This is not the place to debate the important matter of enabling Bills and regulation-making powers. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in his place and he can speak with much more authority than I in that area. I note with approval the description that he gave regarding the approach to legislation within the Bill, an enabling Bill with virtually everything left to ministerial decision. He described it as "bureaucratic aggrandisement at the expense of proper parliamentary procedure"; we certainly agree with him.
The Bill goes further than that. There is no parliamentary procedure envisaged for the approval of the various schemes. We held a good debate on the subject in Committee and I do not propose to go over all the arguments then advanced. However, I should like to deal with a few of the objections raised then by the Government and explain the drafting of the amendment which is designed to deal with those objections.
At Committee stage the Minister seemed to imply that he saw the logic of the argument but that the practical problems he foresaw led him to reject the proposition. The amendment has been drafted precisely to deal with the problems that the Minister, and indeed others, foresaw in the amendment I moved in Committee. Once the Bill reaches the statute book, the marketing boards will submit their draft schemes for ministerial approval. Indeed, we all know that they are working hard on drafting them. There will then be a period of consultation as laid down in the Bill and no doubt amendment and variation of the schemes will be considered until the principles of the scheme are finally approved by Ministers.
At that point the marketing boards, producers, the trade and consumers will be informed of the principles of the reorganisation schemes. In fact, everybody will be informed except Parliament. At Committee stage the Minister made a great deal about what he described as the process of iteration; that is, the process of amendment and variation as the schemes are discussed. I am not suggesting that Parliament should be involved in that process; it should be involved only in the process of consideration of the principles—I emphasise, the principles—of the scheme as they are finally agreed by Ministers.
I can entirely understand that there will be variations of the detail of the scheme even after final approval. But it is inconceivable that the principles of the scheme will be amended once the Ministers have agreed them. Therefore, once the principles are agreed I would argue that Parliament should have the chance to pronounce on them.
In Committee the Minister produced a curious argument that Parliament should not be allowed to examine the scheme because it may be that Parliament may not like the scheme. To paraphrase an old saying, "Since Parliament might not like it, so Parliament isn't going to get it". Another problem envisaged by the Minister was delay. Your Lordships will note that the amendment specifies that the scheme must be approved within 28 days of the time it is laid before the House, but the 28 days does not include any time in the Recess.
Perhaps I can take an example, because much was made in Committee of the point that if the scheme was laid in the Recess the whole thing would be delayed. Were the House to rise for the summer break on 31st July and the scheme be laid on 1st August, everything that was done under the scheme would be entirely legal and irreversible. The House would meet on, say, 15th October and have to debate the resolution before 11th November. Everything that took place between 1st August and 11th November would be legal and could not be reversed even if, in the inconceivable
1046
eventuality, the scheme was rejected by Parliament. I emphasise the point, that everything done from day one would be perfectly legal even in the unlikely event that the resolution was rejected. As we know, a resolution can only be rejected by the House: it is not capable of amendment. In the much more likely event that Parliament is sitting, then the delay would be only four weeks from the time the principles of the scheme were agreed and when the Minister laid them before the House. I would argue that that is not a considerable delay.
I should like to emphasise the point that, if the House is not sitting, then the boards, the successor bodies and so forth can go on implementing from day one. They will not be faced with obstacles. The point has been made that competitors in the dairy trade will be out promoting their schemes; the marketing boards can go out on exactly the same timescale. The point was made also that the schemes will obviously involve in their detail matters of commercial confidentiality or sensitivity. The amendment is expressly drafted under paragraph (1C) to exclude such matters from the draft and the only point which would need to go before Parliament would be the principles of the schemes.
The fundamental question, therefore, is whether Parliament will be able to express a view on the schemes where Parliament has laid down the criteria for approval but which, as the Bill is drafted, are entirely a matter of ministerial fiat. When the new schemes are in place they will bring to an end 60 years of a marketing scheme which, in my view, has served the consumers and the trade well. Surely Parliament should be allowed at least to examine the new schemes in principle and pronounce upon them. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is certainly an ingenious drafter of amendments. He has tried to overcome some of the problems which we unearthed at Second Reading on this point.
At Committee stage I spoke to an amendment proposing that the successor schemes to the milk marketing boards should be subject to parliamentary discussion under the affirmative resolution procedure. I am bound to say that my noble friend the Minister convinced me that the subject of successor schemes to milk marketing boards is not a suitable one for the affirmative resolution procedure. He convinced me that successor schemes, whether or not they contain commercially confidential material, would be placed in an extremely awkward position if, the milk marketing boards having been negotiated with the Minister of the day and every detail having been agreed, they were then turned down by Parliament.
The discussion as to whether a scheme is acceptable to Parliament inevitably involves representation from all kinds of people whom the scheme does not really suit. It would become a highly politicised discussion and probably also a commercial discussion. Therefore, I confess with reluctance, even though commercially sensitive issues are omitted from that which is put to Parliament, that I cannot support the amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said at the beginning of his remarks, we debated an earlier amendment of his in Committee with similar intention. At the time I made clear my strong opposition to the amendment, which the intervening pause for reflection has not in any way lessened.
In structural terms the presentation of the Agriculture Bill to Parliament means that Parliament decides on the principles by which a reorganisation scheme is to be judged. It is then for Ministers to judge a reorganisation scheme according to the principles in the Bill. That, in my view, is a logical and defensible way to proceed. Ministers may engage in a dialogue with a board, suggesting modifications to a scheme and possibly receiving counter-suggestions, in order to ensure that a scheme is acceptable. That too seems to me sensible and desirable. But then, once approval has been given by Ministers according to the rules of the game, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, would have it that Parliament can set all that aside and move the goalposts some way off.
I must ask once again how a board could possibly formulate a second reorganisation scheme in those circumstances, knowing that it had to meet not only the requirements of the Act but also the as yet unformulated and unpredictable demands of Parliament, which would not be bounded by the Act.
The scope for confusion and delay is considerable, with consequent risk of damage to investment, jobs and incomes. Even if Parliament did not go so far as to overturn a decision by Ministers to approve a scheme, the delays which could arise before an affirmative resolution was passed by both Houses would be considerable. It is no use at all saying, as subsection (1A) of the amendment implies, that the relevant board could get on with the implementation of its scheme in the meantime. We are talking about the real world here and not about some theoretical construct. No board is going to undertake changes of the kind envisaged while the threat of a parliamentary veto is still hanging over its scheme.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy for her remarks. I do feel that the amendment is misconceived. There are genuine and insuperable practical difficulties about accepting it and I hope very much that the noble Lord will have been persuaded to withdraw it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is a very predictable answer. It is the answer that Ministers always give when they are asked to bring things back for Parliament to look at. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, for her congratulations on the drafting of the amendment. I can tell her that it had a lot to do with Erskine May and not me. She said that this is not a suitable subject for the affirmative resolution procedure. But I have to ask her: what is Parliament for? We are now overturning a milk marketing scheme that, although it could be improved, has been operating for 60 years, with, I would argue, considerable benefit to producers, consumers and the trade. From the briefing we have received we all know of the concern that has been expressed from all sides on the way in which the
1048
scheme will operate. The noble Baroness said that any discussion on the procedure would be highly politicised. We are used to that. We are all good judges of the briefing we receive and we can make our judgments accordingly.
I thought that the Minister was talking about a different amendment from the one I proposed. His brief was almost designed to deal with the amendment that I moved in Committee. I repeat that I am referring to the principles of the scheme. Once these principles are agreed, we will all be told them. Everyone in the industry will be told them. The tremendous delay that the Minister talks about is a matter of a mere four weeks. He says that Ministers are to judge. The Bill says nothing. The Minister said that the Bill lays down the principles. It does indeed. But the Bill says nothing on the principles themselves. It is not intended to. It is an enabling Bill. There is nothing about the nature of the successor bodies or the principles of their operation. It refers to the principles on which the schemes are to be judged. All of us in the industry will have to make a judgment on whether the schemes will be to our advantage. However, we will not have the chance in Parliament to discuss these extremely important matters which affect the supply of milk and milk products in a market which at the producer end is worth some £2 billion.
The Minister implied that Parliament could somehow amend the resolution. That is not possible. The resolution could either be accepted or rejected in each place. He said that Parliament might attempt to move the goalposts. In fact, it would have to cancel the match, because it would have to reject the resolution out of hand. That is extremely unlikely in the circumstances. All I am asking for is the chance for Parliament, which lays down the criteria, to debate the issue. It is almost inconceivable that the resolutions, when they are laid, would be rejected. As the Minister will know, that very rarely happens. However, it would be a chance for Parliament, with only a four-week delay if the House were sitting, to discuss the schemes.
I pointed out that if the schemes were laid in the Recess everything could go ahead and all the arrangements reached in that period would remain legal even if the schemes were rejected. I think the Minister wishes to intervene.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. How does he think an affirmative resolution could be laid during the Recess if it so happened that that was the timing? Can he clarify that point?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the resolution is laid when Parliament returns. It has to be debated within 28 days or the scheme lapses. It is a well-known procedure. It happens with resolutions that have to be dealt with in the Recess. Everything that happens under the draft order is perfectly legal, but from the day Parliament returns the Government have 28 days in which to lay the resolution and for Parliament to debate it. This point does not arise. The draft resolution does not have to be laid during the Recess.
I have dealt with the point about delay. If the House is sitting, it is a matter of a mere four weeks. I

1049
think it is right that Parliament should have the right to examine and debate the principles of these important schemes which at the moment are a subject entirely for ministerial fiat. As we have discussed the subject in Committee and now on Report, I should like to ask the opinion of the House.
3.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 153.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kennet, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Ardwick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Longford, E.

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blackstone, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

McNair, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mais, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mar, C.

Broadbridge, L.

Marsh, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carter, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mulley, L.

David, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ogmore, L.

Desai, L. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Falkender, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Redesdale, L.

Fitt, L.

Richard, L.

Foot, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Galpern, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Serota, B.

Gregson, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Grey, E.

Stallard, L.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Underhill, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wigoder, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Judd, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Addison, V.

Butterworth, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cadman, L.

Astor, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Auckland, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carnock, L.

Bessborough, E.

Carrington, L.

Blake, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Blatch, B.

Cayzer, L.

Blyth, L.

Chalfont, L.

Boardman, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Borthwick, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cockfield, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Cox, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Cranborne, V.

1050

Crathorne, L.

Manchester, D.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Margadale, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Marlesford, L.

Davidson, V.

Merrivale, L.

De Freyne, L.

Milverton, L.

Denham, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Donegall, M.

Morris, L.

Dudley, B.

Mountevans, L.

Dundonald, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Effingham, E.

Moyne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Munster, E.

Elles, B.

Nelson, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orkney, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Erne, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Faithfull, B.

Pender, L.

Ferrers, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Flather, B.

Plumb, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gainford, L.

Renton, L.

Geddes, L.

Renwick, L.

Goschen, V.

Ridley of Liddesdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Gridley, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Romney, E.

St. Davids, V.

Halsbury, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Savile, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harrowby, E.

Selkirk, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Shannon, E.

Hayter, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Henley, L.

Stedman, B.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Strange, B.

Hives, L.

Strathclyde, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Hothfield, L.

Howe, E.

Sudeley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swansea, L.

Ironside, L.

Terrington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Teviot, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Thatcher, B.

Kimball, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kintore, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Knollys, V.

Trumpington, B.

Leigh, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lindsay, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Vivian, L.

Long, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wakeham, L.

Lyell, L.

Westbury, L.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Wharton, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Young, B.

[*The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 153 names. The Clerks recorded 152 names.]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.54 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Clause No. 3 [Determination of applications]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 5, after ("unless") insert ("(a)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 6 which is linked. The Committee of the House considered two amendments to the Bill designed to impose a requirement on Ministers to consult on a reorganisation scheme for which the Milk Marketing

1051
Board had sought approval. The first, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Gallacher, would have required Ministers, before granting the application, to consult with those persons who in their opinion represented the interests of producers, purchasers and consumers of milk. The second amendment, tabled by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, would in practice have required consultation with all interested parties.
As I explained to the Committee, I do not believe that it is either right or necessary for all the details of a reorganisation scheme to be made public. In addition, I stressed the undesirability of introducing an unreasonably onerous requirement to consult which would make it impossible to adhere to the timetable in the Bill for consideration of a scheme by Ministers and its implementation. I also touched on the difficulties which might ensue if a requirement to consult could be interpreted as a requirement to consult producers or consumers individually.
I went on to confirm however that the Government intended to consult on appropriate elements in a board's reorganisation scheme. I accepted in principle the amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Gallacher. I undertook to bring forward an appropriate amendment on behalf of the Government at Report stage. These amendments fulfil that commitment.
The amendments would require Ministers, before deciding whether to grant an application for approval of a reorganisation scheme, to consult about the principles of the scheme such persons as they consider appropriate and appearing to them to be representative of the interests of producers, purchasers, retailers and consumers of milk. They follow in most respects the amendment previously tabled by the noble Lords but, for the reasons which I have explained, they would limit the requirement to consult to the principles of a reorganisation scheme.
At Committee stage the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, argued strongly that in considering a scheme of reorganisation Ministers should have regard to whether it is in the interests of retailers as well as producers and consumers. I am not convinced that retailers have a distinct interest separate from that of the consumer which needs to be taken into account to the extent of a mention in Clause 3(4)(a), but it is certainly true that they play an important role and that that they are necessarily well informed about what consumers want. I therefore thought it reasonable to include the retailers among those who should be consulted before a scheme is approved. They are covered by this amendment. I trust therefore that the amendment meets with the approval of the House. I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling Amendments Nos. 4 and 6. On reading the details of Amendment No. 6 we are quite happy with it. We have noted the reason why the Minister has decided to include retailers as well as the other categories and accept that that is justified in the light of the expanding market which retailers have for milk at the expense, I am bound to say, of milk delivered by
1052
rounds, which may not be the best of solutions to the question of the distribution of milk in the long term. Nevertheless, that is the current trend and we must acknowledge its existence in legislation of this kind. I have noted the decision to consult about principles. I believe that it is a fair offer and one which we on these Benches readily accept.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I too welcome the fact that the Government have responded as they have to the amendments tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I wish to ask my noble friend two questions which arise after discussion with the Dairy Trade Federation. They are really questions of clarification of Amendment No. 6. What precisely are meant by the principles of the scheme on which consultation will take place? How far do the Government intend that those principles should extend?
At Committee stage my noble friend said:
"It is right and proper that the principles of a scheme, its main elements, should be in the public domain so that interested parties may make representations".—[Official Report, 8/12/92; col. 119.]
He went on to suggest that the consultation must not be too detailed, too onerous or too lengthy, saying that many of the details would, in any case, be commercially sensitive. However, to mean anything, consultation must go into enough aspects of the scheme. So could my noble friend tell the House how far the principles—the main elements—extend? That is my first question.
The second question is: what is meant by the final phrase in Amendment No. 6? I refer to the words "as it considers appropriate". If I may say so, the meaning is a touch ambiguous. Is it the intention that it should be the producers, purchasers, retailers and consumers whom the Government "consider appropriate" or is it intended that the Government must have consulted on the principles of the scheme "as it considers appropriate"? Does that final phrase refer to the people (or the groups of people) who are consulted or to the principles about which they are consulted? If the latter, would it not be clearer to say, "it has consulted about the appropriate principles of the scheme", rather than the wording that is used in the amendment? It seems to me that it would be much clearer to refer to "the appropriate principles of the scheme". I think that I have bowled my noble friend a rather unexpected pair of questions, but I should be most grateful if he could clarify the position.
4 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am glad to help my noble friend as far as I can. Her first question related to the definition of the word "principles". It is difficult to give a precise answer to that question in advance of a scheme being proposed to Ministers. However, the principles of a scheme are its main elements—those elements which are enough to give a sufficient picture of the scheme as a whole so that the consultees can reasonably be expected to form a view without needing the full details before them. They would

1053
exclude, for example, details such as the schedules of property or the commercially sensitive and confidential elements of a scheme.
In answer to my noble friend's second question, the phrase "as it considers appropriate" governs the phrase "such persons"; so it refers to the organisations mentioned in the amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I welcome the amendment. As the Minister said, I have argued strongly that retailers should be considered and consulted. I am only slightly sorry that there has been some misapprehension in the House in our earlier debates. It was stated in Hansard that supermarkets were responsible for 70 per cent of grocery business. In fact, as has already been mentioned vaguely by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, when it comes to milk, the "rounds" refer to liquid milk, but, if it were not for the retailers, there would not be a market in yoghurt and cheese because they are the ones who have developed that market. It is imperative that there should be onward product development in the milk business and, if that is to be so, we need to consult —and there is a requirement to consult—with those who are developing the market. Therefore, I think that it is a great step forward that retailers have been included in the provisions and I thank the Minister for that.
Earl Howe: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her remarks.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 7, after ("of") insert ("persons who are").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 10, 20, 35, 36, 37 and 38 which are linked to it. These amendments specify whether references to registered producers in Part I of the Bill refer both to current and former registered producers of milk or simply to current producers. They would have three specific effects.
The first relates to the distribution of assets of a milk marketing board under a reorganisation scheme. Clause 3(4) (b) provides that in deciding whether an application for approval of a scheme ought to be approved Ministers must have regard to whether the scheme makes reasonable provision for the distribution of assets to registered producers. The intention is that producers with an interest in the board should receive reasonable compensation for the loss of that interest when a reorganisation scheme takes effect.
It is not straightforward to determine which producers effectively own a board and its assets as this is not specifically laid down in any legislation. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 provides some assistance, however. It states that in the event of a winding up of a board those liable to contribute to the payment of its debts and liabilities would be producers who were registered with the board during the year before the commencement of winding up proceedings or revocation of the relevant milk marketing scheme,
1054
whichever was earlier. This is supplemented by Clause 14 of the Bill which would, in the event of a board being wound up without an approved reorganisation scheme, provide that any surplus would be paid to those who would have to pay in the event of a deficit. To the extent that the legislation covers the matter, therefore, ownership of a board can be said to lie in the hands of current registered producers and those who have been registered at any time during the past year.
In considering what provisions this Bill should make in respect of the distribution of assets to producers, the Government have had in mind the need to enable the boards to propose bases for distribution which respect the rights of those who have an interest in the board and are practical to implement. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to devise an equitable basis for distributing assets to all those who have been registered milk producers at some time since the boards were established. To begin with, tracking down the individuals concerned would be an immense task. Many are no longer alive. Any cut-off date would be purely arbitrary. To devise a scheme which dealt even-handedly with all those who have contributed to the boards since their inception would neither be a realistic proposition nor consistent with the provision in the 1958 Act which I have cited.
The Government therefore decided that it would be unreasonable to require a board to propose the distribution of assets to the full range of former producers. The provisions of Clause 3(5) were drafted with this in mind. They provide that a reorganisation scheme may not be taken to be unreasonable in its treatment of the distribution of assets to registered producers by virtue only of the fact that it specifies a date by reference to which any such distribution would be determined. The same would apply if the distribution was determined by reference to milk produced in a specified period of at least a year. The specified date, or the end of the specified period, would have to be after the board had drawn the principles of the scheme to the attention of registered producers. A board could thus propose distributing assets to all producers registered on a specific date or on the basis of their production over a period of a year or more.
Unfortunately, this provision does not altogether achieve its objective. The term "registered producers" is defined in Clause 21 as persons who are registered as producers under the relevant milk marketing scheme. Clause 3(5) as it stands does not therefore apply to producers who have ceased to be registered. Amendment No. 7 would therefore provide that a reorganisation scheme had to make reasonable provision for the distribution of assets to current and former registered producers. Amendment No. 10 would, however, ensure that Clause 3(5) applied to both current and former registered producers and therefore that an approved reorganisation scheme which provided for the distribution of assets on one of the two bases described in it could not be challenged as unreasonable on that basis. In other words, it would not be unreasonable to exclude former

1055
registered producers from a distribution if they had ceased to be producers before the relevant date of entitlement.
The remaining amendments, Nos. 5, 20, 35, 36, 37 and 38, do not introduce changes of substance. Amendments Nos. 5, 20, 36 and 37 are for the purposes of clarification, while Amendments Nos. 35 and 38 are purely consequential and for the sake of consistency. The main effects are to make it clear that the requirement on a board to bring the principles of its scheme, or of a variation, to the attention of registered producers refers to current registered producers. That is in Amendments Nos. 5 and 20. The reference to registered producers in Clause 17 is clarified in Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 as meaning "current" registered producers. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we understand the point of the amendments and we accept them. However, I believe that a situation could arise in which a producer who was not producing milk could be registered. One could have what is called in the jargon a "non-producing producer" who leases out his quota each year. As I understand the Bill, such a producer will remain as a registered producer even though he leases out his production each year. Therefore, assets could be distributed to a registered producer who was not in the business of producing milk but merely made a business out of leasing out his quota.
Earl Howe: My Lords, that is an interesting point that I shall look into. The key factor to remember is that any proposals which Ministers accept must be reasonable; Ministers must decide whether they are reasonable. The inclusion of non-producing producers in the body of people to whom assets are distributed must be justified in the normal way.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 6 and 7:
Page 3, line 11, at end insert ("; and
(b) it has consulted about the principles of the scheme such persons appearing to it to be representative of the interests of producers, purchasers, retailers and consumers of milk as it considers appropriate.").
Page 3, line 22, after ("to") insert ("persons by reference to their being or having been").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Strabolgi): My Lords, I must inform the House that if Amendment No. 8 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 9.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 28, leave out from ("scheme") to end of line 30 and insert ("satisfies the public interest test set out in section 84(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1973.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am somewhat embarrassed in speaking to this amendment before Amendment No. 9. However, the order of amendments in the Marshalled List makes that necessary. Had my amendment been grouped with Amendment No. 9 I should have found the matter easier to discuss because my amendment tries to do the
1056
same job. I must first point out that I shall not press my amendment at this stage. It was tabled before I had had the opportunity to study the Government's proposed improvement to Clause 3(4) (e) in Amendment No. 9. However, I have not withdrawn my suggestion because it is a useful peg on which to hang certain arguments.
My amendment arises as a result of considerable anxiety expressed by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. That relates to a report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which was published on the day your Lordships took the Committee stage of the Bill. Until then it appeared that there had been widespread acceptance that the two vertically-integrated successor bodies envisaged by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board and the North of Scotland Milk Marketing Board would not fall foul of Clause 3(4) (e). The impact of those organisations on the market was not perceived as significant. The European Commission was also reassuring on the issue.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission has now ruled that the proposed acquisition of the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society milk business by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board should not go ahead. That ruling is not of itself of great concern. However, the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission goes further and suggests that the Scottish board's proposal for a vertically-integrated co-operative is also undesirable. Its conclusion is based on the premise that a separate milk market exists in Scotland. That is manifestly not the case. For many years and for obvious reasons milk prices in Scotland have been dominated and indirectly determined by prices in England. After the milk marketing boards have been wound up and as the EC single market develops that will be even more forcefully the case.
My amendment proposes that the test to be applied by Ministers should not be the likelihood of a successful challenge in the courts, which is the test the Bill provides, but the specific public interest test as set out in the Fair Trading Act 1973. That would be a test of how the structure of the proposed business would permit future behaviour in the public interest. Have the Government considered such an approach? Do they not believe that it will provide a more precise and satisfactory criterion than that contained in the Bill or that which the Government propose in Amendment No. 9? I appreciate that my noble friend might not be able to separate the two arguments, but that difficulty is not of my making.
It is important to know whether the grounds on which the Secretary of State for Scotland will decide the merits of vertically-integrated successor bodies are precise grounds which everyone can understand. It is especially important that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be able to make the decision without prejudice. He should not be inhibited by remarks made in, for example, a previous report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That is important for the small successor bodies which may emerge in Scotland under the Bill.
Milk marketing in Europe is characterised by vertically-integrated co-operatives trading on a far larger scale than could ever be achieved in Scotland. The single market has brought about amalgamations of dairy co-operatives throughout Europe. My noble friend will be aware of the Danish dairy co-operative, the Lurpak brand, which has 66 per cent. of the Danish market. Its acquisitions in the UK have remained unchallenged. It now commands 11 per cent. of the liquid milk market in England and Wales. Likewise Avonmore Foods, the Irish co-operative, has been buying up diary businesses in this country. It is in that context that Scottish co-operatives will have to compete.
I should he grateful if my noble friend would comment on those specifically Scottish issues. Perhaps we can deal with the general issue of the Minister deciding without prejudice when we deal with the Government's Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, we too would have preferred Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 to have been grouped together because we could then have had a better all-round discussion. My response to Amendment No. 8, which the noble Baroness moved most ably, is complicated by the fact that she is dealing with a situation which exists in Scotland as a result of the recent decision by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in respect of the proposed sale of a business to the Scottish Milk Marketing Board. I do not wish to become involved to any marked degree in what is happening at present, although I agree with the noble Baroness's comments about the sales of businesses ahead of the Bill becoming law. I would not even claim that the Bill itself was the spur in the sales of which I am aware because there are other underlying reasons which have nothing to do with it.
However, I have noted that consequent upon the case to which the noble Baroness referred yet another proposed sale of a very large milk business in England —this time not to a Danish or Irish subsidiary but to a public limited company in England—is conditional upon there being no reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. So we have a situation of some dissatisfaction in which major dispositions are being made of businesses for disparate reasons ahead of this Bill, which I am almost certain will have an impact upon the position of the co-operatives which emerge as a consequence of it. That is as far as I am prepared to go in a dissertation upon the situation as I see it at the present time.
I am assuming that the noble Baroness will not be pressing her amendment in the light of any reply that she gets from the Minister because, as I said at the outset, it seemed to me that she was more fact finding than policy determining. However, if she were to divide the House we on this side should have something of a dilemma because our preference is for Amendment No. 9 standing in the name of the noble Earl the Minister, not only because we think it is a superior amendment in terms but because it implements a promise which he made to the Committee when we discussed this part of the Bill some weeks back.
1058
Without anticipating what the noble Earl will say, we feel the response to a very difficult drafting question is probably as good as we are going to get. Nevertheless, if we take simply the amendment we are discussing in the terms in which it has been drafted I can understand the skill and wisdom of the draftsmen in seeking to link Section 84(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1973, which defines competition and the public interest in very specific terms, with this Bill. The trouble about so doing, satisfactory as it is to the draftsmen of the amendment, is that it would inhibit Ministers from being able to do anything at all because if this were to become part of the Bill it would put the Minister in a situation in which he becomes a one-man monopolies and mergers commission. I think that that is thoroughly undesirable. If there are to be references, the Fair Trading Act makes provision for such references. If there are to be judgments, the Fair Trading Act states the criteria upon which those judgments are to be made. The matter is best left there.
To import this specific section of the Fair Trading Act into the Bill would have an inhibitory effect and would go some way to making what is going to be a very difficult period for milk marketing boards a great deal more difficult. We on this side would not wish to see that happen. Nevertheless, we look forward with interest, if not bated breath, to what the noble Earl has to say in response to Amendment No. 8.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I should like to support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, concerning Amendment No. 9 as opposed to Amendment No. 8, but that is not really why I rose to speak.
Scotland, England and Wales have been mentioned. A very serious situation could also develop in Northern Ireland with the Northern Ireland Milk Board and its processing and marketing functions. I hope that the House will not let the Northern Ireland situation go by default.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, although I would not support the amendment for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, gave to my noble friend, I think the noble Baroness has raised a most important issue. The purpose of the Bill is to free the market for milk and to let us give the United Kingdom milk producers the opportunity of developing markets for their products throughout the whole of Europe. It seems to me rather odd that the British Monopolies and Mergers Commission then takes action which prevents our companies from developing to such an extent that we can become major players in the European milk market.
In addition to the examples given by my noble friend, the largest food company in the world, Nestle, started off as a dairy company. BSM, the largest food company in France, started off as a milk co-operative. It is clear that the passing of this Bill will enable British companies to become major food companies within Europe, to take advantage of the markets and to develop products that the markets need, which the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, referred to earlier.
The point that my noble friend raised in laying down this amendment is an extremely important one.

1059
In looking at the competitive element of this Bill, which is to ensure that the new arrangements for the voluntary boards do not immediately prevent private enterprise from taking their share of the business, we must ensure at the same time that the companies created and developed out of this new opportunity do not find themselves restricted and unable to be fully competitive and to grow in the same way as the companies in Europe which are now our major competitors have done. The time should soon be near when British farmers are producing high quality milk products for aggressive sale to customers in Europe and one hopes even further away. It would be a great pity if those who deal with monopolies and mergers do not appreciate that we are now living in a world market and we must allow our industry to take full advantage of that.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing the amendment so clearly. Although I can see that she would have preferred it to have been taken together with my amendment which follows, I think there are two distinct lines of argument in our respective amendments and it is perhaps no bad thing that they have been kept separate.
The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Carnegy would require the agriculture Ministers to apply a test to a reorganisation scheme which the Fair Trading Act foresees should be applied in a different context by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That different context is supplied by a reference by the Director General of Fair Trading and the necessary examination takes place in relation to matters specified by him.
It is undesirable to require agriculture Ministers to carry out precisely the same test for a number of reasons. First, although the Fair Trading Act enables the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to take a view not only of present or past events but also of the future, it may not be reasonable to do the latter in all circumstances. But the agriculture Ministers would necessarily be looking only to the future and would have no experience of the actual operation of the new arrangements to inform their judgment.
Secondly, and even more fundamentally, the amendment would open up the possibility that Ministers might approve a scheme, having regard to the test in the Fair Trading Act among the other relevant considerations—and I emphasise that for agriculture Ministers the competition test would not be the only matter to be taken into account—only to see the Monopolies and Mergers Commission apply that test at a later date and decide that the arrangements were not in practice operating in the public interest. That is its prerogative, which the actions of agriculture Ministers would not, could not and should not forestall. But the consequence of that action, if this amendment were accepted, might well be a successful judicial review of the original decision of Ministers to approve the scheme. The result would be chaotic, as the vesting and other arrangements which had been implemented would be cancelled at a stroke.
1060
It is difficult to see how any reorganisation scheme could be carried out at all in the face of such a climate of uncertainty.
I believe it is far better for agriculture Ministers to address the somewhat different but still significant question contained in the amendment in my name. As the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, said, we should not confuse the roles of Ministers and the competition authorities. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission has been established as an independent entity to do a particular job. The functions of agriculture Ministers are wider and we should not set up a conflict between the two.
My noble friend referred to the recently published report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into the proposed acquisition by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board of the liquid milk business of CWS in Scotland. As some noble Lords are aware, the report concluded that under the Scottish board's current proposals for successor marketing arrangements there would be scope for an abuse of a dominant market position. The commission took the view that unless adequate safeguards could be built into the proposals the acquisition would be against the public interest. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry accepted the report's recommendation that the acquisition be blocked.
As noble Lords will understand, it is in the first instance for the board to respond to the Secretary of State's decision. Scottish Office Ministers are concerned, however, to discuss with the board the wider implications of the report on the SMMB's current reorganisation proposals. My honourable friend Sir Hector Monro has already had a useful preliminary discussion with the board chairman and talks will be continuing. It would be wrong of me to attempt to predict the outcome of those discussions. I hope my noble friend will understand that I cannot go further than that at this stage.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, mentioned Northern Ireland. As she will be aware, Northern Ireland is not dealt with directly in the Bill. The intention is to introduce an Order in Council in due course to extend the provisions of the Bill to the Province. But Northern Ireland has definitely not been forgotten. The Northern Ireland MMB has produced reform proposals and these are the subject of discussions with officials from the Department of Agriculture, Northern Ireland and Ministers at the moment. With those explanations, I hope that my noble friend will be content to withdraw her amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have joined in this short debate and I particularly thank my noble friend the Minister. I take his point as to the problems of my amendment and as regards the test of the Fair Trading Act. I shall read his comments carefully and I suspect I shall be satisfied by them. I wish to return to the Scottish concern in the context of the next amendment, as the two measures overlap in a rather awkward way. I shall await the discussion on that amendment before taking

1061
those points further. I am absolutely delighted to hear that Sir Hector Monro, the Minister responsible for agriculture in the Scottish Office, is discussing the matter further with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
It is really good news that my noble friend's department and the Scottish Office are listening to one another on this point. The anxiety of the Scottish National Farmers' Union that they were not doing so was one of the reasons why it was extremely keen that the issues should be discussed in your Lordships' House. I thank the Minister for his comments. I have pleasure in withdrawing the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 28, leave out from ("to") to end of line 30 and insert ("allow for the development of competition in milk marketing.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I hope and believe that the introduction of this amendment will bring comfort and relief to the many noble Lords who at Committee stage professed themselves perplexed or discomfited—or perhaps even both perplexed and discomfited—at the existing wording of Clause 3(4) (e).
It is clearly right that, in considering whether a reorganisation scheme submitted by a milk marketing board should be approved, Ministers should have regard to the implications for competition. After all, many of the less desirable consequences of the milk marketing schemes stem from the absence of competition and the consequent muffling of market signals or, to put it another way, signals from consumers. The Government's objective, in looking to the boards to produce proposals for reform, has been to facilitate a move to more open and competitive marketing arrangements, as my noble friend Lord Wade said a moment ago.
The existing wording of Clause 3 (4) (e), as I have argued on another occasion, attempts to require Ministers to identify in advance the competition hurdles at which a scheme might fall, with the important proviso that Ministers should not be expected to predict the reactions of the independent competition authorities. The considerations identified in the earlier formulation remain important matters to which Ministers will no doubt have regard in reaching a decision.
The amendment would, however, introduce on to the face of the Bill a rather more positive and, I believe, more easily understood test; namely, whether the proposed new structure would allow for the development of competition in milk marketing. The use of the word "development" is not fortuitous. It may be that in the period immediately following the ending of a milk marketing scheme the great majority of milk producers will continue to want the security which comes from collective action and will therefore join a board's successor body. What is important is that a scheme should not unreasonably inhibit those who wish to act independently from the start or who wish to do so at some time in the future. To take an extreme example, it is unlikely that Ministers would
1062
consider that a scheme allowed for the development of competition if the constitution of a proposed successor body locked producers into membership, once they had joined, for a period of, say, 10 years.
It is important to be clear, too, what is meant by the words, "allow for" the development of competition. They do not mean that the boards will have to provide in their reorganisation schemes some kind of blueprint for the development of competition throughout the sector. Rather they should be interpreted to mean "allow room for" or "allow scope for". Ministers will be looking to judge whether a scheme would place important obstacles in the way of competition developing.
Finally, in view of comments made at Committee stage I should seek to explain once more what is meant by the "structure" of the new arrangements. It would include matters such as the number and type of successor bodies, the proposed contractual arrangement between a co-operative and its members and it would include any specific mechanism, such as an auction system, which might be proposed as a means of selling milk. But the way in which a successor body actually behaved—whether it traded fairly or engaged in unfair or illicit trading practices, for example—would not be a structural matter. It would not be capable of judgment before vesting day and it would necessarily be for the competition authorities, not agriculture Ministers, to judge that behaviour and to take action if necessary. I trust that noble Lords will regard the new text as a great improvement on the existing Clause 3(4) (e). I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for tabling this amendment which again implements a promise he made during the Committee stage. I believe he has met with considerable skill the challenge which faced him following that interesting debate in Committee. We are happy with the wording of the amendment and equally happy with the very full explanation the Minister has given in moving it. It will be of use to us, and it will also, I hope, be of use to the industry. For that reason, I believe that we served a useful purpose in querying the original draft and seeing it replaced.
It is not our wish—I am sure that this was inherent in what the noble Earl had to say—that Ministers should be so circumscribed that schemes, before overcoming the ministerial hurdle, had to be so restrictive that, in the rigour of the competition in the market place, the successor bodies as co-operatives would be put at a considerable disadvantage with the giants ranged against them. That is far from being the case. We wish to see the classic level playing field here. In saying that I wish to take account of a point which the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, raised in speaking to her amendment; namely, the structures which exist for co-operatives on the Continent. I do not think we should be seeking to make conditions for our milk marketing co-operatives any more difficult than they are for those on the Continent. Our competition supervisory machinery, to which the noble Earl also referred, must necessarily take account of that. I follow with great interest the articles which the retiring chairman of the Monopolies and Mergers

1063
Commission is writing about the respective areas of interest of his commission and the European Commission competition directorate and where these should lie.
The main issue from a British standpoint is that conditions should be equal. The figures which are required in order to achieve that equality are matters for connoisseurs or practitioners of the game. British firms will want to be assured that they have a level playing field. The milk marketing co-operatives which are to emerge from the Bill are entitled to ask for that. It is in that spirit and with those additional remarks that we welcome the clause and wish it every success and the approval of the House.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I, too, welcome the amendment. It is excellent that my noble friend has removed what the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, referred to in Committee as the almost impenetrable ambiguity factor of the Bill as it stands at present. However, it is still rather general and imprecise from the point of view of the people putting forward proposed schemes, although I expect that they can live with that. They would rather have that than something which is difficult to understand.
Having spoken to the Dairy Trade Federation I should like to ask an important question. How do the Government see the proposed subsection being interpreted? Will it give the Minister the opportunity to take a view without prejudice as to whether a scheme would allow competition to develop? In relation to that question my noble friend might cast his mind back to what I had to say about the Scottish situation in relation to the proposed integrated schemes which everybody thought would be in order until the Monopolies and Mergers Commission indicated that they would not be.
Will the amendment allow the Minister to make a realistic, up-to-date assessment of the nature of the market without prejudice when each proposal comes forward? Circumstances will change from time to time. There will not be hard and fast rules about what is competitive and what is not because the market in Europe and in the world will change. One will be able to look across the market and see, for example, Scottish market opportunities in the European and world context rather than merely in the domestic market in Scotland. The situation would be similar in relation to any other part of the United Kingdom. It is an important issue. Can the Minister elucidate?
Earl Howe: My Lords, perhaps I can help my noble friend by saying that every proposal will be considered on its individual merits. It will not be considered by reference to any other proposal that may have been put forward. It will certainly be considered with reference to the conditions in the market at the time the proposal is received, whatever they may be. As I said earlier, Ministers will have regard to what they consider to be reasonable in the circumstances. It is that test of reasonableness which is the most important hook on which Ministers will hang their decisions.
1064
I take my noble friend's point about the Scottish situation. It is very different from the situation which exists south of the Border. As I mentioned earlier, there are matters to be resolved between the SMMB and Ministers. Those discussions are proceeding. I can give my noble friend a broad reassurance in relation to the concern which she expressed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 32, after ("to") insert ("persons by reference to their being or having been").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Qualifying scheme of reorganisation]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 28, line 26, at end insert:
("(4) The scheme must not provide for the transfer of any right or liability of the board with respect to the supply of milk on or after the vesting day.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment does not reflect a change in policy but rather aims to clarify the intention underlying the existing wording.
The Government want to ensure that vesting day for each reorganisation scheme marks a clean break with the past. Contracts between a milk marketing board and producers of milk on the one hand and purchasers of milk on the other should come to an end on vesting day so that the onus is on a successor body to seek and arrange its own contracts. That is part and parcel of the Government's objective of providing for a move to more open and competitive marketing arrangements. It would not be right simply to allow successor bodies to take over the boards' milk supply contracts.
As currently worded, paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 achieves part of the objective by ruling out the transfer of board contracts with producers to a successor body but does not do so in respect of contracts with purchasers. The amendment would result in a tightening up of the wording and remove any doubt about the scope of this provision. From vesting day it would be for a residuary board and not a successor body to make any remaining payments to producers and collect any outstanding payments from purchasers for milk supplied under the scheme. I hope that noble Lords can give it their support. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I hope that the House will bear with me for one moment. Again following my discussions with the Dairy Trade Federation, I should like to ask the Minister three questions concerning the amendment. First, if it is accepted, does that mean that on vesting day all current purchasers' contracts will automatically come to an end? I am not sure from what my noble friend said what the position is.
Secondly, can the Government give an assurance that buyers will have as much notice as possible of the date of vesting day? Under Clause 1(3) it would be possible to delay the fixing of the date by order and in effect give buyers of milk only a few days' notice of the date on which contracts would end and the need to

1065
commence new ones. There is some anxiety in the trade about that. I should be grateful if the Minister would answer that question.
Are the Government prepared to give an undertaking that they will ensure that the date is fixed timeously so that buyers can make the necessary arrangements for their supply of milk on and after vesting day? If it is not possible for the Minister to answer that question today perhaps such an undertaking could be given in writing to me and to other noble Lords who are concerned about the issue. Will the Government undertake to give notice of that date timeously?
Thirdly, by the same token, what will happen to haulage contracts? Are they affected by the amendment? If they cannot be transferred automatically on vesting day time will be required to ensure that new haulage contracts are in place for vesting day. Can the Minister take that issue into account in any undertaking he gives as to the timing of the fixing of vesting day?
Lord Carter: My Lords, if the Minister gives such an undertaking I hope that he will agree that it should be circulated to those who are interested in the subject and perhaps placed in the Library.
Earl Howe: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall attempt to answer my noble friend as best I can, although it may be necessary for me to write to her in a little more detail. I can say that the contracts with purchasers will not necessarily end under the Bill, but they cannot be transferred. Having said that, a residuary body may not trade in milk but clearly it has the responsibility to collect money owed to it and to pay money that it itself owes.
With regard to notice, Ministers will have to have regard to the needs of all parties when they decide whether to extend the deadlines and what period of notice is appropriate.
The noble Baroness's third question referred to haulage. That is a matter for the contracting parties to determine unless they are transferred under vesting arrangements or similar provisions; and we do not know those yet.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask this question with the leave of the House. Is he saying that two or three days' notice of the changeover is out of the question? That period would not be unreasonable from anyone's point of view.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we would seek to avoid as short a period of notice as that. We would wish it to be as long as is practicably possible.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 14:
Page 29, line 10, leave out ("specify who is entitled to share in") and insert ("make provision for").
Page 29, line 11, at end insert ("to be distributed to the persons who, under the scheme, are entitled to participate in the distribution of assets of the board by virtue of their being, or having been, registered producers.").
Page 29, line l2, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised at Committee stage the question of what should happen if a residuary board has a surplus on winding up. As I explained at the time, the Bill as it stands would require a reorganisation scheme to specify who was entitled to share in that surplus, subject to the limitation that it must be distributed to registered producers or former registered producers.
On reflection it does seem more logical to require the surplus of a residuary board to be distributed to the same class of producers as are entitled to participate in the original distribution of the assets of the board to registered producers on or before vesting day. That is the same class of producers as is also liable to contribute to a levy if a residuary board—against all intention and expectation—has insufficient resources to meet its liabilities. In that way, both the levy and the distribution of any surplus may be conceived of as adjustments to the original distribution, which indeed is a logical outcome.
In view of the turn which discussion took at Committee stage, I should state quite categorically that there is not, and never was, any intention to restrict the class of potential beneficiaries of a surplus or contributors to a levy to producers who join a successor body.
The amendments which I have tabled would leave it to a reorganisation scheme to prescribe how any surplus should be divided among the eligible beneficiaries. Ministers would have to have regard under Clause 3(4) (b) to whether the proposal was reasonable, taking the initial distribution and the final distribution in combination. The basis might well be the same as that proposed for the earlier distribution. A board might, however, wish to propose a modification for perfectly good and practical reasons. However, that is speculation on my part as I have not discussed this matter with the boards. I hope that with that explanation the House will be content to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be extremely grateful to the Minister. It was an important point. He has now made the position completely clear. We can all understand the justice and equity of the system proposed. Amendment No. 12 deals well with the point.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 15 to 19:
Page 29, line 27, leave out ("formed for the purpose of giving effect to the scheme and").
Page 29, line 28, at end insert ("which has not previously carried on business").
Page 29, line 37, after ("its") insert ("name, or").
Page 29, line 38, after ("it") insert ("is, or").
Page 29, line 39, after ("its") insert ("constitution, or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords in moving Amendments Nos. 15 to 19, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 24 to 27.
The Government consider on reflection that the current wording of paragraph 11(2) (a) of Schedule 1 is unnecessarily restrictive. As things stand, a co-operative or other body formed before formal submission of a reorganisation scheme would

1067
probably not count as a qualifying successor body under a reorganisation scheme submitted by a milk marketing board.
Your Lordships will no doubt have noted that the England and Wales Milk Marketing Board has already announced the setting up of a successor co-operative by the name of Milk Marque Ltd. The Government can see no reason to oppose its wish, or the wish of the other boards, to make an early start in preparing for what will be the most fundamental change in the dairy industry for 60 years.
There is no sound reason why we should prevent the boards from passing assets to a successor body established before a reorganisation scheme is submitted. It is, however, desirable that the successor milk marketing bodies nominated in the reorganisation scheme should be established for the express purpose under consideration and the Bill would continue to ensure this by specifying that they should not previously have carried on business.
With that brief explanation, I hope that I have convinced noble Lords that the proposed amendments to paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 are desirable in order to provide the flexibility necessary for successor bodies to be set up and to be ready to start trading from vesting day. The linked amendments, Amendments Nos. 24 to 27 to Schedule 2, are purely consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 5 [Variation of approved scheme]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 5, line 20, after ("of") insert ("persons who are").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, leave out lines 23 and 24.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 22.
Clause 5 allows a milk marketing board to apply to Ministers for approval of a variation of an approved reorganisation scheme. This provides a mechanism for changes to an approved scheme to take account of, for example, a change in circumstances.
The possibility exists that an approved reorganisation scheme might turn out to have contained errors or omissions, such as the omission of an item of equipment from a schedule of assets. In that event the scheme would not technically have been a qualifying scheme to start with. Ministers would therefore be unable to satisfy themselves, in considering a proposed variation, that the scheme would "continue to" be a qualifying scheme as the existing wording of Clause 5(2) requires. That would be so even if the proposed variation was intended in whole or in part to correct the original mistake.
The amendment therefore adjusts Clause 5 so that, when deciding whether to grant an application for approval of a variation, Ministers would in effect be required simply to be satisfied that the scheme as
1068
varied was a qualifying one, rather than that the variation did not cause it to cease to be a qualifying scheme. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 5, line 26, leave out ("the decision under section 3(3) (a)") and insert ("its decisions under section 3(2) (b) and (3) (a)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Information]:
5 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 6, line 41, leave out from ("care,") to end of line 42 and insert ("subsection (3) above shall be treated as never having had any application in relation to it.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, when assessing an application for approval of a reorganisation scheme, or for a variation or withdrawal of an approved scheme, Ministers will need to have available such information as they consider necessary or desirable to carry out those functions. This may not all be contained in the relevant application. Clause 7 therefore provides a mechanism for Ministers to obtain additional information from the board to which a reorganisation scheme relates and from third parties. It also sets out the consequences of failure to comply.
In the event that a milk marketing board to which a reorganisation scheme relates fails, without reasonable grounds, to supply information required by Ministers within the deadline laid down, Clause 7(3) would result in the board being treated as having withdrawn its application. Clause 7(4) deals with the case where a board purports to comply with the requirements of the notice but it turns out, after the deadline for compliance and before Ministers have decided on the application, that it has not done so. In this event the provision would require Ministers to give the board concerned notice of this non-compliance.
It is not our intention to penalise a board for a genuine mistake. Clause 7(5) therefore provides that, if the board can satisfy Ministers that its failure to comply with the original notice was accidental and not attributable to any failure to take reasonable care, then it should be treated as having complied with the requirement to provide information. Its application would then proceed.
On further consideration, we have concluded that the wording of these three subsections may not be sufficiently clear for there to be no doubt about their meaning. It would be argued that as soon as it was realised that the board had not complied with the notice, the effect of Clause 7(3) is that the application would have to be treated immediately as having been withdrawn. The provision in Clause 7(5) that the board should be treated as having complied with Clause 7(3) would, so the argument goes, not be sufficient to undo this withdrawal.
We wish to remove any element of doubt on the point. The amendment achieves this by altering clause 7(5) so that, in the situation I have described, Clause 7(3) would be treated as never having applied. The

1069
board's application could then be treated as never having been withdrawn. Ministers would then proceed with their consideration of it. I hope that that explanation is sufficiently clear. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be extremely grateful to the Minister. If we had any doubts before, our minds are completely at rest now.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Provisions relating to carrying out of approved scheme of reorganisation]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 24 to 27:
Page 30, line 47, leave out from ("society") to ("registered") in line 48.
Page 30, line 49, at end insert ("which has not previously carried on business").
Page 31, line 32, leave out from ("society") to ("registered") in line 33.
Page 31, line 34, at end insert ("which has not previously carried on business").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 24 to 27 en bloc as they have already been spoken to.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 38, line 54, at end insert:
("Restraints on alienation etc.
24.—(1) No right of pre-emption or other like right affecting any property or rights of a milk marketing board, or of a subsidiary of such a board, shall be exercisable by virtue of anything done in pursuance of this Part of this Act.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above shall not apply where the thing done is specifically identified by the right of pre-emption or other like right as a circumstance in which the right is exercisable.
25.—(1) Any provision which prohibits the transfer, or the transfer without consent, of any property or rights of a milk marketing board, or of a subsidiary of such a board, shall be treated as not applying in the case of a transfer under section 10 above.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above shall not apply in the case of a provision which is formulated specifically with reference to the possibility of the undertaking of a milk marketing board being transferred otherwise than to a board constituted by a scheme under Part I of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958.
(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, any provision which penalises a transfer, or a transfer without consent, shall be treated as prohibiting it.
26.—(1) Any provision which prohibits the transfer without consent of any property or rights of a milk marketing board, or of a subsidiary of such a board, shall, if the prohibition is imposed for private purposes, be treated as not applying in the case of a transfer under an approved scheme otherwise than under section 10 above.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above shall not apply in the case of a provision which is formulated specifically with reference to the possibility of the undertaking of a milk marketing board being transferred otherwise than to a board constituted by a scheme under Part I of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958.
(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, any provision which penalises a transfer without consent shall be treated as prohibiting it.
27.—(1) This paragraph applies to any provision which prohibits the effecting without consent of any description of transaction, other than a transfer, with respect to any property or rights of a milk marketing board, or of a subsidiary of such a board.
(2) Where the prohibition imposed by a provision to which this paragraph applies is imposed for private purposes, it
1070
shall, subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, be treated as not applying in the case of a transaction effected under an approved scheme.
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) above shall not apply in the case of a provision which is formulated specifically with reference to the possibility of the undertaking of a milk marketing board being transferred otherwise than to a board constituted by a scheme under Part I of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958.
(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, any provision which penalises the effecting without consent of any description of transaction shall be treated as prohibiting it.
28.—(1) If the value of any property or interest of the person whose consent would have been required but for paragraph 26(1) or 27(2) above is diminished in consequence of the operation of that provision, such compensation as may be just shall be paid to that person by one or more of the parties to the transfer or other transaction.
(2) Any dispute as to whether, and if so how much, compensation is payable under this paragraph, or as to the person to or by whom it shall be paid, shall be referred to and determined by an arbitrator appointed—

(a) in the case of a dispute concerning anything which takes place under a scheme relating to the England and Wales Milk Marketing Board, in accordance with regulations made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State acting jointly, and

(b) in any other case, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.

29.—(1) For the purposes of this paragraph, a provision is a qualifying provision if

(a) it prohibits the effecting of any description of transaction, other than a transfer, with respect to any property or rights of a milk marketing board, or of a subsidiary of such a board,

(b) it is not a provision to which paragraph 27 above applies, and

(c) the prohibition which it imposes is imposed for private purposes.

(2) Where an approved scheme—

(a) identifies a qualifying provision as one to which this paragraph applies, and

(b) specifies one of the relevant bodies as the body against which any claim under paragraph 30 below is to be made,

the provision shall, subject to any provision of regulations under sub-paragraph (3) (c) below, be treated as not applying in the case of a transaction effected under the scheme.
(3) The appropriate authority may make regulations—

(a) with respect to the giving of notice of a provision of an approved scheme which identifies a qualifying provision as one to which this paragraph applies,

(b) with respect to the giving by the authority of a certificate of compliance in relation to the giving of notice under paragraph (a) above, and

(c) excluding sub-paragraph (2) above where no certificate of compliance under paragraph (b) above has been given at the time that a transaction is effected.

(4) Sub-paragraph (2) above shall not apply in the case of a provision which is formulated specifically with reference to the possibility of the undertaking of a milk marketing board being transferred otherwise than to a board constituted by a scheme under Part I of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958.
(5) In sub-paragraph (2) (b) above, the reference to the relevant bodies is to—

(a) the milk marketing board to which the scheme relates, and

(b) the body or bodies to which property, rights or liabilities of that board are, under the scheme, to be transferred under section 10 above.

(6) In sub-paragraph (3) above, "appropriate authority" means—

(a) in the case of an approved scheme relating to the England and Wales Milk Marketing Board, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State acting jointly, and

1071

(b) in any other case, the Secretary of State.

(7) For the purposes of this paragraph, any provision which penalises the effecting of a description of transaction shall be treated as prohibiting it.
30.—(1) If any person suffers a diminution in the value of any property or interest in consequence of the operation of paragraph 29 above, such compensation as may be just shall be paid to him by the nominated body.
(2) Any dispute as to whether, and, if so, how much, compensation is payable under this paragraph shall be referred to and determined by an arbitrator appointed—

(a) in the case of a dispute concerning anything which takes place under a scheme relating to the England and Wales Milk Marketing Board, in accordance with regulations made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State acting jointly, and

(b) in any other case, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(3) In sub-paragraph (1) above, the reference to the nominated body is to the body specified by the approved scheme concerned as the body against which any claim for compensation under this paragraph is to be made.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a lengthy amendment on the Marshalled List but I hope that I can encapsulate its content without too much difficulty for the House. However, it will take a few minutes.
One of the central features of Part I of the Bill is that each milk marketing board would be able to apply to Ministers for approval of a reorganisation scheme. Such a scheme could provide for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities of the board concerned to one or more successor bodies.
Our objective is that the transfer of a board's assets should be fully effective. Clause 10 therefore provides for all the transfers of assets of a board remaining on its vesting day to one or more successor bodies to take place automatically. The actual vesting of the property of a board in another person is however only one aspect of the sometimes complicated business of transferring assets from one person to another.
The series of amendments to Schedule 2 which I have tabled are designed to achieve a number of objectives. The primary aims are, on the one hand, to minimise the risk of disruption by third parties of the transfer of a board's assets under a reorganisation scheme and, on the other hand, to ensure that there is sufficient scope for compensation of third parties and that they are nonetheless not put at a financial disadvantage. Secondly, there is a need to ensure that those to whom property is transferred automatically under a reorganisation scheme can later prove ownership. Special provision is needed to ensure that transfers of a board's foreign property are given proper effect under the relevant foreign law. Finally, there are a number of technical provisions which I shall describe as I introduce the relevant amendment.
The first amendment, No. 28, concerns third party rights in property or rights of a milk marketing board. As many noble Lords will know, contracts relating to property of an individual or body often contain provisions which constrain in some way the freedom of that individual or body to dispose of it. These constraints are normally enforceable by the other
1072
contracting party. For example, mortgages would normally prohibit disposal unless the lender consented.
Technically, a transfer under a reorganisation scheme counts as a disposal. There is therefore the potential for third parties to disrupt the full implementation of a reorganisation scheme. Provision is accordingly needed to prevent this happening.
This amendment identifies a number of types of third party rights and specifies in what circumstances each is to be overridden. The specific treatment varies between the types of right. One principle applies throughout, however. Where a third party has specifically provided for a right to be exercisable in the event of the transfer of the undertaking of the relevant milk marketing board to a successor body, of the kind which would be envisaged by a reorganisation scheme, it would clearly be unreasonable to override that right. The board concerned will have entered freely into any agreement containing such a right and should be required to adhere to it.
The first type of right is dealt with in paragraph 24. This is a right of pre-emption. Such a right could take a number of forms. An example would be a right of a third party to purchase at a fixed price a property owned by a milk marketing board, should that board wish to transfer it to a new owner. Any such rights would in all likelihood continue to be exercisable against the successor body to whom the relevant property was transferred, whether before or on vesting day, should it wish to dispose of such property later. Paragraph 24 therefore provides that no right of pre-emption or other such right affecting an MMB or subsidiary of an MMB should be exercisable in relation to anything done in pursuance of Part I of the Act.
Paragraph 25 deals with cases where a third party has a right to prohibit, or prohibit unless it gives its consent, the transfer by a board or its subsidiary of particular property. This paragraph prevents such rights being exercised in a way that stops property being vested automatically in a successor under Clause 10. Instead the right will be available against the successor, should the successor wish to transfer the property later.
Paragraph 26 then provides a more limited protection for preparatory transfers carried out under a reorganisation scheme before vesting day. This type of transfer is not protected against restrictions imposed for public purposes; for example, a planning condition that the whole of an identified property should be in the same occupation. It is also not protected against an absolute prohibition on transfer. The preparatory transfers would, however, to an extent be protected against prohibitions on transfer without the consent of a third party if they had been imposed for private purposes; for example, where the consent needed is that of a landlord, paragraph 26(1) provides that such prohibitions would be overridden. Provided they fastened on to the property they would be revived to be used on a proposed subsequent transfer by the transferee. Scope is also provided in

1073
paragraph 28 for compensation to be paid to the third party whose right to refuse consent has been overridden.
Paragraph 27 goes on to provide a protection similar to the paragraph 26 protection in the case of preparatory transactions other than transfers; for example, sub-leases granted under reorganisation schemes in advance of Clause 10 vesting. Again, this type of transaction is not protected against restrictions imposed for public purposes. The example of a planning condition that the whole of an identified property should be in the same occupation could equally apply here. In addition, except where paragraph 29 operates, this type of transaction is not protected against any absolute prohibition. It is, however, to an extent protected against prohibitions which both operate for private purposes, for example to protect a landlord, and are capable of being waived by the consent of a third party, presumably the same landlord. Thus paragraph 27(2) provides that such prohibitions would be overridden. Scope is again provided in paragraph 28 for compensation to be paid to the third party whose right to refuse consent has been overridden.
A third party, whose right to refuse consent to a transfer or other transaction has been overridden by paragraphs 26 and 27, may suffer a reduction in the value of his interest in the relevant property of the board or subsidiary concerned. Paragraph 28(1) provides for one or more of the parties to the transaction, that is the relevant MMB or successor body, to pay such compensation as is just to the third party. Any dispute as to whether and, if so, how much compensation should be paid would be determined by an arbitrator appointed in accordance with regulations to be made by the relevant Ministers.
Finally, with gratitude for your Lordships' patience, I come to paragraphs 29 and 30. The milk marketing boards have a large number of legal agreements. They have not been able to identify so far all the categories of third party rights which these agreements might contain. Should evidence of rights which are not specifically provided for in this amendment materialise, there is a potential for disruption of an approved reorganisation scheme. Paragraph 29 would therefore permit a board to propose in its scheme that prohibitions imposed for private purposes on transactions not specifically covered in the amendment should be overridden. Ministers would then consider any such proposals when deciding whether the scheme overall ought to be approved. It is important that third parties affected by such provisions of an approved scheme should be informed that their rights are to be overridden. Paragraph 29(3) contains a procedure to ensure this.
Paragraph 30 establishes a procedure similar to that in paragraph 28 for the determination of compensation for any reduction in the value of a third party's interest in a property or right of a board or subsidiary as a result of the application of paragraph 29. The compensation would be paid either by the board concerned or one of its successor bodies. Whichever body was responsible for payment would be specified in the relevant reorganisation scheme.
1074
These provisions are technical and very detailed. I hope, however, that noble Lords will appreciate from my explanation their importance. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House is extremely grateful to the Minister for his explanation. When he put down Amendment No. 28—indeed all the amendments right through to Amendment No. 32—I am sure the House was extremely grateful to him. It made for a very happy weekend trying to read and understand what on earth they meant.
I have only one point to make about Amendment No. 28, relating to paragraph 28(1) and paragraph 30(1). There is some rather curious wording dealing with compensation. Paragraph 28(1) states:
"such compensation as may be just shall be paid to that person".
Almost the same wording is repeated in paragraph 30(1).
Why not say that "compensation shall he paid"? There should be no "may be" about it. If it says anything at all, it is that the compensation shall be just. There is provision for arbitration. I shall be interested to know why the lawyers feel it is necessary to put "compensation as may be just". There is going to be compensation. If they do not agree about it there is going to be arbitration. The matter should either not be mentioned at all, or it should say that the compensation, as I believe all noble Lords would agree, "shall be just", not "may be just". There should be no "may be" about it.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. If I am able to elucidate it, I will write to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 38, line 54, at end insert:
("Certificates of vesting
.—(1) Where section 10(1) above applies on the vesting day under an approved scheme, the authority which approved the scheme shall give to each person identified by the scheme as a person to whom any property, right or liability of the relevant board is to be transferred under that section ("a relevant transferee") a certificate ("qualification certificate") stating—

(a) that he is identified by the scheme as a relevant transferee,

(b) whether the concurrence of any person is required to the issue by him of a certificate of vesting in relation to the relevant board, and

(c) if it is, whose concurrence is so required.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above, the following are the persons whose concurrence is required to the issue of a certificate of vesting in relation to the relevant board by the person to whom a qualification certificate is given—

(a) where the scheme identifies anyone other than that person as a relevant transferee, that other person, or, if more than one, each of those other persons, and

(b) where the scheme does not provide for all the property, rights and liabilities to which the relevant board is entitled or subject on the vesting day to be transferred under section 10 above, that board.

(3) Where a person to whom a qualification certificate is given issues a certificate of vesting in relation to the relevant board, then, subject to sub-paragraphs (4) to (6) below, it shall be conclusive evidence for all purposes of any fact stated in it with respect to the effect of section 10 above in relation to any property, right or liability of the relevant board.
(4) Where a qualification certificate states that the concurrence of one or more persons is required to the issue of

1075
a certificate of vesting in relation to the board, sub-paragraph (3) above shall not apply in relation to such a certificate issued by the person to whom the qualification certificate is given unless it is issued with the concurrence of the person, or each of the persons, identified by the qualification certificate as a person whose concurrence is required.
(5) Sub-paragraph (3) above shall not apply to a certificate of vesting in relation to the relevant board to the extent that the certificate relates to land which is registered land at the time the certificate is issued if a person has, at that time, been registered as the proprietor of the land in reliance on the operation of section 10 above in relation to it.
(6) Sub-paragraph (3) above shall cease to apply to a certificate of vesting in relation to the relevant board—

(a) to the extent that the certificate relates to land which is not registered land at the time the certificate is issued, on the land becoming registered land, and

(b) to the extent that the certificate relates to land which is registered land at the time the certificate is issued, on a person being registered as the proprietor of the land in reliance on the operation of section 10 above in relation to it.

(7) In this paragraph—

(a) "the relevant board" means the milk marketing board to which the approved scheme relates,

(b) references to a certificate of vesting in relation to the relevant board are to a certificate with respect to the effect of section 10 above in relation to any property, right or liability of the relevant board, and

(c) references to registered land are to registered land within the meaning of the Land Registration Act 1925.

.—(1) This paragraph applies where an approved scheme includes provision for any property, right or liability of a subsidiary of the milk marketing board to which the scheme relates to be transferred under section 10 above.
(2) Where subsection (1) of that section applies on the vesting day under the scheme, the authority which approved the scheme shall give to each person identified by the scheme as a person to whom any property, right or liability of the subsidiary is to be transferred under that section ("a relevant transferee") a certificate ("qualification certificate") stating—

(a) that he is identified by the scheme as a relevant transferee,

(b) whether the concurrence of any person is required to the issue by him of a certificate of vesting in relation to the subsidiary, and

(c) if it is, whose concurrence is so required.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above, the following are the persons whose concurrence is required to the issue of a certificate of vesting in relation to the subsidiary by the person to whom a qualification certificate is given—

(a) where the scheme identifies anyone other than that person as a relevant transferee, that other person, or, if more than one, each of those other persons, and

(b) where the scheme does not provide for all the property, rights and liabilities to which the subsidiary is entitled or subject on the vesting day to be transferred under section 10 above, the subsidiary.

(4) Where a person to whom a qualification certificate is given issues a certificate of vesting in relation to the subsidiary, then, subject to sub-paragraphs (5) to (7) below, it shall be conclusive evidence for all purposes of any fact stated in it with respect to the effect of section 10 above in relation to any property, right or liability of the subsidiary.
(5) Where a qualification certificate states that the concurrence of one or more persons is required to the issue of a certificate of vesting in relation to the subsidiary, sub-paragraph (4) above shall not apply in relation to such a certificate issued by the person to whom the qualification certificate is given unless it is issued with the concurrence of the person, or each of the persons, identified by the qualification certificate as a person whose concurrence is required.
(6) Sub-paragraph (4) above shall not apply to a certificate of vesting in relation to the subsidiary to the extent that the certificate relates to land which is registered land at the time the certificate is issued if a person has, at that time, been registered as the proprietor of the land in reliance on the operation of section 10 above in relation to it.
(7) Sub-paragraph (4) above shall cease to apply to a certificate of vesting in relation to the subsidiary—

(a) to the extent that the certificate relates to land which is not registered land at the time the certificate is issued, on the land becoming registered land, and

(b) to the extent that the certificate relates to land which is registered land at the time the certificate is issued, on a person being registered as the proprietor of the land in reliance on the operation of section 10 above in relation to it.

(8) In this paragraph—

(a) references to a certificate of vesting in relation to the subsidiary are to a certificate with respect to the effect of section 10 above in relation to any property, right or liability of the subsidiary, and

(b) references to registered land are to registered land within the meaning of the Land Registration Act 1925.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I can deal with this amendment more briefly. The implementation of a reorganisation scheme may result in the property, rights and liabilities of a milk marketing board being owned after vesting day by more than one body. The same applies to assets of a subsidiary of a milk marketing board. Should a successor body in such circumstances wish to dispose of any such asset, the prospective purchaser may want proof of ownership. The fine details of an approved reorganisation scheme will not be in the public domain. Where the ownership of the assets of either a board or a subsidiary is split between more than one body after vesting day, a procedure is required to enable such a body to prove ownership.
This amendment consists of two sets of provisions, one relating to the assets of a board, the other to those of a subsidiary of one. The provisions are equivalent. I shall therefore only refer to the assets of a milk marketing board.
The amendment lays down a procedure whereby each person to whom assets of a board have been transferred under Clause 10 in accordance with an approved reorganisation scheme will be able to issue a certificate known as a "certificate of vesting". This would be conclusive evidence for all purposes of any fact stated in it with respect to the vesting of the asset identified in it. It could thus certify ownership of a particular asset. Where assets of the board concerned have been transferred to more than one person under Clause 10 or where the board has retained some of its assets, the agreement of the other parties in whom assets have been vested, or by whom they have been retained, to the issuing of the certificate will be required. This would ensure, for example, that prospective purchasers could be satisfied that the person identified in the certificate as the owner was the actual owner.
I shall shortly be introducing Amendment No. 30 which concerns the registration of land transferred under a reorganisation scheme by virtue of Clause 10. Certificates of vesting issued under this paragraph would be particularly needed where a successor body wished to prove ownership of registrable land where

1077
change of ownership had not yet been registered. Clearly, once the change of ownership of a piece of land had been registered a certificate of vesting would be unnecessary to prove ownership. These provisions therefore provide for a certificate of vesting not to apply in relation to a piece of land transferred under Clause 10 once the change of ownership has been registered. The amendment is important in that it introduces a procedure to enable the avoidance of any doubt about ownership of assets of a milk marketing board after vesting day. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, again the House should be grateful to the Minister for explaining so clearly. There is just one question. The amendment refers throughout to the concurrence of the various parties. What happens if the relevant transferee does not concur?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I think I would do best to write to the noble Lord on that point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 38, line 54, at end insert:
("Land registration
.—(1) Where section 10(1) above applies on the vesting day under an approved scheme, the appropriate authority shall—

(a) give a copy of the order under section 1(5) above to each person from or to whom property, rights or liabilities are transferred under section 10 above in accordance with the scheme, and

(b) annex to the copy order a copy of the scheme certified by it to be a true copy.

(2) The copy of the scheme given under sub-paragraph (1) above shall be treated for land registration purposes in England and Wales as conclusive evidence of the terms of the scheme.
.—(1) This paragraph applies where any registered land in England and Wales is transferred under section 10 above.
(2) The transferee shall be entitled to be registered as proprietor in place of the transferor on an application in that behalf made to the Chief Land Registrar.
(3) On an application under sub-paragraph (2) above, the transferee shall supply to the Chief Land Registrar such information and produce to him such documents as he may require for the purpose of enabling him to deal with the application.
(4) Section 43 of the Land Registration Act 1925 (effect of transmissions) shall apply in relation to any person registered in place of the transferor as it applies in relation to any person registered in place of a deceased or bankrupt proprietor, but with the omission of the words from "upon the trusts" to "applicable by law, and".
(5) In this paragraph, "registered land" has the same meaning as in the Land Registration Act 1925.
.—(1) This paragraph applies where any land in England and Wales which is not registered land is transferred by virtue of section 10 above.
(2) Unless the transferee, or his successor in title or assign, has before the end of six months from the date of the transfer applied to be registered as proprietor of the land, section 10 above shall he deemed never to have had effect to transfer the legal estate in the land.
(3) The power conferred by the proviso to section 123(1) of the Land Registration Act 1925 (power of Chief Land Registrar, or court on appeal from him, to extend the period
1078
within which an application for first registration must be made) shall also apply in relation to the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) above.
(4) Any rules made by virtue of section 123(2) of the Land Registration Act 1925 shall—

(a) apply to dealings with the land which may take place between the date of the transfer and the date of the application to register as if the land had been the subject of a conveyance or assignment on the date of the transfer, and

(b) apply in relation to an application for registration under this paragraph as they apply in relation to an application for registration under section 123 of that Act.

(5) On an application for first registration under this paragraph, the applicant shall supply to the Chief Land Registrar such information and produce to him such documents as he may require for the purpose of enabling him to deal with the application.
(6) In this paragraph, "registered land" has the same meaning as in the Land Registration Act 1925.
. In relation to Scotland, any transfer under an approved scheme shall have effect subject to the provisions of any enactment which provides for transactions of that description to be given effect to by registration in any statutory register.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, any transfer of property under an approved reorganisation scheme by virtue of Clause 10 may have land registration implications. For example, the register entry for registered land in England and Wales transferred under Clause 10 would not automatically show the new owner.
It is essential that the Land Registry should be kept up to date. So the first main effect of the amendment is to ensure that any person to whom land in England and Wales has been transferred by virtue of Clause 10 —land, that is, which was registered with the Land Registry—will be able to apply to the chief land registrar to have the change of ownership registered.
In the case of unregistered land in England and Wales which is transferred under Clause 10, the occasion of the transfer is a good opportunity to register ownership. So the second main effect of the amendment is to require the recipient of such land, or anyone to whom he may sell the land, to apply within six months of vesting to be registered as the owner. This deadline could be extended by the chief land registrar. Should the new owner fail to apply for registration within the deadline, the transfer of the land concerned would be deemed not to have taken place.
The other provisions of the amendment relate to matters such as the provision of evidence to the Land Registry that transfers of land in England and Wales under a reorganisation scheme have taken place. The amendment also provides for the supply to the land registrar by the person to whom land is transferred of sufficient information to enable him to register the change of ownership.
The procedures for land registration in Scotland are different from those in England and Wales. The amendment provides for the same rules to apply to transfers of land in Scotland which are made under Clause 10 as would apply if the same transfers had taken place by private contract. It deals with an important technical issue arising out of the implementation of a reorganisation scheme. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 38, line 54, at end insert:
("Transfers under section 10: transition
.—(1) Any agreement, transaction or other thing which—

(a) is made, effected or done with respect to anything transferred under section 10 above in accordance with an approved scheme,

(b) is made, effected or done by, to or in relation to the transferor, and

(c) is in force or effective immediately before the vesting day under the scheme,

shall, on and after that day, have effect as if made, effected or done by, to or in relation to the transferee in all respects as if the transferee were the same person in law as the transferor.
(2) sub-paragraph (1) above shall not affect the construction of any provision which is formulated specifically with reference to the possibility of the undertaking of a milk marketing board being transferred otherwise than to a board constituted by a scheme under Part I of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a fairly straightforward amendment. Legal instruments or agreements relating to property, rights or liabilities of a milk marketing board or a subsidiary of one may be in force immediately before vesting day. Where such an instrument relates to an asset which is transferred by virtue of Clause 10 under an approved reorganisation scheme it is generally desirable that the agreement should apply to the transferee as if he were the transferor. The exception, in line with the principle that I have already outlined, is where a provision which specifically anticipates the transfer of the undertaking of a board to the type of successor body provided for in a reorganisation scheme prohibits that situation. In that case, it will be necessary for the board or subsidiary to renegotiate the terms of the agreement before vesting day.
The amendment therefore simply stands the transferee in the shoes of the transferor in respect of such agreements or transactions except in the circumstances which I have outlined. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 38, line 54, at end insert:
("Provisions of scheme effective on statutory vesting
.—(1) Where section 10(1) above applies on the vesting day under an approved scheme, the provisions of the scheme shall, to the extent that they fall within sub-paragraph (2) below, have effect by virtue of this paragraph.
(2) The provisions of an approved scheme fall within this sub-paragraph to the extent that they purport—

(a) to impose on one of the relevant bodies an obligation on or after the vesting day under the scheme to enter into a written agreement with, or execute an instrument in favour of, another of the relevant bodies;

(b) to create for one of the relevant bodies, on the vesting day under the scheme, an interest in or right over property transferred under section 10 above to another of the relevant bodies; or

(c) to adapt, with effect from the vesting day under the scheme, references to members or officers of the relevant board in a document or oral agreement relating to anything transferred under section 10 above to a relevant successor body.

(3) The provisions of an approved scheme only fall within sub-paragraph (2) above by virtue of paragraph (c) of that sub-paragraph to the extent that their purpose is to prevent, so far as reasonably possible, the effect of the provisions in which the references concerned occur being materially altered as a result of the transfer.
(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above, the relevant bodies, in relation to an approved scheme, are—

(a) the relevant board, and

(b) the relevant successor bodies.

(5) In this paragraph—

(a) "relevant board", in relation to an approved scheme, means the milk marketing board to which the scheme relates; and

(b) "relevant successor body", in relation to such a scheme, means a body corporate to which property, rights or liabilities are transferred under section 10 above in accordance with the scheme.

.—(1) Where section 10(1) above applies on the vesting day under an approved scheme, the provisions of the scheme shall, to the extent that they fall within sub-paragraph (2) below, have effect by virtue of this paragraph.
(2) The provisions of an approved scheme fall within this sub-paragraph to the extent that they purport—

(a) to impose on—

(i) the relevant board, or

(ii) all or any of the bodies corporate to which property, rights or liabilities of the relevant board are transferred under section 10 above ("the relevant successor bodies"),

duties to take, on or after the vesting day under the scheme, such steps as may be requisite to secure that the vesting under section 10 above of any foreign property, right or liability of the relevant board in any of those bodies is effective under the relevant foreign law;

(b) to impose on the relevant board a duty, in relation to any foreign property, right or liability of its which is transferred under section 10 above to a body corporate, to hold that property or right for the benefit of, or discharge that liability on behalf of, that body corporate, until the vesting of that property, right or liability in that body corporate is effective under the relevant foreign law;

(c) to require a body corporate to which any foreign property, right or liability of the relevant board is transferred under section 10 above to act on behalf of that board (so far as possible) for the purposes of, or in connection with, the performance of any duty of the board under the scheme in relation to any foreign property, right or liability of its so transferred to that body corporate; or

(d) to require any of the relevant successor bodies to meet expenses incurred by the relevant board in consequence of provisions of the scheme which fall within this sub-paragraph by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) above.

(3) Nothing in any provision which has effect by virtue of this paragraph shall be taken as prejudicing the effect, under the law of any part of the United Kingdom, of the vesting under section 10 above of any foreign property, right or liability in any of the relevant successor bodies.
(4) Where provisions of an approved scheme have effect by virtue of this paragraph, the relevant board shall have all such powers as may be requisite for the performance of any duty to which it is subject as a result.
(5) In this paragraph—

(a) "relevant board", in relation to an approved scheme, means the milk marketing board to which the scheme relates; and

(b) references to any foreign property, right or liability are to any property, right or liability as respects which any issue arising in any proceedings would have to be determined (in accordance with the rules of private international law) by reference to the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this relatively straightforward amendment deals with technical matters relating to the transfer of property or rights of a milk marketing board under an approved reorganisation scheme.
The first paragraph deals with three such matters. In addition to proposing the automatic transfer of its property and those of a subsidiary in a reorganisation scheme a board may wish to provide in the scheme for the drawing up of agreements after vesting day between the residuary board and a successor body or between two successor bodies in relation to such property. A board may also wish to create for itself or a successor body an interest in, or rights over, property vested in a successor body. Finally, a board may wish to regularise its replacement by a successor as a party to an agreement. For example, where such agreements contain references to members or officers of the board concerned this could be achieved by the replacement of those references with references to the appropriate persons in the successor body.
Separate provision is needed to give effect to these potential elements of a reorganisation scheme and the amendment achieves that situation.
The second paragraph deals with the transfer of ownership of any foreign property, rights or liabilities owned by a milk marketing board. While any transfers of foreign assets under Clause 10 will take place automatically for the purposes of UK law, there will be no effect in relation to the relevant foreign law. It is therefore necessary to enable a board to specify in a reorganisation scheme who among the board and any successor bodies should be responsible for taking the necessary steps under foreign law to effect the transfer of such property. This paragraph gives effect to elements of a reorganisation scheme which make such a provision.
The amendments are important in that they tie up loose ends resulting from the implementation of a reorganisation scheme. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Position following reorganisation]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 8, line 36, leave out ("This section applies") and insert ("Subsections (2) to (5) below apply").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 34.
The amendments concern the establishment of the framework within which a milk marketing board operates after vesting day if an approved reorganisation scheme relating to it is implemented. If I may briefly recap, the Bill envisages that the board would continue after vesting day in residuary form for a period before it was wound up. A board would be required under paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 to specify in its reorganisation scheme what functions the residuary board would carry out. Those would be limited to functions relating to any retained assets and liabilities and its winding up. A residuary board would be debarred from trading in milk.
A board would therefore have very different functions after vesting day than it had before. Furthermore, the main provisions of the relevant milk marketing scheme would have been revoked.
1082
Provision is therefore needed to establish a new framework within which the board is to operate. Clause 13 would require Ministers to make regulations for the purpose of giving effect to that part of an approved scheme which related to the period after vesting day. In addition they could make regulations in relation to the constitution of the board or for the purpose of enabling it to wind up its affairs.
Clause 13 would only apply where an approved reorganisation scheme was implemented and Ministers would be unable to make those regulations until vesting day. Therefore, a board could not set up its new structure in advance. If the regulations did not come into force immediately there would be an interim period during which the residuary board might not be able to function properly.
It is clearly sensible therefore that a board should know its new constitution and powers in advance of vesting day and be able to begin operating in its new form on that day. The amendments would enable Ministers to make the necessary regulation in relation to a particular milk marketing board before vesting day in anticipation of a successful implementation of the relevant reorganisation scheme. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 9, line 18, at end insert:
("(5A) Regulations under subsection (2) above may be made in anticipation of the application of that subsection.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Levies]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 10, line 29, leave out ("to") and insert ("by virtue of their being or having been").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Overriding nature of functions under Part I]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 36 and 37:
Page 10, line 32, leave out ("to registered producers").
Page 10, line 33, at end insert ("to persons who are registered producers").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 21 [Interpretation of Part I]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 12, line 26, leave out ("who are").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Application of sections 23 to 43]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 39:
Leave out Clause 22 and insert the following new clause:
("Activation of Part II
22.—(1) If it appears to the Ministers that it is necessary or expedient that the Potato Marketing Scheme should be brought to an end, they may by order specify a day as the first day of the period mentioned in section 23(2) below.
(2) Where an order under this section is contained in a statutory instrument which is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, then, if the instrument is annulled in pursuance of such a resolution, the order shall be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as never having been made.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 39 I shall speak also to Amendments

1083
Nos. 41, 42, 57 and 60 which are consequential to Amendment No. 39 and to Amendment No. 70 which is linked.
The Committee of the House considered a number of amendments which either laid down conditions to be met before the potato marketing scheme should be revoked or called for the order stating that the scheme should be brought to an end to be subject to affirmative resolution procedure. I explained to the Committee that there was a strong chance that the introduction of an EC potato regime would necessitate the abolition of the Great Britain scheme and that in those circumstances the Government could not be bound by any criteria. However I agreed that Parliament should have the opportunity to debate any ministerial decision and undertook to bring forward an amendment providing that the order stating that the potato marketing scheme should be brought to an end should be subject to negative resolution procedure.
In that debate in Committee I very much appreciated the contributions that were made by my noble friends Lady Carnegy of Lour and Lord Renton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who kindly corresponded with me subsequently.
Having reflected on the matter over the Christmas Recess and in the light of further discussions with the Potato Marketing Board, the Government have decided that they can move even further towards meeting your Lordships' wishes. We propose that the order should be subject to negative resolution procedure if revocation proves necessary in the light of an EC regime and affirmative resolution procedure in other circumstances.
We have not defined the circumstances in which negative resolution procedure would be used because until we see the final form of the EC regime it is difficult to foresee what constraints may be laid upon us. I should like to emphasise that the intention behind the amendment is that affirmative resolution procedure will apply to an order relating to the potato marketing scheme except in the very restricted case of the scheme being inconsistent with an EC regime. In that event, the provisions of the Bill provide a more constructive alternative to the abolition of the scheme under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act and negative resolution procedure would avoid wasting the time of the House on a fruitless debate and allow the board to move speedily towards the evolution of a successor scheme. I hope that your Lordships will accept my assurances.
At this stage, before dealing with the amendments in detail I should like to take this opportunity, as I undertook in Committee, to report to noble Lords on the outcome of the discussions on the potato regime at the December Agriculture Council.
The Council asked for further work to be done by the Special Committee for Agriculture to progress the Commission's proposal, including the addition of provision for marketing standards, and for it to be referred back to the Council for decision as soon as the European Parliament had given its opinion. I must
1084
report that in the discussion no member state indicated that it would wish to adopt a quota system similar to that operated in Great Britain. Indeed, no member state has so far argued for the retention of its national measures.
Returning to the amendments, new Clause 22(1) provides that,
"If it appears to the Ministers that it is necessary or expedient that the Potato Marketing Scheme should be brought to an end, they may by order specify a day",
which shall be the first day from which the 12-month period specified in Clause 23(2) shall commence. Clause 22(2) provides that if the order made under Clause 22(1) is subject to negative resolution procedure and is then annulled, the order will be treated as never having been made.
The amendment is drafted in that way because, although a negative resolution order would automatically become invalid if annulled, the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, which contains the general law on these matters, states that if an order be annulled,
"no further proceedings shall be taken thereunder".
That does not deal with the situation where, as in this case, various actions may already have been taken before annulment whose legal validity would then be doubtful. The only way to undo that would be for a further order to be made. Clause 22(2) removes any ambiguity and any need for a further order.
Consequential Amendment No. 41 amends Clause 23(2) so that the potato marketing scheme will be revoked 12 months from the date specified in the order made under the new Clause 22(1) rather than 12 months from the date of the making of the order as is contained in the Bill. That 12-month period can still be extended by Ministers. Similarly, Amendment No. 42 amends Clause 24(1) so that the six-month period during which the Potato Marketing Board may submit a transfer scheme begins on the date specified in the Clause 22(1) order.
Amendment No. 57 amends Clause 37(1) so that elections for PMB board members, other than for casual vacancies, will cease on the day specified in the Clause 22(1) order rather than on the date that that order is made. Amendment No. 60 amends Clause 39 so that no calendar year may be prescribed as a quota year on or after the date specified in the Clause 22(1) order.
Finally, Amendment No. 70 amends Clause 53 to insert a new subsection to provide that the statutory instrument containing an order made under Clause 22 shall be subject to the negative resolution procedure unless a draft of the order is approved by each House of Parliament. As I have already indicated, the Government decided that the negative resolution procedure will be used if revocation of the potato marketing scheme proves necessary in the light of an EC regime and affirmative resolution in all other circumstances.
On the basis of that assurance I ask the House to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 39, Amendment No. 39A:
Line 2, leave out ("necessary or expedient") and insert:
("(a) necessary, or
(b) in the public interest").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I realise only too well that moving amendments to amendments complicates my life and probably also your Lordships'. I accept also that by so doing it may have resulted in flawed drafting. However, I hope to convince your Lordships of the merits of the intention of my amendment. Indeed, I hope that my noble friend Lord Howe may be able to agree certain parts, if not all, of the amendment.
The intention of Amendment No. 39A is twofold. First, it is to ensure that, should the Government decide to do away with the Potato Marketing Board, they are committed to putting in its place a successor body. I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept that. Secondly, it is to discover and suggest the role that the successor bodies should have and in what circumstances that succession may take place.
I fear that my noble friend may find difficulty in accepting my second intention. As far as can be understood, the present policy of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture is to leave the whole question open and unanswered. That just will not do. Nothing, but nothing, is more demoralising for an industry—particularly the potato industry, which is facing one of its worst seasons for decades—than not to know what is in store. I hope that your Lordships will agree that such an attitude is irresponsible and hardly equates with my noble friend's remarks at Committee stage (at col. 347 of Hansard) when he said that any change would be,
"in the best interests of the industry".
I hope therefore that my noble friend will be able to correct what I hope is my and the potato industry's misinterpretation of my right honourable friend's attitude to the Potato Marketing Board and any successor body.
Amendment No. 39A would therefore have the following effect. If there is a European potato regime introduced that does not allow subsidiarity by the United Kingdom Government—that is, we are forbidden by the European Community from running a national scheme of our own—there would be no point whatever in the Government consulting our industry and it would therefore proceed by negative resolution. However, where the European Community introduces a potato regime that would allow the United Kingdom to have its own scheme—that is, it would accept subsidiarity—under Amendment No. 39A the Government would have to proceed by what I call the "in the public interest" rule, which would result in their consulting,
"with such persons as appear to them to be representative of the interests of producers, purchasers, retailers and consumers of potatoes and shall have regard to the views expressed by those persons".
When that process has been completed and a new scheme drawn up, the Government would then put it before Parliament in the form of an affirmative order.
From what has appeared in the farming press since Committee stage it seems that the European Commission has no objection whatever to the United Kingdom continuing to have its own potato marketing scheme. According to those reports, it is my right honourable friend the Minister who is objecting to our being allowed to have our own United
1086
Kingdom scheme. I hope that my noble friend can throw some light on the matter. Indeed, I go further and ask him whether the Government are pressing for a subsidiarity clause in any European potato regime that would allow us either to keep the Potato Marketing Board or to set up our own successor body. If they are not pressing for one, why not? It must surely be in our interests to run our own affairs when we are allowed to rather than to let Brussels dictate. Even though my right honourable friend may prefer to encourage a Brussels directive, it must surely be better to have as many doors as possible kept open than to be saddled with a scheme that could well be Mediterranean oriented.
Finally, before my noble friend finds fault with the drafting of my amendment, and despite his remarks, I still do not understand his amendment. As Amendment No. 39 is tabled—not what he said or promised—I believe that it would be up to Ministers to decide whether to have an affirmative or a negative resolution. I hope therefore that my noble friend will be able to take the mote out of his amendment before he takes the beam out of mine. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Gallacher and I were pleased to add our names to Amendment No. 39A. Although the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, did not mention Amendment No. 39B, I think we are now discussing the whole group of amendments.
The group deals with the crucial matter of the route of parliamentary approval for the winding up of the potato marketing scheme and the relationship of European legislation, if any, to that winding up. The purpose of Amendment No. 39A is quite clear. It provides that if a European regulation on the potato regime allows the retention of the potato marketing scheme then the scheme should be retained. The Minister was careful to say that we have not yet seen the final form of the regulation from Europe and that therefore all kinds of things could happen. It could allow subsidiarity. It could allow for our scheme to continue. That is the important point. The impression has already been given by Ministers and others that the regime does not allow the continuation of the potato marketing scheme. However, we do not know that because, as the Minister said, it is not yet in its final form. It is subject to debate in the European Parliament and, of course, to further discussion in the Council of Ministers.
Perhaps I may add to the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. There is considerable bewilderment in the industry—perhaps the Minister can clarify this—about reports in the farming press that a Commission source has said that there is nothing to stop us having our own scheme under the proposed regime even as drafted now. It seems that Ministers have a brief to the contrary. I should like to repeat a quotation which I gave in Committee. It comes from a document sent by the PMB to all growers entitled The Potato Marketing Scheme and the Proposed EC Regime. It refers to the principle of subsidiarity and states:

1087
"Informal discussions with Commission officials suggest that they do not see abolition of the British system as central to their objectives, provided it does not conflict with the principles of the Single European Act".—[Official Report, 10 12, 92; col. 336.]
Is that statement wrong?
This whole argument of subsidiarity is crucial to the debate. Are the Government prepared to argue subsidiarity within the Council of Ministers? Are we correct in thinking that the draft regulation has to receive the support of the European Parliament and also requires unanimity in the Council of Ministers? The various member states did not show their hands completely in the very hasty discussions that took place in December. The whole thing was rushed. The draft regulation was published in the middle of November and the Council met in December. I am therefore not in the least surprised that member states are keeping their negotiating cards close to their chest at this time. The House and the industry are entitled to make this point. If the Government want to get rid of the potato marketing scheme—the Government are entitled to that ideological view—and leave producers at the mercy of an uncoordinated market in potatoes, they should say so and not attempt to hide behind the European legislation. If that is their position—in my view it is a position based on free market dogma—they should spell out their arguments as to what they believe will be the benefit to producers.
Amendment No. 39B deals with the consultation process. This was accepted when we were discussing milk. I am sure the Minister would agree that, even though the drafting may not be perfect, there should be full consultation all the way through on anything that happens. Perhaps I may repeat a point which I made in Committee. Under the Bill as drafted the potato scheme can be wound up if in the view of Ministers that is "necessary or expedient". I ask these questions again: necessary for what or expedient for whom? The criterion of public interest which is mentioned in Amendment No. 39A is much clearer and much better than the words "necessary or expedient" which are in the Bill.
We should be clear what the Minister means by Amendment No. 39. He is saying that if the Government decide to wind up the scheme off their own bat, as it were, without reference to European legislation, they will come through the affirmative route; but that if it is a requirement of a European regulation they will come through the negative resolution route. In that connection the Minister made a point which I did not entirely understand. Perhaps he can help. He referred to the annulment of a negative resolution. If that took place as the result of a European regulation which meant that we had to wind up the board and Parliament decided to annul the resolution, what would happen? What is the legislative position if this Parliament decides to annul a resolution which has to be put because it is the result of European legislation? I ask that question not to be awkward but because I am interested to know what the legislative position would be.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said, if we are to go down the regulation-making route of the
1088
affirmative resolution, if the Government are doing it off their own bat, or the negative resolution, if it is the result of a European regulation, Amendment No. 40 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, although it may not be perfect in its drafting, is much easier to understand than the amendment put forward by the Government. Indeed I added my name to a similar amendment in Committee and I would certainly support Amendment No. 40 now. This is a complicated area. Will the Minister consider taking away his amendment and reconsider the whole area of the drafting of these amendments to deal with regulation-making powers? He could then come back at Third Reading after further discussion. We support the principle of the affirmative route and the negative route as outlined by the Minister but we believe that the drafting could be a little clearer. However, I understand from the discussions we have had between the Committee and Report stages that there are some legal problems in the drafting.
I should also make it clear that Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 deal only with the route by which the resolutions will come. They do not inhibit us returning to the matter at Third Reading and clarifying in some detail the future of the Potato Marketing Board and any successor body. Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 deal with the route of the regulations. They do not state what will be in those regulations. That is an important matter for Third Reading.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will forgive me, before other noble Lords develop the discussion, I think I should speak to my amendment, Amendment No. 40, which has already been referred to and is in this group. I hope that that is agreeable to your Lordships.
I have tabled Amendment No.40 after considering carefully the debate in Committee and after further consultation with the Potato Marketing Board and others. I should say now that it is not my intention to press my amendment today. The replacement Clause 22 which I propose, the first two paragraphs of which are identical to the amendment that I moved in Committee, differs from the Government's proposal for the clause in several respects. In one respect it seems to me that the Government's clause is preferable to mine. In other respects I am going to suggest that my clause is to be preferred. I hope I may persuade the Government to think again on those points either at Third Reading or as the Bill proceeds through the House of Commons.
The alternative Clause 22 which I am proposing, like Amendment No. 39A in the name of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, stipulates that Ministers can move to wind up the Potato Marketing Board only if it is necessary or in the public interest whereas the Government continue to insist that winding up should be allowed if it is necessary or expedient. I do not like the idea of a government abolishing the Potato Marketing Board on grounds of expediency. According to my dictionary, one meaning

1089
of expediency is an inclination towards an advantageous procedure rather than one which is fair or just. Should that be a ground for the Government taking action on the Potato Marketing Board? It is also fairly obvious that the concept of expediency is wider than that of being in the public interest. The Government's amendment would therefore allow for the ending of the Potato Marketing Board in circumstances which could not be justified on the basis of public interest.
I very much hope that, in due course if not today, the Government will concede that point, even if public interest is not the correct phrase with which to replace the word expediency. I shall listen very carefully indeed to my noble friend's reply on this matter before deciding whether to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley in the Lobby should he divide the House on it.
The respect in which the Government's proposed amendment seems to be preferable to my own is this: my noble friend is seeking to allow for the extension of the period of run up to the abolition of the board and the transfer to any successor body. My amendment would not do that, and probably should do so. As regards whether the proposal to abolish the scheme should be subject to the negative or affirmative resolution procedure in Parliament and under precisely what circumstances, having studied the debate at Committee stage and having listened to the wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and also having listened to the assurance that my noble friend gave earlier today, I still believe that my amendment is preferable to what the Government are now proposing.
As has been explained, the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley goes further. As I understood him, unless the European arrangements rule out the potato marketing scheme, the Government could not take action until they have consulted and got agreement with all concerned that that should happen. Under legislation which exists already, the Government could take action to bring the Potato Marketing Board to an end if it misbehaved or under certain other grounds. But if, for example, developing markets in Europe and elsewhere, or other important aspects of the public interest, made the winding up of the board seem desirable to the Government, to make it necessary to get the agreement of people who did not feel that the winding up would be in their particular interest, although it might be in the wider public interest, is not a good way to proceed. That amendment is perhaps going too far and for that reason I am not inclined to support Amendment No. 39B.
At the same time the decision to abolish the board, if it is not forced by European arrangements, would be a very important decision indeed not only to farmers but to all who buy potatoes or who care about the countryside and local economies. The seed potato trade in Scotland would be a very different trade without the potato marketing scheme. The potato
1090
growing areas would also look very different and the economic life of the areas where potatoes, particularly seed potatoes, are grown would be very different.
Whereas it seems to me that the negative resolution procedure is a reasonable one if the potato marketing scheme has become inconsistent with European arrangements, in all other circumstances there is so much at stake for so many people that both Houses of Parliament must be allowed to discuss the matter more fully. I appreciate that my noble friend has given us an assurance that if it is not required by Community arrangements that the board be abolished, the affirmative resolution procedure will be used. He must somehow get that into the Bill: an assurance is not enough, as too much is at stake.
I believe that we all appreciate very much that my noble friend has come a long way since Committee stage. He has worked very hard at this matter, which is not an easy problem to resolve. He has explained to us that sometimes it will be difficult to know whether European arrangements do preclude the scheme or not. In that case the matter should go to the affirmative resolution procedure. I do not think that that should preclude my suggestion.
We appreciate what the noble Earl has done. As I said, I am not going to press the amendment. However, between this stage and the next 1 ask my noble friend to look at what has been said (there is more to be said in the debate today) and see whether he can make it absolutely plain under which circumstances which form of resolution would be used in the context of the Bill; whether it is worded in the way which I have put forward or whether he simply amends the amendment which he is now moving.
6 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, when your Lordships debated this clause at Committee on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, there was an extraordinary consensus. Nobody gainsaid the view that the potato marketing scheme had to be wound up; it could be done by subordinate legislation. But there was unanimity that if that were so there should be the maximum effective parliamentary control. That emanated from two directions.
Your Lordships are now, as frequently in the past, singularly fortunate in having so many experts on agriculture and indeed on this particular scheme. From their vast experience and sagacity, they were at one in saying that the decision is an important one and therefore demands the affirmative resolution procedure. The other approach was from those that said that the criteria had been perfectly clearly laid down by a joint Select Committee whose recommendations have been accepted by both Houses. There should be an affirmative resolution procedure unless the decision can be described as trivial tidying up or consequential. There was no pretence that this particular decision fell under any of those heads.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, with a versatility which would have done credit to a hermaphrodite, managed to combine both approaches in a short, cogent and conclusive speech. So we left the Committee stage with a House that was unanimous

1091
that there should be the affirmative resolution procedure. At the very last moment—indeed in the middle of last week —the noble Earl was good enough to send by immediate delivery a letter saying that he was prepared, as he had been before, to concede the negative resolution procedure. We must not forget that as this Bill was introduced there was no parliamentary control over that decision. He was prepared to concede the negative resolution procedure and was looking to see whether he could go further.
I ventured then in a telephone message—as time was so short—to point out that there was a perfectly easy way of employing the affirmative resolution procedure. The noble Earl said that he was afraid—he has emphasised this today —that there might be a Community decision on this matter which would require immediate implementation, and that the affirmative resolution procedure did not allow that. If I may say so, that is fairly far-fetched because it presupposes, first, that there would be a Community decision; secondly, that it would require immediate implementation and, thirdly, that the voice of our own Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would not be heard on those matters.
As I ventured to point out, a perfectly well known and attested form of the affirmative resolution procedure does allow for immediate effect. The resolution comes into immediate effect, but unless it is verified and assented to by one or both Houses of Parliament within, say, 12, 28 or 40 days, it lapses. The answer to that was that that was not good enough because the EC resolution might require implementation while Parliament was not sitting. In other words, there we have a fourth unlikelihood: that despite our own Minister being on the Council, despite there being a Council decision, and despite its requiring the winding-up of our own scheme, that would fortuitously happen while the Houses were in recess. But even that was not good enough because this particular type of affirmative resolution procedure is set out on page 545 of the latest edition of Erskine May, to which I directed the noble Earl's attention. I am told that that particular sort of affirmative resolution procedure can be set down while the Houses are in recess. I do not put great stress on that because my conversation with the Table Office was held on the telephone since it had to be made at the last moment and there are always opportunities for misunderstandings.
One could go further. There is no conceivable reason why Parliament should not stipulate that, notwithstanding any rule of practice, this particular resolution may be set down while Parliament is in recess. There is some sort of precedent for that in the regulation-making powers of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972. So, there we have a position that there is no real reason why your Lordships' wish that there should be an affirmative resolution procedure should not be acceded to.
Your Lordships may remember the definition of metaphysics by the philosopher Bradley, who said that metaphysics is finding bad reasons for what we believe on instinct. I am tempted to say that the
1092
reasons advanced by the department —I shall not say the "bad reasons" but they are at least questionable reasons—were put forward with the intention of preventing your Lordships doing what your Lordships wish to do.
The noble Earl finally said, "Look how far I've come. What I propose is that if there is an EC resolution which requires immediate implementation, then the negative resolution procedure shall apply, but otherwise the affirmative resolution procedure shall apply". That is set out with great clarity in the amendment that has been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. That is precisely what that amendment does. It is clear on the face of the amendment. I venture to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in saying that I cannot for the life of me see how the noble Earl's amendment does what he says that he wants it to do.
The matter is the more strange when one looks at the final amendment, Amendment No. 70, which seeks to insert a new subsection (4A), which states:
"A statutory instrument containing an order under section 22 above, if made without a draft having been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, shall be subject to annulment".
I cannot find anywhere in the Bill any provision for a draft resolution, subject to the affirmative resolutions being laid before Parliament. Not only is there no mandate on the Government to do that, but there is not even a permission.
Therefore, I venture to end by agreeing once more with the noble Lord, Lord Carter. This matter is in such confusion and it is so important that the sensible thing to do would be for all the amendments to be withdrawn and for us to take advantage of the interval before the next stage to try to sort the matter out, to ensure that, at the least, the Bill does what the noble Earl says that he intends it to do and, preferably, to investigate whether the affirmative resolution procedure is not fully satisfactory to every apprehension that has been voiced by the department.
If the matter cannot be resolved before tomorrow week when I believe that we next consider the Bill, perhaps the noble Earl could give an undertaking which could be implemented in the other place. At the moment, your Lordships are being invited to buy a pig in a legislative poke. As we are being asked to accept that the Bill does what the noble Earl says that it does and what more than one Member of your Lordships' House has failed to perceive, I beg the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment. He would lose nothing by doing so. If he satisfies everybody, he can bring it forward again at the next stage to general acclamation.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, perhaps I may first support the general comments that were made by my noble friends Lord Stanley of Alderley and Lady Carnegy of Lour. The general thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said expressed the concern that is felt by potato growers and the potato industry in this particular year. Frankly, I do not think that there could be a worse time to discuss this. Confidence is low among growers, who are beginning to wonder where on earth the scheme will lead them.

1093
For that reason I was pleased that my noble friend the Minister pointed out that in his amendments he suggests that we might make haste more slowly. That would give adequate time for consultation. I hope that he will take note of what has been said in this House; that it is important that an affirmative resolution is written into every Bill. It is also important that in planning a move away from the statutory powers of a board we make sure that we are moving towards a successor scheme which is acceptable to all concerned.
My noble friend also said that the opinion of Members of the European Parliament would have to be sought before we could reach a conclusion. It so happens that tomorrow and on Wednesday I shall be in Brussels debating the issue in the European Parliament. That will be the first sight of a scheme that has been prepared by a rapporteur who happens to be German. He was greatly influenced by the initiative of members of the Potato Marketing Board and the National Farmers' Union in going to Brussels and informing him of their opinion. The general discussion will begin this week and it will be at least April before the scheme is debated in the European Parliament. I should not like to guarantee the scheme's approval at that stage. By the time the scheme returns to the Council of Ministers it will be autumn before a settlement—
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is it correct that in addition to the European Parliament considering the scheme the Economic and Social Committee must give its views?
Lord Plumb: My Lords, that is correct; but the responsible committee will be the Agriculture Committee, which will have an input from other committees. Inevitably that gives the committee the opportunity to make its point at the plenary session. It will of course put forward its own amendments to the scheme during the course of its going through the Parliament.
We must take note that there are those outside this country who believe that the scheme which operates within this country could be a fine example to them. Therefore, they may say, "Perhaps we should adopt a similar scheme". The scheme is the only way by which we can bring stability and sensibility into a difficult area. Indeed, throughout the years we have seen the fluctuations in the total volume of output. I hope that we shall make haste slowly, that we shall take note of the anxieties of others and that there will be an adequate opportunity for consultation. We must not forget the opportunity for subsidiarity in a case such as this. We must make sure that we implement and operate a scheme that is suitable to the whole of the United Kingdom.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, your Lordships will be thankful that my noble friend Lord Plumb was able to give that information because it is exceedingly relevant to the whole discussion. As one of those who criticised the Bill in Committee I wish to acknowledge the steps that my noble friend Lord Howe has since taken. They are reflected in his amendments as far as they go.
1094
However, I too do not consider that they go far enough. I wish to deal briefly with four issues that have arisen in the discussion and I venture to put forward my own comments.
The first issue is that of policy. In Committee I pressed my noble friend to say whether the Government intended to abolish the potato marketing scheme and, if so, whether there would be a replacement. I received no answer. We still do not have an answer, except that my noble friend has told us that it depends on the decision of the European Parliament. My noble friend Lord Plumb has told the House that that will not bring us closer to a policy decision.
The issue of subsidiarity is relevant to the continuation of the potato marketing scheme because the European Community is now very large and covers a number of different climatic geographical areas. I cannot imagine that a scheme which suits growers around the Mediterranean will necessarily suit growers in this country, or vice versa. For that reason I press the Government to bear in mind several possibilities. The first is the possibility that no scheme will be agreed within the European Community. Will my noble friend Lord Howe give a firm assurance that in that event the potato marketing scheme will continue to operate in this country? That is most important. As regards policy the Government should be pressing not for a universal scheme within the common agricultural policy but a scheme which takes note of differing local conditions.
I turn now to the issue of consultation. We are much closer to getting consultation right because the Government have moved some way. I should like to see the matter further expressed in the Bill as set out in new subsection (1B) of Amendment No. 39B. The need for consultation is there spelt out. It is specified that regard shall be had to the views expressed by those concerned. That requirement is also specified in later amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley.
Turning to the need for an affirmative resolution, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, but I cannot hope to live up to the biological condition which he expressed. The issue is most important. It is full of uncertainty and it is complicated to follow in the Marshalled List. I should be most disappointed—perhaps I may have my noble friend's attention—if my noble friend were unable to give a favourable answer to the most important issues which have been raised in the debate.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, are strong evidence of the great support which exists for the Potato Marketing Board in the current scheme. The reasons for this support are the great achievements of the board in the marketing of potatoes in recent years—in marketing in the truest sense of the word, not just managing supply, which in the agricultural section is sometimes regarded as marketing, but in the actual suggestions or projects which it has put forward in putting the customer first.

1095
At Second Reading I relied on knowledge extant when I was closely involved in the agricultural sector, knowledge of four years ago. Since then the picture has changed dramatically. I should like to take this opportunity to put the record straight regarding a statement I made on Second Reading on 23rd November (at col. 830 of Hansard). I there expressed the hope that we should no longer be importing a significant number of potatoes but instead should be producing more in this country. I said then specifically that organisations like McDonald's should not have to import their potatoes from the Netherlands. It was doing this when I was involved in the agricultural sector, but I am delighted to say that now about 90 per cent. of McDonald's requirements are met from supplies produced in this country and it gives me great pleasure to put the record straight.
What the Potato Marketing Board has done in conjunction with McDonald's is to develop a new potato which had not previously been grown in this country. It gave a specific grant to McCain's, who produced it for McDonald's, and as a result it is now supplying 90 per cent. of the potatoes for its own market. This is an amazing turn-round. In the last four years that I was involved in the agricultural sector something like 374,000 tonnes of potatoes were imported into this country. In the last years for which statistics are available, that is 1991–92, the figure has dropped from 374,000 to 88,000 tonnes. I suggest that anything that actually militates against that trend continuing would be bad for British agriculture, and I have the greatest pleasure in supporting continuation of both the Potato Marketing Board and the potato marketing scheme.
Baroness White: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down I should be grateful for some enlightenment. How much does McDonald's do in purchasing potatoes from Pembrokeshire in South Wales, which depends very largely in certain areas on that trade for its prosperity, and on early potatoes particularly?
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I do not know the answer to that question, but I am sure the Potato Marketing Board will supply the information. I know that the particular potato variety is called Russet Burbank. I have no idea whether that is grown in Pembrokeshire. I know from previous experience that Pembrokeshire is the place for early potatoes and I suspect that the product is not the one usually used for chipping potatoes for McDonald's purposes.
Earl Howe: My Lords, perhaps I may begin my concluding remarks by addressing the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, Nos. 39A and 39B. Amendments Nos. 39A and 39B basically seek further to refine the government amendment in two ways: first, by saying that termination of the scheme will be necessary only if the terms of the Community regulation make it so; and secondly, by changing "expedient" to "in the public interest" and obliging Ministers to consult on whether a decision is in the public interest.
1096
On the first point, I have to say that these amendments suffer from a basic flaw. The Agriculture Marketing Act 1958 already foresees various circumstances in which revocation might become necessary. Section 19 allows Ministers to revoke the scheme where any act or omission of the board is contrary to the interests of consumers and others. Although these powers are facilitative, Ministers would surely not take the final step without being assured that it was necessary to do so. It is also possible that revocation might become necessary by a poll of producers under the scheme. This amendment would preclude any of these eventualities being covered by this Bill, which in turn would mean that the board would have to be wound up without transferring its assets to a successor body. I am sure that we would all wish that possibility to be open, whatever necessitated the winding up.
As to the second point, at Committee stage we discussed the merits of the term "in the public interest". It is a term capable of much interpretation, and it is non the better for that. As I said in Committee, the general public interest is only one of the considerations which Ministers would take into account.
This leads me to the main point, which is that in tying Ministers to consultation on this matter of public interest alone the amendment may be achieving precisely the reverse of what is required. What is required is that Ministers should consult and be aware of the views of all sectors of the industry and of consumers at all times. This is what has in fact happened with regard to the proposed EC regime. It does not need writing in statute. I can assure noble Lords that Ministers would not take such an important decision without the widest consultation. The word "expedient" should not be taken as a convenient means for the Government to do what they like regardless of the industry's views. I hope that for all those reasons my noble friend will withdraw the two amendments.
Turning to the points that my noble friend raised in his speech, he said that the Government should be committed and show themselves to be committed to establishing a successor body. The Government have included a provision in the Bill for a successor body precisely because they recognise that a good case can be made for the continuation of many of the board's functions if it is abolished—functions such as research and development funded by producers, market intelligence and identifying market opportunities, the generic promotion of potatoes, statistics and as a forum for discussion of matters of common interest to producers, retailers, processors, supermarkets and consumers.
I would stress that in the end it is for the industry to decide what it wants. It can do so under the terms of this Bill. The Government cannot give a commitment for that very reason, and not least because Parliament may annul an order made under that part of the Bill. In that event the Government would need to make a Section 2(2) order under the European Communities Act to carry out their

1097
obligations. A Section 2(2) order would not provide for a successor body if a negative resolution were annulled.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, suggested that the Commission is of the view that the United Kingdom can keep its potato marketing scheme. That is not the information that we have. In discussion in the Council working group the Commission said in terms that our scheme is inconsistent with its proposals.
My noble friend Lord Stanley raised the subject of subsidiarity, which we debated in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked whether the Government were ready to argue the principle of subsidiarity in the context of a EC potato regime. I would say again what I said in Committee; subsidiarity is not a concept that is easily recognised in the context of a common organisation of the market. The existence of a common organisation automatically precludes a national regime except in the case where a specific derogation is made allowing a national regime to continue. The EC regulations which permit the milk marketing boards to continue to exist are a good example of that but I do not see that fitting in to the case of potatoes—not at any rate if one is to believe that the EC's current proposals are likely to be implemented.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I wish to raise a point of clarification. In Committee the Minister referred to the problem of relating subsidiarity to the common agricultural policy. I believe the Commission has said it does not want to look at the proposals for the Scottish milk marketing boards and the Northern Ireland Milk Marketing Board on grounds of competition. It gives the reason for not considering them that these are suitable grounds for the use of subsidiarity. Therefore subsidiarity can be fitted in.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend answers that question, I hope I can make another point. When he says there is no question of subsidiarity, would he not acknowledge that the problem of growing and of marketing potatoes in, for example, the British Isles is quite different from that of growing and marketing potatoes in countries round the Mediterranean, and that therefore there may be a great advantage in having a degree of subsidiarity?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I would not dissent from the proposal that subsidiarity can in certain circumstances be fitted in to the common agricultural policy. I would say in reply to my noble friend Lord Renton that the UK, and in particular Scotland, has some obvious natural advantages for the growing of potatoes which are not shared by southern member states. I do not wish to rehearse all the arguments I went through in Committee, but it seems to me odd for an industry to seek to restrict the number of acres where it is permitted to grow potatoes when it has those natural advantages and when it could derive competitive advantage from scrapping those rules.
I shall continue to address the various points raised earlier on. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that the Government should clearly state if they wish to
1098
abolish the potato marketing scheme. We have no current plans to abolish the scheme as a matter of government policy. We are discussing with the industry its views on the matter. We may reach a view in due course but I think it is more likely that an EC regime will intervene in the meantime. The noble Lord also asked me what would happen if Parliament annulled a negative resolution in the face of an EC regime. There would be a legal contradiction, but my understanding is—I stand to be corrected on this and, if so, I shall write to the noble Lord—that EC law would prevail in any case. It would be obligatory for us to implement the EC law. In practice Parliament has little locus in that matter.
My noble friend Lord Plumb said it may be some time before the Council of Ministers decides on an EC potato regime. The point is that rapid action may be necessary when a decision is finally taken and the provisions of the Bill still mean that it would be a further year before the board finally disappears. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to whom, as ever, we listen with great attention and respect, took the Government to task for proposing amendments on the grounds that the scenario painted was far-fetched. He said that the likelihood of an EC regime was not strong. My advice is that following the December Agriculture Council meeting we are 95 per cent. of the way towards achieving an EC regime and approval of those proposals is virtually a formality.
The noble and learned Lord also suggested that we would not need to implement the regime immediately. I believe that he may have overlooked one reason for speed. Not only would we need to ensure that the industry had the maximum time to adjust to any new regime—that is only fair on the industry—but we also have to pay due regard to the need to conserve public funds. The potato marketing scheme is concerned with that. If the noble and learned Lord had his way and we had an affirmative resolution procedure throughout this part of the Bill, the delay could be 10 to 12 weeks if the Summer Recess intervened.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, will the noble Earl deal with the point that I ventured to make, that if there is urgency for immediate implementation while Parliament is not sitting, why can that not be dealt with in the legislation in the statute itself; namely, to say that if a regulation which is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure is tabled when Parliament is not sitting, it shall have immediate effect subject to subsequent approval within 40 days in the usual way?
Earl Howe: My Lords, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord, I hope I may remind the House that we are on Report and that certain rules therefore apply. I was going to address—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Earl was good enough to give way to me. I hope he will be good enough to answer the question that I asked when he was kind enough to give way.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I was about to say that I was coming to the point that the noble and learned Lord raised. I will cover it as best I may in a moment or two.

1099
The noble and learned Lord suggested that one reason why an EC regime might not be put into practice is that the voice of our own agriculture Minister will surely be heard in the Council of Ministers. As I said, UK Ministers are consulting the industry at the moment and we are carefully considering our response to the Commission's proposals. However, in the end it is a qualified majority vote that will determine this issue and even if the UK were to take a negative or hostile stance to the Commission's proposals they could be agreed to nevertheless.
The noble and learned Lord also said it was rather far-fetched to imagine a situation where an EC regime was introduced and Parliament was not sitting. I can assure him that the fact that that might happen has caused acute worry in the Ministry of Agriculture. Immediate action and the ability to lay a statutory instrument immediately are matters to which Ministers attach great importance. I am advised that an affirmative resolution cannot be laid in a recess. A negative resolution, however, can be laid in a recess and that is one very good reason why I believe the noble and learned Lord's proposals should be rejected.
I now turn to Amendment No. 40 tabled by my noble friend Lady Carnegy.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the Minister continues perhaps I may raise a point of clarification, which is allowed at Report stage. The noble Earl has just said that this requires a qualified majority. When we discussed the matter in Committee on 10th December (col. 343 of Hansard refers) the Minister said:
"There is no question of our pushing anything through. Unanimity is required … for a measure of this kind to be adopted".
I am at a loss if unanimity was required at Committee stage and a qualified majority at Report stage.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for giving the House incorrect information at Committee stage. I have the book of words in front of me: it appears to confirm what I have just told the House about qualified majority voting.
Turning to Amendment No. 40 tabled by my noble friend Lady Carnegy, I am aware that she moved a similar amendment in Committee, although that amendment did not provide for the negative resolution procedure. I am grateful that she has reflected on the points that I made then to the effect that we might have to revoke the potato marketing scheme if there were an EC potato régime and that she has obviously taken them on board when drafting the present amendment.
As I have indicated, both my noble friend and I have come to precisely the same conclusion: that if revocation is required because of an EC régime then the negative resolution procedure would be appropriate. In all other circumstances revocation would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be able to accept the government amendment, Amendment No. 39,
1100
which also, incidentally, avoids a small technical difficulty over the negative resolution procedure in her amendment.
As I said earlier, Clause 22(2) of the government amendment removes any ambiguity about the validity of actions which may have been taken under an order before it is annulled if such an annulment should occur under the negative resolution procedure. It does so by returning the situation to the status quo ante the making of the order. My advice is that without such a provision some ambiguity could exist.
I hope that my noble friend can accept the assurances I have given and, with the satisfaction of knowing that the House has done a good job in the way that the House knows best, will feel content to withdraw her amendment in favour of that tabled by the Government, reinforced by the clear assurances that I have given this afternoon.
I have to say to the House that the matter has been given the most thorough consideration by Ministers in the light of legal advice. While I am more than happy to reflect on everything that has been said in this debate this afternoon and, if necessary, introduce further amendments at a later stage, on the basis of the advice that I am currently given I fear that there is no prospect of our bettering the wording in the government amendments which I have tabled, much as I understand the instinctive wish on the part of noble Lords for us to do so. I am advised that in particular there is no means of including my assurances on the face of the Bill without risk of serious legal difficulty.
I wish to point out to the House that the Government have moved a considerable distance since Committee stage and have met the wishes of this House in almost every respect. Against that background I ask the House to accept the government amendments today and my assurances in support of them, to which, I need hardly add, the Government will attach the highest importance.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, is he not going to explain, in the face of the doubts that have been expressed, how his amendment does what he says it is intended to do?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thought that I had done so. I apologise if I did not do so sufficiently clearly. The point I was seeking to make was this. The Bill provides either for the negative resolution procedure or the affirmative resolution procedure. I have said to the House, and I repeat, that the affirmative resolution procedure will apply unless we have an EC régime which is inconsistent with our own potato marketing scheme. That is an assurance which I give at this Dispatch Box. As I said, it is not something that can be incorporated into the Bill on the face of the legislation. I ask the House to accept both the government amendments and those assurances as a package and to accept that those assurances should be seen for what they are, assurances given in good faith.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I believe that it is correct for me to sum up in relation to the amendment to the amendment. I find that rather difficult. I am sure that every Member of your Lordships' House would like to congratulate my noble friend on his patience and good temper when every single Member in the Chamber has been against him, and in my case perhaps somewhat viciously.
There are one or two questions which I must put before my noble friend. The first concerns subsidiarity. Surely subsidiarity can be argued before a common policy is agreed. That is the situation in which we find ourselves at present.
Secondly, my noble friend promised us consultation. I hope that that will be more than the three weeks we were offered when the proposals were first drafted.
When moving his original amendment the Minister mentioned the quota system. No member state objected to a quota system, but my amendment does not demand that the United Kingdom keep its quota system. That would be dealt with by consultation. I suggest that the Government seem to have become hooked on the problem of the quota. There are much more important issues for the board than the quota, as was pointed out very ably by the noble Baroness.
I am still not clear about what the Government have in mind as to the role which any successor body to the Potato Marketing Board should play. I am still not clear what circumstances would invoke the dissolution of the Potato Marketing Board by the Government. I do not believe that I have received a satisfactory answer to my second intention, certainly from the point of view of the industry.
It goes without saying that I was very pleased to hear what my noble friend Lord Plumb had to say about what was happening in the European Parliament. His view appeared to be somewhat different from the interpretation of my noble friend Lord Howe. I was pleased to hear that the European Parliament listens very carefully to what our Government say. I am sorry if our case has not been put sufficiently well, as was emphasised by my noble friend Lord Renton.
I understand the reservations of my noble friend Lady Carnegy in respect of my amendment, Amendment No. 39B. I am not sure that I agree with her criticism but I accept that it may well be incorrectly drafted. I accept my noble friend's plea that I and my noble friend should look again at the problem.
I am also delighted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, agrees that any change to the potato marketing scheme is a serious matter and should be considered very carefully by Parliament. I am comforted that he also found the words in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Howe somewhat confusing.
Bearing all that in mind, I am more than happy to take the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, my noble friend Lady Carnegy and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and withdraw my amendment to the government amendment while I consider what your Lordships have said tonight and try to return
1102
with an amendment which the Government may accept. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 39B not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 39 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Revocation of Scheme]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 13, line 5, leave out ("on which the order under section 22 above is made") and insert ("specified by order under section 22 above").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Application for approval]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 13, line 16, leave out ("on which the order under section 22 above is made") and insert ("specified by order under section 22 above").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Determination of application]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 13, line 35, after second ("of") insert ("persons who are").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 44 to 46, 48, 55, 58, 59 and 61.
The House has already considered a series of linked amendments to Part I of the Bill concerning the use of the term "registered producers". These were designed to specify, where the term is used, whether it applies to current and former milk producers registered with a particular milk marketing board or simply to current registered milk producers. The amendments arose primarily out of the need to ensure that Clause 3(5), which concerns the reasonableness of the provision made in a reorganisation scheme for the distribution of assets of a milk marketing board to registered producers, applies to both current and former milk producers.
Part II of the Bill contains similar, although not identical, provisions to Part I in respect of the distribution of assets of the Potato Marketing Board to registered potato producers. Clause 25(3) (c) requires Ministers, when deciding whether to grant an application for approval of a transfer scheme, to be satisfied that any provision made in it for the distribution of assets to registered producers is reasonable. Clause 25(4) provides that a transfer scheme should not be treated as failing to meet this criterion by virtue only of the fact that it provides for the distribution of assets to registered producers to be in proportion to their respective basic areas for the last year to have been prescribed a quota year under the potato marketing scheme. The term "registered producers" is defined in Clause 43 as persons who are registered as producers under the potato marketing scheme.
A tidying up amendment, Amendment No. 46, is made to Schedule 3, paragraph 7(b). This would enable the Potato Marketing Board to propose a transfer of assets to former registered producers if it so wished.
Amendment No. 44 parallels Amendment No. 7. It would amend Clause 25(3) (c) so as to require Ministers to be satisfied that any provision made by the board's transfer scheme for the distribution of assets both to current and former registered producers was reasonable. It is necessary, as I have explained, to amend Clause 25(4) to ensure that the reference in it to registered producers is to both current and former producers. Amendment No. 45 achieves that.
Amendments Nos. 43, 48, 58 and 59 are parallel to Amendments Nos. 5, 20, 36 and 37 respectively. They are consequential upon the change to the definition of the term "registered producer". They ensure that the Bill continues to provide that a board should only have to take reasonable steps to bring the principles of a transfer scheme or of the principle of a proposed variation to the attention of current registered producers and that Clause 38 continues to apply only to current registered producers.
One further amendment is required. Clause 36 provides that the Potato Marketing Board may carry out a poll of registered producers for the purpose of ascertaining the level of support among them for the making of an application for approval of a transfer scheme or for the making of an application in relation to a particular scheme. As the definition of the term "registered producers" in Clause 43 stands at present, this clause would empower a board to carry out a poll of current, but not former, registered producers. As a consequence of the proposed amendment to Clause 43, an amendment to Clause 36 is necessary to retain the present meaning of this clause. Amendment No. 55 achieves that. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the amendments are of a technical kind which no doubt improve the drafting of the Bill. However, I cannot detect in them any change of policy. Will my noble friend confirm that that is the position?
Earl Howe: My Lords, yes. There is no change of policy. In the light of our discussions with the Potato Marketing Board we have reflected on the scope that it may hypothetically need to include former producers in certain provisions of a transfer scheme. In the light of those discussions, we believe that the Bill was insufficiently flexible. To that extent it is a policy change. However, I hope that my noble friend will agree that it is more in the nature of a technical amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 44 and 45:
Page 14, line 7, after ("to") insert ("persons by reference to their being or having been").
Page 14, line 12, after first ("to") insert ("persons by reference to their being or having been").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Qualifying transfer scheme]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 39, line 29, after second ("to") insert ("persons by reference to their being or having been").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 39, line 33, leave out from ("1947,") to end of line 35 and insert:

("(b) a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 which has not previously carried on business; and

(c) a company registered under the Companies Act 1985 which has not previously carried on business.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, tabled an amendment which would have widened the range of bodies which might qualify as a successor body to the potato marketing scheme. That amendment was prompted by the anxiety of the Potato Marketing Board that all the operations carried out at Sutton Bridge in connection with the research station there might not be functions which could be undertaken by a development council.
I have reflected on what was said in that debate. The Government continue to believe that the PMB's activities at Sutton Bridge can be undertaken by a development council because under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947, among the functions which might be assigned to a development council are,
"the conduct of experimental establishments and of tests of a commercial scale"
and
"promoting or undertaking research for improving arrangements for marketing or distributing products".
However, in the light of the anxieties of the Potato Marketing Board and of discussions with it, we have tabled government Amendment No. 47 to provide additional flexibility for the continuation of the activities of Sutton Bridge. I am sure that my noble friend will be gratified to see that our amendment has the same intention as her earlier amendment in that a qualifying successor body could be a new society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 or a new company registered under the Companies Act 1985 in addition to a development council. We have not taken up her third suggestion of a subsidiary. The Government can see no good reason for the creation of a subsidiary of the PMB to take over its assets. Furthermore, the creation of such a company seems likely to create taxation difficulties and the net effect could be the loss of valuable R & D revenue, an outcome which other parts of the Bill seek to avoid.
With that explanation, I hope that the House will be content to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the amendment. All those concerned with this matter will be very pleased. It is plain that young though my noble friend may look he has considerable clout in his department. We have realised that throughout the discussion on the Bill. This has not been the only success that he has achieved while the Bill has been going through this House. I thank him very much indeed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Variation of approved scheme]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 15, line 29, at end insert ("persons who are").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No.
49:
Page 15, leave out lines 33 to 38 and insert ("and
(b) they are satisfied that their decisions under section 25(1) (b) and (2) (a) would not have been different had the scheme included the proposed variation.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is very similar to Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 concerning Clause 5. It is needed in order to ensure that Ministers are not prevented from approving a variation of an approved transfer scheme of the PMB which, it had subsequently emerged, contained minor errors or omissions when set against the requirements of Schedule 3 regarding the content of a qualifying scheme.
Clause 27 parallels Clause 5. It would, as worded at present, require Ministers, before approving a variation of an approved scheme, to be satisfied that the scheme continued to be a qualifying scheme under Schedule 3. As the House will conclude from our discussions on Amendments No. 21 and 22 this provision would not enable Ministers to approve a variation of an approved transfer scheme in the circumstances which I have just described. The amendment would introduce wording which would allow a variation to be approved, one purpose of which could be to correct the earlier omission or error.
I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Information]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 16, line 20, leave out from ("care,") to end of line 21 and insert ("subsection (3) above shall be treated as never having had any application in relation to it.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 23 to Clause 5 was concerned with removing an element of doubt as to whether that clause would ensure that an application from a milk marketing board in relation to a reorganisation scheme should not be treated as having been withdrawn following accidental failure on the part of the board concerned to comply in full with a notice from Ministers requiring information.
Clause 28 is the equivalent provision in Part II of the Bill. Its purpose and effect in relation to a transfer scheme of the Potato Marketing Board is therefore the same as that of Clause 7 in relation to a milk marketing board's reorganisation scheme. The drafting of Clause 28(5) is in material respect the same as that in Clause 7(5). This amendment to Clause 28(5) is therefore equivalent to Amendment No. 23 in respect of Clause 7(5) and is equally necessary to ensure that there is no doubt about what is intended.
I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7 p.m.
Schedule 4 [Provisions relating to carrying out of approved transfer scheme]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 41, line 7, at end insert:
("Statutory accounts.
.—(1) The following provisions of this paragraph have effect for the purposes of any statutory accounts of a
1106
successor body, that is to say, a body to which property, rights or liabilities of the Board are transferred under section 31 above in accordance with provision included in a transfer scheme in pursuance of paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to this Act.
(2) The transfer to the successor body under section 31 above shall be taken to have been effected immediately after the end of the last complete accounting period of the Board to end before the date of the transfer under that section and—

(a) in a case where all the property, rights and liabilities of the Board are transferred to the successor body under that section, to have been a transfer of all the property, rights and liabilities to which the Board was entitled or subject immediately before the end of that period;

(b) in any other case, to have been a transfer of such of the property, rights and liabilities to which the Board was so entitled or subject as arc determined by or under the transfer scheme.

(3) The value of any asset and the amount of any liability which is taken by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above to have been transferred to the successor body shall be taken to have been—

(a) in a case where all the property, rights and liabilities of the Board are transferred to the successor body under section 31 above, the value or amount assigned to the asset or liability for the purposes of the statement of accounts prepared by the Board in respect of its last complete accounting period to end before the date of the transfer under that section;

(b) in any other case, the value or amount so assigned or, if the asset or liability is part only of an asset or liability to which a value or amount is so assigned, so much of that value or amount as may be determined by or under the transfer scheme.

(4) The amount to be included in respect of any item shall be determined—

(a) where all the property, rights and liabilities of the Board are transferred to the successor body under section 31 above, as if anything done by the Board (whether by way of acquiring, revaluing or disposing of any asset or incurring, revaluing or discharging any liability, or by carrying any amount to any provision or reserve, or otherwise) had been done by the successor body;

(b) in any other case, as if so much of anything done by the Board (as mentioned in paragraph (a) above) as may be determined by or under the transfer scheme had been done by the successor body.

(5) In this paragraph—

"accounting périod", in relation to the Board, means the period by reference to which it prepares accounts under the Potato Marketing Scheme; and

"statutory accounts", in relation to a successor body, means any accounts prepared for the purpose of any provision of the legislation under which the body is registered or, as the case may be, established.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, as your Lordships will know, property transferred between companies is normally entered into the accounts of the recipient company at the value of the consideration given for it. Property transferred to a successor body of the Potato Marketing Board by means of a transfer scheme would, however, be transferred for no consideration. There would therefore be no equivalent value to enter into the initial accounts of the successor or successors.
It would, of course, be possible to value the property, rights and liabilities as they stood on vesting day. However, we have been advised that this would be a lengthy and costly exercise which could cause unwelcome uncertainty in the early stages of a successor's life.
We have addressed this issue in relation to the assets of a milk marketing board in paragraph 23 of

1107
Schedule 2. This includes provisions which would determine the value or amount which should he assigned to an asset or liability of a milk marketing board or a subsidiary of one transferred under a reorganisation scheme on vesting day.
The Bill does not yet, however, include parallel provisions in relation to the assets of the Potato Marketing Board. Property transferred by the Potato Marketing Board under a transfer scheme would need to be assigned a value for accounting purposes in the same way as that transferred by a milk marketing board under its reorganisation scheme. This amendment therefore inserts the necessary provisions into Schedule 4.
The provisions in this amendment are equivalent to paragraphs 23(2), 23(3) and 23(4) of Schedule 2. Paragraph 23(2) provides that, for accounting purposes, transfers of property, rights and liabilities which took place on vesting day would be deemed to have taken place immediately after the end of the last complete accounting period of the milk marketing board concerned. The value of any asset or liability so transferred would be deemed, by virtue of paragraph 23(3), to be that assigned to it at that time. Paragraph 23(4) provides that anything done by the transferor in relation to those assets or liabilities between the end of the last complete accounting period and vesting day shall be regarded as having been done by the transferee.
Thus the transferee would, in effect, take over the accounts of its predecessor. Its first accounts would deal partly with what it had done itself and partly with what it was deemed to have done by virtue of paragraph 23(4).
These provisions also cover the possibility that assets and liabilities which had been assigned a single value or amount in previous accounts could be split between successor bodies. In this case, the reorganisation scheme would be required to specify how, for accounting purposes, the property, the value assigned to it in the accounts and anything done in relation to it by the transferor should be split between the successors concerned.
Paragraph 23(5) of Schedule 2 specifies the treatment for accounting purposes of any profits realised and retained by a transferor between the end of the last accounting period and vesting day. However as the PMB is not a trading body these provisions do not need to be repeated in Schedule 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Position following transfer under section 31]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 17, line 36, leave out ("This section applies") and insert ("Subsections (2) to (5) below apply").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 53.
These amendments would make changes to Part II of the Bill parallel to those contained in Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 relating to Part I. As noble Lords will recall, those amendments are needed to enable Ministers to make regulations before the vesting day,
1108
giving effect to so much of an approved reorganisation scheme as applies to a milk marketing board after vesting day laying down its constitution and for the purpose of enabling it to wind up its affairs.
It is clearly sensible that a residuary potato marketing board too should know its new constitution and powers in advance of vesting day and be able to begin operating in its new form on that day. These amendments are needed to enable Ministers to make regulations before vesting day in anticipation of a successful implementation of a transfer scheme. Without the amendment there could be an interim period during which the residuary board might not be able to function properly. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 18, line 17, at end insert:
("(6) Regulations under subsection (2) above may be made in anticipation of the application of that subsection.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Power to poll registered producers]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 18, line 37, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 56. I have brought this back after the discussion in Committee because it deals with what we feel is the rather curious wording of Clause 36, which states that the Potato Marketing Board,
"may carry out a poll of registered producers".
Clause 36(2) states that where there is a poll the result of the poll:
"shall not constrain [the board] in deciding what to do".
So we have a poll and ignore it, as was pointed out in Committee.
I brought the amendment back for two reasons. First, the situation has changed and is changing. One thing on which we can all agree as a result of today's discussions is that there is now great uncertainty about what will happen, with the future of the scheme and under the European regime and so on. For that reason, I believe that there is a strong reason for us now to require a producer poll to ascertain the level of support for any transfer scheme which may follow the board. That is because it is hard to see what such a successor body will or will not do in the light of all the discussions we had earlier today. I feel that the producers must be given a say, it should be provided that the board "shall carry out a poll" rather than "may carry out a poll".
I also explained and shall repeat briefly the reasons for the phrase "have regard to". There are good precedents for the phrase and, as I said in Committee, it means that the board is unable completely to ignore the results of the poll but there is no need slavishly to follow it.
The other reason for bringing the amendment back is to clear up the confusion at Committee stage. Is it now clear that we are talking under Clause 36 only about a producer poll in connection with the transfer scheme under the Bill? There was some mention in Committee of a poll under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 which led the Minister to discuss the need for

1109
two polls. One would be to vote under the 1958 Act on whether the board should be wound up and the other would be a poll under Clause 36 on the transfer scheme. I believe that we have now agreed outside the House that that was not correct so perhaps it would be helpful if the Minister, when he replies, could clarify that point so that we are entirely clear.
Mention of the 1958 Act leads me to repeat the same question on potatoes which I asked in Committee about milk. If there were a producer poll under the 1958 Act which showed overwhelming support among producers for the potato marketing scheme, and if it then transpired that such a scheme could be operated under the European potato regime, would the Government accept the results of such a poll or would they ignore it? I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I intervene before the Minister replies. I asked the Potato Marketing Board for its view on this matter. It is quite content with Clause 36 as it stands. It said that there was a strong body of opinion that wanted to oblige it to agree to a poll and it would go along with it. But it is quite happy with the Bill.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, it goes without saying that I support this amendment; I have my name down to it. Perhaps I could follow the point of my noble friend. I discussed this matter with the Potato Marketing Board. It is perfectly happy with the words "shall have regard to". Let me give noble Lords the example which worried them at the start about what those words would cover. If there were a poll and, ridiculously, only five people with 10 acres replied, that would be a perfect case where "shall have regard to" could be used to "not have regard to".
Earl Howe: My Lords, before addressing the first amendment, I can clear up the slight misunderstanding which arose at Committee between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, which he has just mentioned. I said that Clause 36 allowed for a poll both on whether the board should be wound up and on whether there should be a scheme. Perhaps I was not as clear as I might have been, or indeed should have been. What I intended to convey was that there could be a poll on whether there should be any application under Clause 24; that is, on whether the board should be wound up with or without a successor body. The decision whether to wind up under this legislation is not one for producers. Their rights are enshrined in the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958.
We debated this same amendment at some length in Committee. I am sorry that the noble Lords who have tabled it again have not been convinced by the arguments that I put forward. I shall explain again briefly why I do not think a compulsory poll is appropriate.
The Potato Marketing Board consists essentially of growers. They are in turn democratically elected by other growers. For 60 years they have been successful in representing growers' interests. Surely they can be trusted to continue to do so should they need to perform this last service. It is not as if they had anything to gain from doing anything other than best
1110
represent the interests of their constituents since in the end they have to convince Ministers that those interests have been reflected in a scheme.
Although noble Lords opposite may dismiss this point, I have to repeat that this amendment could put the Potato Marketing Board to considerable expense. It would be required to poll producers as to whether they wished the board to consider making an application for a transfer scheme. If they decided to proceed, they would have to poll again on the principles of the proposed scheme. If they then decided to withdraw that scheme, they would be required to poll again before submitting a different transfer scheme. That seems unnecessarily cumber-some and I do not believe producers would thank Parliament for imposing these expensive procedures on them. I fully understand the concern behind the amendment, but I believe that we can leave it to the PMB to decide how and when to consult its producers.
I come back to Clause 25(1), which requires the board to satisfy Ministers that it has taken reasonable steps to bring the principles of a transfer scheme to the attention of registered producers. A poll is certainly one means, but there are less cumbersome and equally effective ways in which the board might advise growers of its intentions; for example, letters, media announcements or producer meetings.
I move finally to Amendment No. 56. We spoke about this in Committee and I must repeat again what I said then, which was an extension of my point about the democratic nature of the board. It seems highly unlikely that this body of growers representing growers would ignore the views of their constituents unless they had very good reason for doing so. One such reason might be that the poll was unrepresentative. I make the point again that this amendment could have undesirable effects in that it might constrain the actions of the board by making it take account of what might be a small and unrepresentative poll. Should a fail-safe be necessary, the need to convince Ministers under Clause 25 should be sufficient to ensure responsible action by the board.
All that this amendment would achieve would be to constrain the board's actions and make it less likely that its admirable work in research and development and market promotion would survive. That cannot be desirable and I hope that the noble Lords will now feel able to withdraw these amendments.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, and before I decide what to do with the amendment, would he be good enough to answer the specific question I asked: if there were a poll under the 1958 Act which showed overwhelming or substantial support for the continuation of the potato marketing scheme, and if such a scheme were to be allowed under European legislation, would the Government take into account the results of that poll or would they ignore it and abolish the board anyway?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we would certainly take into account the results of such a poll. But we would also have to bear in mind the needs and interests of the

1111
potato industry generally, which incorporates not simply potato producers but consumers and processors as well.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for what is a very good holding answer. I was interested in the mini-debate. I should like to refer to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, when he said that if there were a poll there would only be five producers replying. From what he knows of the industry, and what I know, if there were to be such a poll there would be very substantial interest because of all the uncertainty.
I was interested in the Minister's arguments about the problems of a poll. I wonder why the clause to allow a poll is in the Bill at all. The Minister appears to say that the problems in conducting a poll are such that it would be unrepresentative. I heard what the Minister said. I did not expect that he would accept the amendment, but I thought it important to get absolutely clear on the record the views of the Government regarding the producer poll. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 18, line 37, after ("of") insert ("persons who are").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 43. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
Clause 37 [Membership of the Board]:
7.15 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 19, line 2, leave out ("on which the order under section 22 above is made") and insert ("specified by order under section 22 above").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 39. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Overriding nature of functions under Part II]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 58 and 59:
Page 19, line 16, leave out ("to registered producers").
Page 19, line 17, at end insert ("to persons who are registered producers.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 43. I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 39 [Quota years]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 19, line 18, leave out ("on which the order under section 22 above is made") and insert ("specified by order under section 22 above").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 39. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 [Interpretation of Part II]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 20, line 25, leave out ("who are").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 43. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Wool guarantee]:
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 23, line 14, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (IA) below,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we discussed the future of wool during the Committee stage of the Bill we found the Minister in rather unreceptive mood. In withdrawing the amendments tabled at that time I said that we hoped with the passage of time we might find the Minister more receptive and that also we would await the response of sheep farmers to the announcement made that very day about the reduction in HLCA allowances.
I do not know whether the Minister is in a more receptive mood this evening, but we know from what happened subsequently and what is due to happen tomorrow that there is considerable anxiety, bordering on anger, on the part of the sheep farmers about the reduction of the HLCAs. Therefore, tonight we can reasonably ask the Minister to take a second look at the situation because the proposal to withdraw the guaranteed payments to the Wool Marketing Board is a matter of great significance to them and to the wider British wool textiles industry.
On 8th January the Confederation of British Wool Textiles wrote to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of Agriculture and sundry lesser mortals, including myself, setting out in detail the impact of the withdrawal of the guaranteed price for wool on farmers as well as on the manufacturing side of the industry. It drew attention to the serious situation at world level concerning wool stocks, a matter which would be exacerbated by the proposed timescale for the withdrawal of guaranteed payments.
I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 62, 63, 64 and 66. Amendment No. 64 proposes a phased withdrawal of the guaranteed price over the years 1993 and 1994. That proposal would give the Government some freedom as to the rate at which the withdrawal of the guarantee could take place enabling them to take account of world prices. That compromise should commend itself to the Government.
Do the Government now feel able to give some assistance to a section of industry which is very important in an agricultural sense, although wool is not an agricultural product which would help the manufacturing and marketing aspects of the industry? We move the amendment in the hope that the Minister will look at it sympathetically. Consequentially upon Amendment No. 62 we propose in Amendment No. 66 the deletion of "1995" and the insertion of "1997", which would be a reasonable compromise.
I will not quote from the letter that was sent by the Confederation of British Wool Textiles because of the lateness of the hour and because there is succeeding business; however, it sets out in considerable detail a strong case for amelioration, which is the purpose of the amendment.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment that has been so ably proposed by the

1113
noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. I should also declare an interest in that I had the privilege of being vice chairman of the Wool Marketing Board for 11 years, and I am a hill farmer.
Many people do not realise how the income of the hill farmer is derived. Over 60 per cent. of the income comes from subsidies and guaranteed prices. There is only one guaranteed price left; that concerns wool, and it will come to an end this year. Therefore, less than 40 per cent. of the income comes from lambs and sheep that are sold.
It is no wonder that the hill farmers are coming to London tomorrow to lobby us. The select committee in the other place is to discuss the plight of hill farmers in the near future in relation to the HLCAs. I wonder whether that subject will have the blessing of the Minister. Can it be persuaded to extend the remit to cover the future of the guaranteed price of the Wool Marketing Board? If the Minister can give us that assurance, we would be able to convey some good news to keep some hill farmers happy tomorrow.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to put my name to the amendments. The retention of the statutory wool guarantee until 1995, albeit at lower rates over the next two years, would provide more time for the disposal of the existing stockpiles of wool, particularly in the southern hemisphere, that are currently overhanging the international market. It would provide additional support to the industry during a terrible period of uncertainty. Once the stockpiles have been reduced, there is every expectation that the market will improve. In the expectation of an improved market for wool in 1995 the termination of the guarantee for that year would have a less severe impact on producer incomes than it would in 1993.
The current market price for wool is only a little more than 50 per cent. of the guaranteed price. Few of us realise the seriousness of the plight of our sheep farmers, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Geraint; and from a civil servant's desk or from this hallowed place, that is not surprising. Many wool producers now receive less for their wool clip than they did in 1950, over 40 years ago.
A reduction in returns in present market conditions will be felt most severely by producers in the country's less favoured areas. Those producers are heavily dependent upon sheep and wool for their livelihoods. A continuation of a guaranteed price until an improvement in the market would reduce the impact of its termination on producer incomes. I support the amendments.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I support the amendment. I should like to draw the attention of my noble friend to the remark that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, concerning the letter that we all received from the Federation of British Wool Textiles. I hope that the Government will take the matter very seriously. As we know, nearly all wool goes to Bradford but it is not fully employed, and I hope that the Government will realise the effect of unemployment on that town.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, has moved the amendments in the hope of some Government flexibility. However, much as I should like to please him, I fear that I must disappoint him. I explained at Committee stage that whilst the wool guarantee has served the industry well over the past 40 years, it had now outlived its usefulness. The point that is lost sight of is that the guarantee was, and is, intended as a means of price stabilisation, not of continuous market support. It is out of place in the conditions of the 1990s. It has, in particular, become redundant in the face of very generous EC support measures under the common agricultural policy. It is now time for the wool industry to accept financial responsibility for its own financial affairs.
It would not, therefore, be right to accept the amendments, which would postpone the date for termination of the wool guarantee by two years—from 30th April this year to 30th April 1995. I note that the proposal to remove the current restrictions on the proportions by which the guarantee may be reduced from year to year would be intended to allow the guarantee to operate at a lower level for two years after 30th April 1993. However, that proposal misses the central reason for terminating the guarantee: the fact that the element of direct Government involvement in the wool market is no longer appropriate.
I understand the concern that termination of the guarantee will take place at a time when the market for wool is particularly depressed. It is true that the guarantee element currently accounts for approximately 65 per cent. of the producer's return from wool. However, as I emphasised at Committee stage, his total return from wool amounts to only about 5 per cent. of his total return from sheep production. Substantial producer support by means of the sheep annual premium and hill livestock compensatory allowances will continue to be paid. Total payments to sheep farmers from those sources in respect of 1992 will be around £480 million, a considerable increase on the previous year, at a time when many other industries are not in the least insulated against the chill of recession.
We should therefore reject the amendments on those grounds. I know that feelings run deep, but nothing I have heard today alters the Government's conclusions that the guarantee should be ended with effect from 30th April. The industry is now in a position to respond more directly to the needs of the market and it should not be prevented from so doing.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, the Minister's reply is extremely disappointing. I believe that he underestimates the total significance of the question. For that reason it is doubly disappointing. He points out that the reason for withdrawing the guarantee is to relate the market more closely to current conditions. Our case is that we have an abnormal market and that this is precisely the wrong moment in which to take action of the kind contemplated in the Bill.
Nevertheless, we live in hope that tomorrow will be tomorrow. There will certainly be some noise made in

1115
the precincts of this place tomorrow by an extremely influential group of people. In addition, the Bill will go to another place and I have no doubt, particularly bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, said in regard to the inquiry by the Select Committee into the situation as regards hill farmers, that that will probably strengthen the case for a review of the matter.
I am grateful to all who have spoken in support of the amendments, notably the noble Lords, Lord Geraint, Lord Palmer and Lord Stanley. We live in hope, and particularly the hope that the Minister will reflect on the matter and use the undoubted clout which the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said he has and which we believe he possesses, so that when the Bill goes to another place as it were afresh, a different Minister may not feel so tied as he has been tonight by what he said in Committee. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 62.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 23, line 19, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) In making the calculations required to be made under article 5(1) of the British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) Order 1955 (calculation of the Board's outgoings and receipts for each wool year), no account shall be taken of any wool which has not been sold by the Board before 1st May 1995.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in addition to providing for the termination of the wool guarantee at the end of April 1993, Clause 48 provides that wool already collected by the British Wool Marketing Board in the 1992 clip year—that is, 1st May 1992 to 30th April 1993—and previous clip years should continue to qualify for the guarantee provided it is sold by the board before 1st May 1995. That will assure for the board a sensible and appropriate timetable for the sale of the wool without disruption to its traditional marketing patterns. It also provides a clear and precise end-date for Exchequer liability under the guarantee.
The existing subsection (3) is intended to facilitate that clear end-date of 1st May 1995 by ensuring that any wool from the 1992 and previous clip years which at that time remains unsold by the board should not be taken into account when calculating the Exchequer liability under the guarantee. The two key elements in calculating the liability are the board's "outgoings", essentially its payments to producers for their wool, together with marketing and other costs, and the board's "receipts", essentially the market return from sales of wool. However, while the existing subsection (3) accurately qualifies the calculation of the board's "receipts" to reflect the 1st May 1995 deadline, it does not, as drafted, qualify the other element in the equation—the calculation of the board's "outgoings".
To remedy that, and to ensure that there is no ambiguity in the provision, the amendment would therefore specify more clearly that, in making the relevant calculations of both the board's receipts and its outgoings, no account shall be taken of wool which has not been sold by the board before 1st May 1993.
The amendment is therefore purely technical in
1116
nature, and does not alter the Government's intention of providing the board with a sensible timetable for the sale of wool collected under the 1992 and previous clip years. I beg to move.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I support the words of the Minister, but from my personal knowledge I do not believe that there will be an ounce of wool from the 1992 clip left in 1995.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I can ask the Minister whether the amendment means that in the unlikely event that there were, the stocks would not be subject to the wool guarantee? Is that the meaning?
Earl Howe: My Lords, that is so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 67:
After Clause 49, insert the following new clause:
("Report on the agricultural industry under 1947 Act
.—(1) As at such date in each year as the Ministers may determine, they shall publish an annual report on the economic conditions in, and prospects for, the United Kingdom agricultural industry, and the role it plays in the environment.
(2) In this section "the Ministers" means the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales acting jointly.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 67 was discussed at Committee stage. We have brought it back with an important addition concerning the environmental condition of agriculture. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, will wish to speak to that specific point as his name is attached to the amendment.
The Minister gave an undertaking in Committee on 10th December at col. 377 when he said,
"Publication of Agriculture in the United Kingdom will continue after the ending of the requirement to hold an annual review, so there need be no fears that repeal of the requirement will reduce the flow of publicly available information".
Of course we were all extremely glad to receive that undertaking.
The amendment does not in the least impugn the Minister's good faith in giving that commitment. But I am sure that the Minister knows that it would satisfy many people in Parliament and throughout agriculture and industry for the Government to accept the commitment given by the Minister actually on the face of the Bill. An environmental point is a crucial one and the role that the agricultural industry plays in the environment is of increasing importance. We are all familiar with the agri- and the monetary measures in the CAP reform and the agri-environmental measures which are all intended to promote good environmental practice in agriculture.
We feel that it would make a good deal of sense for the Government to accept a commitment to report annually on how the environmental as well as the economic condition of the industry is faring. Such a commitment on the face of the Bill would show that the Government are wholly serious regarding their environmental responsibility in the formulation of agricultural policy. I would argue that such an amendment would give the Government no difficulty.

1117
Should the Government reject the amendment, I am afraid that industry and others will have the all too real fear that at some time in the future a Minister, perhaps under pressure from the Treasury in the public expenditure round, will decide that money could be saved by abandoning the publication of the annual report.
For those reasons and the crucial importance of the environmental considerations I mentioned, I hope that the Minister can accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I support the amendment. I believe that it is important to ensure the continued publication of that excellent MAFF document, Agriculture in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, argued the merits of the document with regard to agricultural information. I should like to underline its importance from an environmental point of view, bearing in mind that agriculture has played, and will play, a central role in the protection of our rural environment. For example, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food runs a series of environmentally-driven schemes for environmentally sensitive areas and nitrate sensitive areas.
Following the reform last May of the CAP there will be an increasing emphasis on schemes that farmers pay directly to protect the environment. I believe that MAFF is at the present time preparing a scheme that pays farmers to reduce the number of livestock per hectare and take land out of production for 20 years. It is vital that in future years not only is the document published but that it provides up-to-date information on the ever-increasing list of environmental schemes. I therefore urge the House to support the amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I said previously that I do not regard it as necessary to have a statutory provision requiring Ministers to publish Agriculture in the United Kingdom, or something along those lines. I have given a commitment that we shall continue to do so. Nonetheless I should like to introduce a note of consensus to the end of the Report stage of the Bill and I am prepared to accept the amendment in principle.
The noble Lord and my noble friend have in innovative fashion added a contemporary twist to the phrasing of the 1947 Act by referring to the link between agriculture and the environment. While I thoroughly approve of this I have some doubts as to the precise wording of the amendment which might imply a study of a rather more academic nature than one would expect in the context of an annual report of this kind. If, however, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment I shall see what I can come up with by way of a government amendment in time for Third Reading which meets what I understand to be the principal concern expressed today.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if the Minister could see the looks of incredulity around the House—none more incredulous than mine. I am extremely grateful to him. Of course I shall withdraw the amendment. I
1118
am sure that the amendment which he brings forward will be a considerable improvement on this one. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 68:
After Clause 51, insert the following new clause:
("Effect of CAP on marketing
.—(1) Where the European Commission or the Ministers make proposals for the operation and development of the Common Agricultural Policy, or for agricultural support, which are deemed by the Ministers to be likely to have significant implications for persons concerned with the marketing of milk, potatoes and wool, were they to be implemented, the Ministers shall consult with such bodies as appear to them to represent the interests of those persons.
(2) In this section "the Ministers" means the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales acting jointly.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I cannot believe that I shall have as much luck with this amendment as I had with the last one. But we live in hope.
We feel it is important that the Government have a statutory commitment to consult where the operation of the common agricultural policy, its development and reform, affects the marketing of milk, potatoes and wool, the commodities with which the Bill is concerned. It could be argued—the Minister might say this—that there is provision for consultation already in the Bill to do with both milk and potatoes. However, that is consultation about the changes in the marketing schemes which are brought about by the Bill. It is not the consultation that we are referring to here which concerns proposals for the operation and development of the common agricultural policy, or for agricultural support, which have significant implications for the marketing of milk, potatoes and wool.
I am sure the Government will say that they would always consult—and of course they do—but I remind the Minister of the length of consultation with the industry that took place before the draft proposals on the potato regime were produced. About three weeks were given to the industry to react to those important proposals. What is important is not just that there is consultation but the nature of the consultation.
As we know, the Bill makes some dramatic changes to three marketing schemes which have served the industry and the consumer well. We know that further dramatic changes may result from changes in the common agricultural policy. I feel that the Government should accept a statutory obligation to consult on the effect of such changes. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, in speaking on this amendment I shall assume that the purpose is to require Ministers to consult. representatives of producers when a proposal concerning aspects of the CAP or agricultural support is made by the EC Commission or by UK agricultural Ministers and where the proposal in question would have significant implications for milk, potato or wool producers. If that is not the intention I should be pleased to be corrected. I must confess I am otherwise perplexed as to why producer representatives alone should be consulted on matters important to,
"persons concerned with the marketing of milk, potatoes and wool",

1119
which could be a much wider group. I am certainly perplexed in any case as to why the noble Lord considers that consultation is necessary on matters regarding three products and not others. I should also point out, as the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, did a little while ago, that in EC terms wool is not classed as an agricultural product.
Leaving aside those secondary but not unimportant considerations, I have to say that I regard this amendment as unnecessary and indeed contradictory. It is contradictory because it implies that, although Ministers cannot be trusted to consult important interests within their areas of responsibility on matters affecting them, they can nevertheless be trusted to judge which of those matters are significant and which are not. It seems to me that if we are to prescribe by statute the extent of ministerial responsibility to consult in respect of each and every occasion on which it might be necessary, we are denying that any scope whatsoever exists for the exercise of intelligence and discretion on the part of those in office. That is not an approach which I find acceptable. In fact the word that occurs to me is "meddlesome".
I have, moreover, practical objections to the amendment as well as objections of principle. A blanket requirement to consult, apart from being unnecessarily onerous on occasion, would be unworkable. It is often necessary for the Commission to make new proposals during the course of a Council of Ministers in order to break a deadlock in negotiations and try to reach a compromise acceptable to the majority of member states. At a lower level proposals on market management and other matters are often tabled by the Commission with no prior notice at a variety of management committees which meet regularly in Brussels. Many of the decisions taken by those committees have significant implications too. We must allow our negotiators, whether in the Council or in committee, to negotiate and to participate meaningfully in discussions. A provision of the kind tabled could make this very difficult—I am tempted to say impossible.
The various divisions of the Ministry of Agriculture have devised a variety of ways of keeping in close touch with producer and trade interests according to individual circumstances. A requirement to consult formally in all cases would make it in general less, not more, likely that an outcome acceptable to UK interests could be obtained. I hope I have said enough to persuade the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the previous amendment, I had a feeling that my luck would not go on. I got the impression that the Minister was opposed to the amendment and that he felt that the drafting was a little less than perfect. I am partly persuaded by his response. I should like to read in Hansard what he said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 [Orders and regulations]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 26, line 29, leave out ("or 42") and insert (", 42 or 44(2) (c)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is simple. It is to introduce the negative resolution procedure for an order extending the range of produce, the marketing of which may be grant-aided under Clause 44. The Bill as currently drafted would permit such an order to be made without parliamentary procedure. On reflection, we believe that since Clause 44 involves expenditure of public funds, an order made under it should be subject to parliamentary procedure and that the negative resolution procedure is appropriate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 26, line 31, at end insert:
("(4A) A statutory instrument containing an order under section 22 above, if made without a draft having been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 39. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill
7.47 p.m.
Read a third time.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
("Sequestration of other estates.
—(1) Section 6 of the 1985 Act (sequestration of other estates) shall be amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(4) The sequestration of the estate of a partnership shall be on the petition of—

(a) the partnership, if either subsection (4A) or (4B) below applies to the partnership;

(b) a qualified creditor or qualified creditors, if the partnership is apparently insolvent; or

(c) the trustee acting under a trust deed granted by the partnership if, and only if, one or more of the conditions in subsection (4C) below is satisfied.

(4A) This subsection applies to the partnership if a qualified creditor or qualified creditors concur in the petition.
(4B) This subsection applies to the partnership where—

(a) the total amount of the debts of the partnership (including interest) at the date of presentation of the petition is not less than £1,500;

(b) the partnership either—

(i) is apparently insolvent; or—

(ii) has granted a trust deed and the trustee has complied with the requirements of subparagraphs (a) to (c) of paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 5 to this Act but has received notification as mentioned in subparagraph (d) of that paragraph.

and for the purposes of this paragraph a partnership shall not be apparently insolvent by reason only that the partnership has granted a trust deed or that the partnership has given notice to its creditors as mentioned in paragraph (b) of section 7(1) of this Act.

(4C) The conditions mentioned in subsection (4) (c) above are—

(a) that the partnership has failed to comply—

(i) with any obligation imposed on the partnership under the trust deed with which the partnership could reasonably have complied; or

(ii) with any instruction or requirement reasonably given to or made of the partnership by the trustee for the purposes of the trust deed; or

(b) that the trustee avers in his petition that it would be in the best interests of the creditors that an award of sequestration be made." ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause was moved at Report stage as Amendment No. 9. It was not acceptable to the Government on the ground that it allowed a partnership to self-certify its own apparent insolvency. The new clause has now been amended to ensure that this self-certification cannot be allowed. The new clause reflects verbatim the provisions of Clause 3 of the Bill in respect of a sole trader. The measures in the Bill allow an individual debtor, including a sole trader, to present a petition to court for his own sequestration without the need for a concurring creditor. The new criteria are listed in Clause 3(2) (b). There appears no reason why other trading entities can be sequestrated and that, for instance, partnerships are not entitled to the same relaxation of the provisions of self-sequestration.
This amendment seeks to introduce a provision which was not incorporated in the 1985 Act. It has not been possible for a trustee under a partnership trust deed to petition on any grounds for the sequestration of the partnership. This has caused considerable problems in the past. There have been occasions where one creditor has effected diligence against partnerships in order to obtain a preference. There does not appear to be any reason why the partnership assets should not he protected from diligence in the same way as the assets of a sole trader would be. Consequently it is believed that a trustee in a partnership trust deed should be able to petition for sequestration of the partnership subject to the strict criteria of subsection (4) (c). I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, when a similar amendment to the one now before your Lordships was moved at Report stage by my noble friend Lord Lyell, who is not here this evening, I acknowledged that I could understand the logic behind the proposals. At that stage, your Lordships may recall, I felt unable to accept the amendment because it would have established a right for a partnership to constitute its apparent insolvency for the purposes of a debtor's petition by giving notice to its creditors that it had ceased to pay its debts. I acknowledge that the latest amendment deals with that particular point.
Nevertheless, I still find myself unable to accept the amendment. I did indicate during the Report stage debate that the removal of that provision alone would not necessarily make the amendment as revised wholly acceptable. My difficulty with the amendment lies primarily in the fact that this is a complex issue. The matter is brought forward at a late stage in our deliberation on the Bill. The amendment does raise
1122
matters of new policy. The present provisions in Section 6(4) of the 1985 Act were introduced following detailed consideration of the implications by the Scottish Law Commission. Based on that consideration, a distinction is drawn in the 1985 Act between these different categories of debtor for the purpose of presenting a petition for sequestration. The amendment before us removes that distinction.
While, as I have said, I can understand the logic behind the proposal, I do not believe we should move without full and careful consideration of the consequences to change the position taken by the Scottish Law Commission. I would have wished to have consulted more widely before accepting this proposal. Unfortunately, that has not proved to be possible in the time available, and I must therefore say that I feel unable to accept the amendment today. With that explanation and understanding of what lies behind the proposal, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. While it is true that the amendment has come at rather a late stage in the Bill's consideration, it is unfortunate that the Minister has some sympathy for the purpose of the amendment but feels that, because of the lateness of its arrival, it is not possible for him to carry out the consultation that would be necessary. I can understand that. That is one of the difficulties which we have when dealing with complicated Bills of this kind. However, perhaps some good ideas are thrown up. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for having raised the matter originally. The question always is when we shall return to deal with this subject again. Perhaps this matter will be raised in the next law report on this subject. Will the Minister make a point of raising it? No doubt those responsible will look at the Minister's words and not mine and it may be possible to make an improvement at some later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Award of sequestration]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 8, line 9, at end insert:
("(3A) For subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(2) Where a petition for the sequestration of a debtor's estate is presented by a creditor or a trustee acting under a trust deed, the court to which the petition is presented shall grant warrant to cite the debtor to appear before it on such date as shall be specified in the warrant, to show cause why sequestration should not be awarded, and such citation shall be made not less than 6 days before such date.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this amendment is that in the event of a petition presented by a creditor or a trustee under a trust deed, this amendment requires the petitioner to serve the petition on the debtor at any time after the presentation of the petition but not less than 30 days before the date of the sequestration hearing.
Section 12(2) of the Act states that the debtor should be formally served with a copy of the petition not less than six nor more than 14 days prior to the

1123
sequestration hearing. There seems no good reason other than historical legislation, why the petition cannot be served more than 14 days before the date of the hearing. It has always been accepted that, while you can give too short a period of notice, you can never give too long a period of notice. The timescale for citation under the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1913 was the same as in the 1985 Act. There is one reported case to which I referred at the earlier stage of the Bill —that is to say, Hill v. Hill (1984) as reported in the Scottish Law Times. The debtor was cited 19 days before the sequestration hearing and the court agreed that that was valid service.
It is sometimes not convenient. Fourteen days in the modern world is probably not as long as some people require. They can be away from their place of business or abroad for two weeks, which is not uncommon. Therefore, they would be unable to appear. Warrants for the re-service of the petition are frequently issued by the courts. This amendment would render many of these warrants for re-service unnecessary since there is a more flexible period prior to the sequestration hearing for the petition to be served on the debtor. It would become practice that the petitioners served the petition as soon as possible, and, if unsuccessful, they would have the opportunity to resolve any difficulties of effecting service.
The vast majority of petitions are through the Sheriff Courts and the practical difficulties involved in those courts should be considered, as opposed to the relatively limited experience of the Court of Session. Statute at present does not impose any strict time constraint for fixing the date for a sequestration hearing. It is the view of the majority of the insolvency practitioners that the present wording of Section 12(2) does not in any way encourage the Sheriff Courts to fix an earlier date for sequestration hearings. The Sheriff Courts will work very much independently from their own timetables.
An earlier date of service of the petition on the debtor would also be sensible in the case where an interim trustee has been appointed at the same date as the warrant to cite was granted. Where the petition for sequestration is against a trading debtor with a going concern, the interim trustee can be in control of the business. As Section 12(2) presently stands, formal service of the petition may not be effected on the debtor until some weeks after the trustee has been appointed. It should therefore be considered poor practice that a debtor can have a court-appointed trustee running his business while not having the right to be served with a copy of the petition which actually appointed that person. I believe that this matter was well discussed last time, but that the Minister said that he would look at the matter again. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I understand the logic which has prompted the noble Lord to table his amendment. It does seem appropriate to allow a debtor the maximum notice of a petition for the sequestration of his estate. However, the provision which the noble Lord seeks to amend does more than provide for notice of the petition to be served on the debtor. I believe it is also intended to ensure that a
1124
date is specified in the warrant for the hearing of the petition and that date should be no more than 14 days from the date of granting of the warrant to cite; that being the earliest date on which citation could be effected. Such an interpretation is entirely in keeping with the summary nature of sequestration and the need to deal quickly with any petition.
I accept that not all courts share that view and I have tended to operate the provision in the way described by the noble Lord. That can lead to cases being delayed for some time before the petition is finally dealt with. I may be wrong in the interpretation I have put before your Lordships, but I am sure that the noble Lord's amendment would in effect mean that the courts had an entirely free hand to determine when the hearing should be. I fear that might encourage further delays in dealing with sequestration petitions, which I and, I believe, the whole House, will be anxious to avoid. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will understand why I feel unable to accept this amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, especially for his last point, in which I can see some force, and the suggestion that the amendment might give the courts too much flexibility. In view of the example that I gave of 19 days being allowed in one case, perhaps the courts themselves will be reasonably flexible. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8 p.m.
Clause 5 [Calling of statutory meeting]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 3
Page 9, line 34, leave out ("not later than") and insert ("to be held within").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if we consider also Amendment No. 4. These amendments seek to clarify the position regarding the calling of the statutory meeting of creditors by the accountant in bankruptcy. Both subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 21 make no specific reference to the holding of the meeting. It could be argued that, while the clauses instruct the calling of—that is, the convening of—the meeting, that meeting could be held at any time—months or even years later. While this suggestion might appear nonsensical, the amendments would bring the wording of these subsections into line with the very clear wording of Section 21(1) of the 1985 Act.
Perhaps there is some hidden point which I have totally missed. Although it seems unlikely that a meeting could be called but not held, that is nevertheless something that could happen. I wonder whether the Minister has any answer to that point. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, while I have listened to the arguments advanced by the noble Lord in respect of these amendments, I am not convinced that they are necessary. It can be seen from the full context of Section 21(A) that the term "call" is not used in any sense of giving notice to those who would

1125
attend the statutory meeting. That is provided for in Section 21(A) (7), whereby the creditors are to be given at least seven days' notice by the interim trustee of the date fixed for the statutory meeting. Nor could the expression "call" be interpreted as meaning some unexpressed intention to hold a statutory meeting at some undetermined, future date. Where under Section 21(A) the statutory meeting is to be called, the interim trustee is obliged to do so not later than 28 days after notice. That means that a date for the meeting must be fixed and, indeed, the meeting held within the time limit.
With that explanation of the terminology that is used in this provision, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that, although I understand his point, his amendment is nevertheless unnecessary.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I had thought that there would be a clearer explanation of what I had understood. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Short title, interpretation, commencement and extent]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 15, leave out line 3.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which removes Clause 1 from the list of provisions under Clause 12(3) which will come into force on Royal Assent. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Miscellaneous amendments of the 1985 Act]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 17, line 23, at end insert:
("Petitions for recall of sequestration
4A.—(1) Section 16 (petitions for recall of sequestration) shall be amended as follows—
(2) In subsection (4) (a) after the word "of" there shall be inserted the words "the award of".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that this amendment is extremely technical. I must confess that I am not fully aware of all the technicalities although I am aware of its total impact. I have, however, agreed to move the amendment so that the Minister can give an explanation.
As I understand it, Clause 3 allows individuals to self-sequestrate with creditor-driven apparent insolvency. I believe that the amendment is trying to say that if it is all right for an individual sole trader to self-sequestrate, the new subsection would allow some entitlement for a trading partner. That is the best that I can do by way of explanation of this amendment which I have been asked to move. I hope that the Minister can cast greater light upon it and help me to understand what it is really about. The people who drafted the amendment are obviously highly experienced, but they have not given quite as much information as I should have liked. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am so overwhelmed by the powerful logic of the argument behind the noble Lord's amendment that I am happy to accept it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
The Bill entered your Lordships' House after full and lengthy consideration in another place. It has received further careful scrutiny from your Lordships. I am particularly grateful to those noble Lords who have taken an interest in what is a highly complex and technical piece of legislation. I should like to express my gratitude for their positive and constructive contributions to our debates on the Bill.
Not only in relation to the last amendment, which I was prepared to accept, but also at an earlier stage, noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lady Carnegy of Lour, have drawn attention to a number of practical matters which have either been dealt with by amendment to the Bill or which can be dealt with subsequently by regulations or by guidance to trustees. I have made that point on a number of occasions.
I believe that as a result of our deliberations the Bill leaves your Lordships' House much improved. I am sure that it will be appreciated in another place that where we have amended the Bill as it left there, no new policy has been introduced. No substantive matter has been introduced which was not previously discussed there. I believe that the amendments have improved the Bill as a whole and I am grateful to those who have contributed towards it achieving that state.
Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his kind words to the whole House on the improvements that have been made to the Bill. I thank him also for the charming way in which he has handled the passage of the Bill. I am, of course, grateful for having had an amendment accepted.
Perhaps I should have apologised earlier on behalf of my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar who has found it impossible to be present tonight. He would have been the correct person to have handled the passage of the Bill from this side. We have received good explanations about the few amendments with which we have been dealing tonight, and we have had one accepted. That is something about which we should all be glad. Therefore, I shall be pleased to allow the Bill to have its Third Reading.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, as the only Peer speaking from the Back Benches who has taken part in our discussions on this Bill who is not addressing a haggis somewhere about the country tonight, I should like to thank my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie for the way in which he has conducted the Bill through the House. I thank

1127
also the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, for the patient way in which he has entered into our discussions.
I noted that my noble and learned friend the Minister said that the Bill has not been changed in such a way that the other place will find that new matter has been introduced. I am sure that that is right. The Bill has been tidied up and improved and the House should be pleased about what has been done.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, lest it be thought that we cannot produce any Scots from our Benches, I must
1128
offer an apology. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie would have been here—he is not devoting himself to the Immortal Memory this evening—if he had not, sadly, had to attend the funeral of a close friend today. He sends his apologies to your Lordships. I am sure that he would want to join in the thanks to all those who have taken part in our discussions on this Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
House adjourned at ten minutes past eight o'clock.

  TRIDENT
  TRIDENT
  BOSNIA: BRITISH TROOPS' ALLOWANCES
  BOSNIA: BRITISH TROOPS' ALLOWANCES
  LARGE COMPANIES: PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS
  LARGE COMPANIES: PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS