Sitting of 8 July 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)
Question, That the British Railways (No. 4) Bill be now read a Second time, put and agreed to.
Read a Second time, and committed.

CROYDON TRAMLINK BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
    WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

      LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)
      Orders for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time on Thursday 15 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    GATT
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will meet her American counterparts to discuss the impact of GATT on agriculture.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I hope to find an opportunity for a meeting. GATT, negotiations would certainly figure in such discussions.
    Mr. Illsley: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. While she will be aware that the Labour party has consistently supported a GATT agreement, is she also aware that we share the concern of the National Farmers Union that the Blair House accord could involve much higher rates of set-aside? Will she make it clear, in any meeting with her American counterparts, that we find that totally unacceptable?
    Mrs. Shephard: On the whole, I would share the hon. Gentleman's misgivings, were such rumours likely to be true. I think that they are unfounded. I believe that the GATT agreement on agriculture, based on the Blair House accord between the European Community and the United States, is likely to be a good outcome for the EC and I hope that the ground rules laid down in that accord will prove to be the foundation for the GATT agricultural agreement.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend continue to support and fund Food From Britain, which champions the cause of exporters in this country? Is she aware how important exporting is to our producers, as they export approximately 25 per cent. of their produce and, to do so, need the openness in trade that an eventual GATT deal will engender?
    Mrs. Shephard: It is encouraging that such good progress has been made on GATT negotiations in Tokyo and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has played such an important part in achieving that. Like my hon. Friend, I champion the export achievements of Food From Britain and the work of that excellent organisation. As she says, exports are an important part of our agricultural trade. We are not doing well enough, though. Our £6 billion trade gap is far too big and I hope that all our producers, and especially those represented by Food From Britain, will tackle the unacceptably large gap.
    Dr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that the Labour party warmly welcomes last night's agreement as an important step along the tortuous route to a GATT agreement? Will she confirm, however, that although the French Government have endorsed the Blair House agreement on oil seeds, they have refused to accept the agriculture agreement, which would be essential to an overall GATT package? Will she give the House an assurance that there will be no question of the British Government agreeing concessions to French farming that would discriminate in any way against British agriculture and British jobs?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am more than happy to give the House that assurance. I have already taken the opportunity of making those points to my French counterpart. I expect to meet him in about a fortnight, when I will repeat them. Since France is third in the world for exports, the French will surely recognise that their own interests would be served by a successful outcome to the GATT round.

    Integrated Administration and Control Scheme
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much subsidy has been distributed to farmers following the implementation of the IACS scheme.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Payments under schemes covered by IACS forms are expected to amount to £1·2 billion for British farmers this year.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her interesting answer. Does she accept that farmers have encountered considerable difficulty in filling in the IACS forms and considerable cost in obtaining maps from the Ordnance Survey? Will she confirm that next year's procedures will be considerably easier to follow than this year's? Will she also acknowledge the debt that we owe the National Farmers Union, which has consistently helped farmers to fill in their forms?
    Mrs. Shephard: I agree that the NFU has played an important part in giving advice to farmers who had difficulty completing their IACS forms. The NFU has also praised the effort of MAFF staff in area offices who have performed an equally useful and helpful role. There was a

    453
    problem with maps. In cases where people genuinely could not obtain the relevant maps, the IACS forms were acceptable without them.
    I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point about next year's forms. By then, we shall, of course, have established a database, but we are asking the industry to suggest ways in which the forms can be made more user-friendly and entirely sensible for next year.

    Fishing (Days At Sea)
    Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she last met representatives of the fishing industry to discuss compulsory days-at-sea legislation; and if she will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): On 8 June, my right hon. Friend the Minister and I met representatives of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and I recently met the fishermen of Brixham. Further meetings are planned.
    Mrs. Ewing: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that I speak on behalf of all hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies in welcoming his announcement yesterday evening that there would be a relaxation, or at least a postponement, of the tie-up regulations under the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1992? May I plead with him to recongnise that the most sensible way forward now would be to suspend the Sea Fish Conservation Act and use the ensuing period to ensure that there is a reasonable dialogue between all sections of the industry and the Government and then to introduce a conservation package that has the support not only of the Government and the Community but of the fishing industry itself?
    Mr. Jack: I thank the hon. Lady for the conciliatory tone of her question and in particular for her welcome for the postponement of the introduction of the days-at-sea policy. We are all joined in the common purpose of finding ways to sustain the availability of fish for the benefit of the fishing industry. I certainly accept the hon. Lady's point about dialogue. In fact, I am urgently filling my diary with engagements, including meetings with representatives of the Scottish fishing industry, and will take into account some of the important points raised by hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies in last night's debate.
    I cannot, however, suspend our policy for ever or even beyond the period that I have specified because we have to find ways of achieving our multi-annual guidance programme and that set of targets is narrower than the overall desire, which hon. Members on both sides of the House share, to conserve our fish stocks.
    Mr. Marland: Does my hon. Friend agree that all parties involved in the fishing industry accept that some steps must be taken to conserve fish? Will he confirm that limiting days at sea is only one of the ways in which the Government are seeking to restrain fishing effort? Will he further confirm that studies have shown that, in some instances, more than 300 days at sea have been allocated in response to fishermen's applications and that the threat of limiting days at sea is not as fierce as some Opposition Members may want fishermen to believe?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend speaks with a sure knowledge on these matters. I can confirm that some
    454
    fishermen have received days-at-sea allocations up to that level. The particular concern, though, is for those fishermen who may have received the minimum allocation and are uncertain about their future. There may be problems with records, but we have already indicated many different ways in which those fishermen can submit further appeals to see whether their days-at-sea allocation can be enlarged. My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that we are pioneering other ways in which to limit fishing efforts. That is why the House last night approved a decommissioning scheme with a budget of £25 million attached to it.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am a little disappointed to find the Minister resiling somewhat on what seemed to be the hopes of last night. Does he agree that it would be far better to provide for proper conservation by stopping the pillaging of our grounds by foreigners—in particular, Spaniards—than by stopping our vessels putting out to sea? In that connection, is it correct that, although as many infringements of fish conservation provisions in our grounds are being discovered by the fisheries protection fleet, fewer of them are being brought to court this year because his Department does not have the money for litigation? Is it also correct that the Irish Government are doing far more than ours to stamp out the secret fish holds that the Spanish are using?
    Mr. Jack: We are spending some £20 million on the enforcement of fishing regulations and policy. I wish that we did not have to. I wish that people would play by the rules and not hide fish in hidden and dark holes, as every time somebody cheats on the fishing rules they deny another fisherman a living. As to prosecutions, the hon. Gentleman will realise that I cannot comment on specific cases. It is important, though, that when people break the rules they are properly prosecuted and that that information is made available.
    Mr. John Townend: May I join the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) in congratulating my hon. Friend on his statement last night. It clearly shows that, in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food we now have Ministers who listen. That is welcome. What proportion of the fleet is affected by the maximum limit of 80 days? If it is a relatively small proportion—I assume that it will be —could not the limit be increased to, say, 100 or 120 days without a significant effect on fishing efforts?
    Mr. Jack: First, may I welcome my hon. Friend's kind comments about our announcements last night? On the subject of the number of vessels affected by the minimum allocation of days at sea, approximately half the applications that we have received are affected. I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that some 84 per cent. have already appealed against the minimum allocations. He will be aware that his proposition to increase the minimum number of days at sea was one of many helpful ideas that were put forward during the debate. Right hon. and hon. Members were invited to explore that among themselves and with their fishermen and to put forward their ideas during the period of consultation so that we may consider them.

    Land Access
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement about improving access to set-aside and country stewardship land.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: We have issued proposals for a scheme to open up new areas of suitable set-aside land for public access to the countryside. Strictly speaking, as I think the hon. Gentleman will know, the countryside stewardship scheme, which makes provision for access to a significant proportion of sites, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
    Mr. Bennett: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does she agree that, if land is not used for intensive farming, it is important that it is used for the community at large and that giving people an opportunity to walk peacefully across the land is important? Will she confirm that it is possible for farmers to receive income from the schemes in exchange for supposed access, but that the general public do not know that they have rights of access to that land?
    Mrs. Shephard: Mistakes have been made in the countryside stewardship scheme, some of which were about giving adequate publicity. We will certainly learn lessons from the way in which the scheme has worked. However, there is no question of forcing farmers to allow access to land beyond public rights of way, as there are costs involved. The meadowland scheme, which is a new scheme proposed under the agri-environment regulation will provide an incentive and, as the hon. Gentleman has said, the public will benefit.
    Mr. Duncan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most farmers are perfectly reasonable when it comes to people requesting access to their land so long as their behaviour is legitimate? Does she further agree that when people invade their land, farmers have far too few powers under the law to remove people who disrupt lawful activity? Will she therefore undertake to liaise with the Home Secretary to improve the powers of farmers to remove new age travellers and those who wish to disrupt a lawful hunt?
    Mrs. Shephard: I agree with the examples that my hon. Friend gave to illustrate his point. I am happy to liaise with the Home Secretary on that and other points about law and order in the countryside. Most farmers are reasonable about allowing public access to their land. It is a two-way process. Those who seek access should treat it as though they were going, for example, to a place of work. They should be expected to behave responsibly and in return we would expect farmers to be reasonable.
    Mr. Skinner rose—
    Hon. Members: Stone-age traveller.
    Mr. Skinner: At least I am not a barrel of lard like the Parliamentary Secretary.
    Hon. Members: Oh!
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am missing all the fun.
    Mr. Skinner: Is not it an indictment of our society that the set-aside schemes were set up by the Common Market in order to destroy food and to allow farmers to watch the grass grow at £100 an acre while millions of people in the
    456
    Sahara, other parts of Africa and other countries are starving to death? Is not it a fact that the royal family, including the Queen and the Prince of Wales, have had more than a quarter of a million pounds out of those tax avoidance schemes? It is no wonder that the Queen has offered to pay tax; she is using taxpayers' money to do it.
    Mrs. Shephard: The fun was quickly over. Far from it being a case of a barrel of lard, it is one of sour milk. The hon. Gentleman has been second to none in requiring surpluses and intervention to be tackled firmly by the EC and set-aside and the CAP reforms do just that. I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman is not welcoming this move forward.
    Mrs. Browning: Is my right hon. Friend aware that farmers in my home village of Whimple in the constituency of Tiverton have been refused permission to hold fund-raising public events on set-aside land, the money from which would go to registered charities and the local church, for the sole reason that it is set-aside land? Will my right hon. Friend look at that case?
    Mrs. Shephard: I was not aware of that, but I shall certainly look at it.
    Mr. Morley: While the Secretary of State is considering the question of public access, I draw attention to the review group considering the possible privatisation of Forestry Enterprise and the Forestry Commission, on which her Department is represented. Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Countryside Commission's submission to that review group stated that public ownership has been an effective means of achieving public benefits? It went on to say that the disposal of some or all of the freehold estate, which comprises 40 per cent. of all forested land in Britain, is likely to lead to the loss of unrestricted, free of charge public access to the land in question. Does the right hon. Lady agree that public access to woodlands is best preserved by public ownership and will she ensure that her Department makes representations to the review group to that effect?
    Mrs. Shephard: I was aware of those views and I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the review will consider forest land from the point of view of its commercial management, public access—which is important—and the protection of our heritage. Those three aspects are at the heart of the review and I keep an open mind about its findings.

    Small Producers
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to help small producers.
    Mr. Jack: An important source of help to small producers is their ability to be able to claim arable area payments under simplified arrangements that do not require any land to be set aside.
    Mr. Evans: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply and the assistance to small producers, but could not more assistance be given to some of our organic farmers, many of whom are small producers, perhaps via lower limits through the organic aid scheme?
    Mr. Jack: I am pleased that my hon. Friend mentions organic farming, which is an important and developing area. However, it is equally important that, in developing, it does not swamp the available market for its excellent produce. A recent consultation document that we put out showed that a minimum eligible area of 10 hectares, and 50 hectares in the less-favoured areas, might be a possibility. As a result of the responses that we have received to that consultation document, we are considering whether a lower limit might be possible without excessive administrative cost.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Dr. Howells: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent meetings she has had with her European counterparts to discuss financial aspects of the CAP.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I have recently had a number of such meetings.
    Dr. Howells: Will the Minister confirm that the common agricultural policy costs each family in Britain approximately £18 per week extra in food bills and that part of the money is due to the absurd subsidies that continue to be paid into areas such as the tobacco mountain, which, even two years ago, cost £70 million? Does she agree that the Government's reluctance to address those absurd subsidies is a result of the sweetheart arrangements that they have with tobacco companies?
    Mrs. Shephard: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman—the cost of the CAP is far too high. I am sure that he will be delighted that the United Kingdom has consistently argued that its cost is too high and that it hampers the efficient allocation of resources in the economy. May I take it that his enthusiasm for lower costs shows a change of heart by Opposition Front-Bench Members over the whole range of policy?
    I reject entirely the hon. Gentleman's accusation of sweethearting. Certainly tobacco excesses and tobacco mountains should be tackled in the same way as other surpluses have been tackled in the EC.
    Sir Roger Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that good financial control depends on the famous level playing field, or level ploughing field in this case? Did she see the letter in Farming News recently which described a British farmer visiting a French farm after 20 years and finding that nothing had changed, that the farmers had never heard of the set-aside scheme or health and safety regulations, that they were still making butter in the kitchen and selling it at the farm gate and that the village slaughterhouse had not changed either? How can we be more certain under the new rules that financial control is to be applied equally across the European Community?
    Mrs. Shephard: I totally agree that we should aim for a level ploughing field as well as a level playing field. One hears the accusations that nobody keeps the rules but us in every member state in the Community and in every policy area. However, there is no doubt that the agreements reached at Edinburgh will help the tightening-up and monitoring of the rules, and not a day too soon.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: The Minister confirmed that the average cost to a family arising from the CAP is £18 a
    458
    week. She has congratulated herself many times on the recent renegotiations of the CAP. Will she confirm that the renegotiations have increased the figure to more than £18 per week?
    Mrs. Shephard: It is the case that the figure has increased and much of that is to do with exchange rate mechanism realignments. The package was negotiated within the agricultural guideline that expects and looks forward to agriculture taking up a decreasing amount of the EC budget.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the worrying aspects of the set-aside scheme is its adverse effect on the employment propspects of workers in agriculture? Do the financial arrangements of the CAP, to which we, as a nation, make such huge contributions, make any provision for paying compensation to agricultural workers who lose their jobs because of set-aside?
    Mrs. Shephard: No. There are no such arrangements in the CAP. However, my hon. Friend will know that while in this country, as elsewhere, agricultural employment is declining, growth of population in rural areas is increasing and, with it, prosperity and jobs.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Minister had the opportunity to discuss with her European partners the free-market pricing arrangements that exist in New Zealand, which have some support in the British farming community and some support in interested quarters of the House of Commons? Has she any preliminary views on those matters?
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the recent CAP reform package represented a move towards more market-orientated arrangements. I recently met representatives from New Zealand and I was most interested to hear from them about the way in which things were working. I lose no opportunity to press on my EC colleagues the need for farming and agriculture generally to look towards the markets because that is the only sure way in the future.

    Fish Conservation
    Mr. Ward: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to consult further the fishing industry over its current concerns about the requirement to reduce fishing effort.
    Mr. Jack: I announced last night a postponement of the introduction of days-at-sea restrictions which will give us the opportunity to consult the industry about the need to reduce fishing effort. I already have plans to visit fishermen in Humberside next week, and further visits and meetings are being arranged. I look forward to an early and positive response from the industry.
    Mr. Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that the fishermen of Poole will welcome the opportunity to make their contribution to devising sensible—I underline the word "sensible"—conservation measures? Will he assure the House that he will not introduce conservation measures in this country until he has a firm and binding agreement that our EC partners will introduce them at the same time? It

    459
    is ridiculous that our fishermen should have to watch fishermen from other EC countries blatantly flouting regulations that they are expected to obey.
    Mr. Jack: I very much welcome my hon. Friend's kind comments on our announcements last night. Everyone in the industry shares the desire to conserve fish stocks. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance on the policy announced, especially with reference to days at sea., that we should not dream of going beyond the proposals I outlined last night without clear signs that our Community partners are making an effective attempt to reduce their fishing effort.
    Dr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that, having read carefully his remarks last night, I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is right to point out that the hon. Gentleman is today putting a different gloss on his announcement? Surely he understands that the fishermen are considering bringing forward additional technical conservation measures as an alternative to compulsory tie-up. Will he accept that, during the postponement, the Government should look at all the options? Can he give us an assurance that one of the options is the complete abandonment of the days-at-sea restrictions?
    Mr. Jack: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an assurance on the complete abandonment of days-a t-sea restrictions. I remind him of the words in his own document "Marine Harvest", in which he couples with his support for a decommissioning scheme the need for effort reduction. Days-at-sea restrictions have an important contribution to make.
    However, I said last night that we should look at all the ideas put to us for modifications of the details of the days-at-sea restrictions. I gave the undertaking, which I am happy to repeat this afternoon, that we should continue to work with, for example, the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, which is undertaking a conservation review. We shall also look at any ideas that others put forward on the subject of technical measures which might be tradeable against effort reduction. However, I make it clear that we cannot say whether those ideas will be accepted in terms of our multi-annual guidance programme target. The only people who can do that are the Commissioners. However, I give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that we shall discuss sensible ideas with the Commission.
    Mrs. Lait: Is my hon. Friend aware that, this morning, the wives of the fishermen in Hastings and Rye marched through the town and presented a petition warning of what they think will be the hardship that they will face because of the introduction of days-at-sea restrictions? Does he agree that that is a welcome sign of a vibrant democracy? Will he please give me some idea of what reassurance he would give the wives, who are very disturbed at the thought of the impact of the restrictions?
    Mr. Jack: I had some flavour of the feelings of fishermen's wives when I met them today after my right hon. Friend the Minister and I had given evidence to the Select Committee on Agriculture. They were forceful in the views that they put to me and I was left in no doubt of their feelings. However, I was able to reassure them, as I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend's constituents, about the minimum 80 days, which worried them. I pointed out to
    460
    them that those who, for example, did not have complete logs or who had been fishing for non-precious stocks, such as crabs, would have an opportunity to have their allocations reviewed. I also said to them that we were interested in a sustainable and viable fishing industry. I said that if there were good ideas, in terms both of fishing policy in general and of modifications to days-at-sea restrictions in particular, we should look at them. I urge the wives in my hon. Friend's constituency to sit down with their papers and to let us have their ideas without delay.

    Animal Transport
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to improve the welfare of animals transported from the United Kingdom to the rest of the EC.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): We have maintained strict national rules to safeguard the welfare of animals during transport, both within this country and for export.
    We are pressing for these rules to be extended throughout the Community.
    Mr. McAvoy: As there are no official figures that show the number of British farm animals that are exported, we must rely on the estimates of the trade, which suggest that there has been a huge increase.
    Does the Minister accept that at risk are not only the welfare of animals but the jobs of British meat processors? Instead of watching a year-on-year increase in the number of animals making long journeys abroad, will the Minister fight for meat to be exported on the hook rather than on the hoof, for slaughter to occur as near to the point of production as possible and for a maximum journey time of eight hours?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman did a good job in getting all the salient points into his question—I congratulate him. The British trade in animals is important. Statistics for 1992 show that the live export trade—mainly of cattle, sheep and pigs—is worth more than £160 million. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a strong demand for British beef and lamb because they are outstandingly good beasts which command a premium on the continent.
    Our European friends prefer that the animals be slaughtered on the continent because they particularly like their butchers' cuts. The hon. Gentleman should be equally aware that the export trade keeps a great number of people employed on farms to raise the animals. I take the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about abattoirs, which is a regrettable side effect. On balance, the trade is important for British farmers.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend agree that the incomes of lowland livestock producers have fallen dramatically during the past few years and that those producers are worried about the future of their industry? In his future negotiations with EC colleagues, will he take great care to agree to nothing that could disadvantage the United Kingdom livestock producer?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend has my complete assurance that the Government would never do such a

    461
    thing. As I said to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), the trade is important and expanding. Nevertheless, the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the welfare of animals during travel is relevant and is one of which we are most mindful. We intend to bring the rest of the EC up to the same high standards of animal welfare that we have in this country.

    Woodland
    Mr. Tipping: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions she has had about introducing long-term non-rotational set-aside relating to woodland.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I have received many representations about the importance of allowing woodland planting on non-rotational set-aside. As recently as last week, I raised the matter at the informal agriculture council in Denmark, and I shall continue to press for it to be allowed.
    Mr. Tipping: Does the Minister appreciate that a higher rate of set-aside may be necessary to establish environmentally friendly schemes, such as the Greenwood community forest in north Nottinghamshire? Will she continue to press the EC to have such a scheme established quickly?
    Mrs. Shephard: The European Commission at the moment is rather negative. It feels that such a scheme might allow marginal land to count against set-aside. We do not agree. The way forward is to make a link with the community forestry measures and arrangements for set-aside to allow farmers to enter the land in the farm woodland premium scheme. The farmers would not receive set-aside payments as well, but they would have a long-term guarantee. I shall continue to press that case.
    Mr. Ashby: My right hon. Friend will know that the new national forest in the midlands is centred on my constituency of Leicestershire, North-West. Additional incentives are required if farmers are to set aside land to encourage the creation of the wondrous new forest. Will my right hon. Friend impress on those in Brussels that the forest is of national and European significance?
    Mrs. Shephard: There is a link between those proposals and the proposals for non-rotational set-aside on which we expect the Commission to introduce proposals by the end of July. My hon. Friend may rest assured that I will continue to press that case, not only for woodland but for rules on set-aside that our farmers need now.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received on financial aspects of the common agricultural policy.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I receive many representations on all aspects of the CAP.
    Mr. Howarth: Given that the Minister conceded earlier that the scheme costs £18 per family in Britain and as the CAP serves the interests of neither agriculture nor the
    462
    consumer, is it not time that she stopped merely talking about it and took some action to get rid of that obscenity of a policy which suits no one, least of all Britain?
    Mrs. Shephard: I find that fairly rich, coming from an Opposition Member. The cost is too high, as the Government agree. It would be good if, for once, someone from the Opposition supported us when we wanted to cut costs in any area.
    Mr. Mans: Has my right hon. Friend received any representations about the financial aspects of CAP in association with incentives to create environmentally sensitive areas?
    Mrs. Shephard: Part of the CAP reform package included several incentives for what we call the agri-environment package. We have consulted widely on that package and we expect to announce some schemes in the autumn.
    Mr. Stevenson: In the light of the Minister's response on the costs of CAP, will she confirm that the costs are due to increase this year by £1·3 billion and that it is expected that by 1995 they will have increased by some £4 billion? How does that equate with the statement made by her predecessor that the CAP reform was good for the taxpayer and the consumer? Will she give us an assurance that the Government will oppose those unacceptable and unjustified increases?
    Mrs. Shephard: I explained to the House that the £1·3 billion increase was the result of various exchange rate mechanism realignments. The hon. Gentleman may possibly have missed that. The important thing is that agriculture continues to take a decreasing proportion of the European Community budget as a whole—which it is doing—and that it keeps within the guidelines set by the EC and approved by the House. That is also happening, but I agree that the cost is too high. I am delighted to have such support from the Opposition in cutting public expenditure.

    Produce Marketing
    Mr. Clappison: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made with the marketing of British agricultural produce.
    Mr. Soames: The Government are committed to encouraging the agriculture and food industries to improve and enhance their marketing. That is why we have established the market task force within the Ministry, introduced the group marketing grant and promoted the Agriculture Bill.
    Mr. Clappison: Does my hon. Friend agree that even though food exports are now increasing at a faster rate than food imports, it is vital that we improve our trade position in food? Does he further agree that, given the competitive exchange rate, all the help that is given to producers with marketing and processing and all the help from Food From Britain, it is up to food companies to make the most of the opportunities that are available to them?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. There is no doubt that dazzling and glittering prizes are available for the food industry in its export markets. It

    463
    is one of the industries in which Great Britain truly leads the world. I wholly endorse my hon. Friend's view that we look to the industry for greatly enhanced performance in marketing.
    Mr. OIner: I refer the Minister to his earlier answer on the welfare of animals that are transported in awful conditions. Those conditions have no place in today's modern society. Is the Minister aware that the export of sheep from Britain has led to the closure of a modern abattoir in my constituency with the loss of 35 jobs? Surely the Ministry should encourage the export of farm produce chilled rather than on the hoof.
    Mr. Soames: I explained to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) why our continental friends prefer the export of animals on the hoof. The hon. Gentleman must understand that the business is important for our farmers. Equally, he is perfectly right to highlight the important welfare aspects of the business. That trade can take place only if the conditions in which it operates are honourable and have the integrity of properly enforced rules. I deeply regret the closure of the abattoir in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I am afraid that that is a function of the marketplace and, for the moment, the very admirable British stock is commanding very high prices abroad.
    Sir Donald Thompson: When my hon. Friend meets those who buy British goods in this country, will he urge them to plan their purchases carefully and as gently as they do when they plan purchasing goods from abroad?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Naturally, we always hope that our British—[interruption.] I am grateful to the House. We always hope that our British goods, which are so very reasonably priced and so excellent in quality, will always command the support of the housewife wherever she buys them.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. Mr. Tipping: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 July.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the G7 economic summit in Tokyo where he has played an important part in bringing about a major step forward in resolving the GATT round.
    Mr. Tipping: Given the citizens charter, is the Lord President concerned that Regional Railways has cut its publicity budget by 30 per cent? As a result of that, many small stations in the east midlands and East Anglia no longer appear on the timetable. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure rail users that those stations will stay open after privatisation? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the problem? With no platform, no timetable and no sense of direction—that surely sounds like this Government.
    Mr. Newton: The Government's sense of direction is very clear with regard to the vigour with which we have
    464
    carried the rail privatisation proposals through the House to pave the way for further improvements in rail services. That is what we shall see.
    Mr. Spring: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as a result of the Government's trade union reforms, substantial power has been handed back to individual trade union members? Does he believe that there are other parts of union activity that could benefit from the introduction of one man, one vote?
    Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's point about the effect of the trade union reforms that we have carried through in respect of returning power to individual members. I can think of quite a number of other reforms that should be carried out, but, unfortunately, they depend on the success of the leader of the Labour party, which he is not exactly having.
    Mr. John Smith: Bearing in mind that pensioners already face value added tax on their heating bills and the prospect of having to pay prescription charges, why is the Prime Minister in his speech in Tokyo adding to their very genuine fears by threatening even further curbs on social spending?
    Mr. Newton: I must say that I am not suprised, in view of the contrast between my right hon. Friend's success in Tokyo and the right hon. and learned Gentleman's catastrophe in Bournemouth, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should—[Interruption.] In Tokyo, my right hon. Friend was making the point that all western countries face rising pressures on their welfare budgets. Few would argue in this country that the current Department of Social Security budget of almost £80 billion is necessarily spent in the best way possible and that any Government are not entitled and right to review policy and spending patterns. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman disagrees with that, may I say that I have just been quoting, to all intents and purposes, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
    Mr. Smith: Is not it now absolutely clear from the Prime Minister's speech in Tokyo and the documents issued by the Secretary of State for Social Security that the Government have embarked on a blatant attempt to soften up the public for cuts in public spending? Does he not appreciate the justified anger of pensioners who have paid tax and insurance all their lives and hear these threats to their pensions? Does he not think that it is monstrous that these people should be asked to pay the price of the Government's economic improvidence?
    Mr. Newton: What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has published this morning is a range of information to inform the debate which, in my view, everybody in this country agrees must sensibly be had. It is a debate which the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertook in setting up his social justice commission and in his own manifesto statement for the Labour party leadership. Pensioners have an absolute guarantee from the Government that we will maintain our commitment to uprate the basic retirement pension in line with prices and that we will not do what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Government did—fiddle the uprating figures and abolish the Christmas bonus two years running.
    Mr. Smith: On the subject of guarantees, can the right hon. Gentleman remind us of what the Government said at the election about guarantees on value added tax?
    Mr. Newton: The Government made it clear at the election that they would maintain the commitments to pensioners that I outlined. What I want to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and have not yet heard at any stage, is why the Labour party left VAT on fuel out of the list of those things that it was determined not to do.
    Mr. Knapman: The whole House will wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his considerable success at the G7 economic summit—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—the sensible ones, anyway. Will my right hon. Friend, on his return, look at the ever-increasing number of directions and regulations coming from Brussels, because, surely, what we really need to meet and beat world competition is a lightly regulated, free-trading economy?
    Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. That, indeed, is another of the points that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has underlined, not only time and again in discussions in Europe but now in the discussions in Tokyo in relation to the G7 summit. It is clear from the response from one country after another, most recently from President Clinton and the United States, that that crucial British message about the need to ensure the competitiveness of our economies is beginning to hit home all around the world.
    Mr. Fraser: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 July.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fraser: I remind the Leader of the House, in relation to the questions put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), that the Government were absolutely explicit about not extending the ambit of value added tax. Now they impose a hypothermia tax, which will mostly hit people with modest savings and small pensions and people on the margins of poverty. Because the Government did that, why should anyone believe what they say about not whittling away pensions and making pensioners' incomes means tested? Surely the Government's problem is that their clock has now struck for the 13th time.
    Mr. Newton: The reason that pensioners should believe the commitments that we have made about their pensions is that we have consistently honoured our commitments to pensioners in a way that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members cannot possibly claim to have done.
    Mr. David Howell: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming not only the excellent news from Tokyo about the proposed tariff cuts—which will, of course greatly increase trade and jobs—but the fact that at present the pound is regarded as the strongest currency in Europe? Does he agree that the right response to those two positive developments is to do everything possible, not to manipulate the exchange rate up or down but to maintain
    466
    our competitiveness, build a good infrastructure, keep down inflation and manage our costs very tightly, and that that is a very promising way forward for this nation?
    Mr. Newton: Again, I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. Alongside my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's success in contributing to a further step forward in an important deal for world trade is his success—and that of the Government—in emphasising and carrying through in Britain the policies to which my right hon. Friend has referred, and which will leave us particularly well placed to take advantage of the increase in world trade that will result.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Can the Leader of the House, speaking on behalf of the Government, tell us whether, at the intergovernmental conference today, the Government will contend that the democratic rights of the people of Northern Ireland should not be ridden over roughshod any longer but that those people should be treated as part of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Newton: I can assure the hon. Gentleman, and he would expect no less from me, that the Government remain totally committed to the principle that any change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland would come about only with the consent of a majority of the people who live there, and I repeat that commitment this afternoon.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Did the Leader of the House read in The Guardian this morning an article that stated that the Foreign Affairs Minister of the Irish Republic attempted to pour petrol on Ulster fires by endorsing the Labour party proposal for joint authority and putting forward a further proposition for a commission, with representatives from the Dublin Government, Her Majesty's Government and the European Community, taking charge of Northern Ireland? Will the Leader of the House rebuke, as strongly as the Prime Minister did last week, the Irish Foreign Affairs Minister for making such a suggestion?
    Mr. Newton: I have noted that report. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is meeting Mr. Spring this afternoon and will seek clarification of what he said. What I can do, and have just done for the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), is to repeat clearly and emphatically the British Government's position in this matter. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) can no doubt speak for the Labour party, but the British Government deplore the Labour party's position as well.
    Mr. Ashdown: Do the Government yet understand that typhus and cholera are shortly to be added to shells and bullets as the means by which the people of Sarajevo will be condemned to die? Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that mere words from the G7 in Tokyo will be sufficient to save them?
    Mr. Newton: The G7 summit in Tokyo has clearly reaffirmed our and other countries' commitment to the territorial integrity of Bosnia and to a negotiated settlement based on the principles of the London conference. It has made it absolutely clear that we cannot agree to any solution for Bosnia dictated by the Serbs and Croats at the expense of the Muslims. As the whole House

    467
    would wish it to do, the summit has underlined our commitment to the urgent implementation of safe areas and to improving the flow of humanitarian aid.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that during the past 14 years the Conservative Government have shown real determination and courage in carrying through their reforms with the trade unions? Does he agree that the Leader of the Opposition singularly lacks those qualities in dealing with the same matters?
    Mr. Newton: The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East probably wishes that he was in Tokyo and had not had to go to Bournemouth. Since he left Bournemouth with what looked to me on the television news last night as a rather sheepish expression on his face, he has, of course, suffered a further significant reverse with the vote that the Transport and General Workers Union took this morning to reject his plans.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 July.
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Prentice: What would the Lord President say to the firefighters in Pendle who, over the past 14 years, have seen their pay formula scrapped and the imposition of a 1.5 per cent. pay limit, when the chairman of North West Water has received a 43 per cent. increase, taking his salary to £267,000 a year? Why is it that those who douse the flames are worth so much less than those who provide the water?
    Mr. Newton: I would say to the firefighters of Pendle or anywhere else that they should not listen to the kind of overheated rhetoric in which the hon. Gentleman indulges.
    Mr. Cormack: Reverting to the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), may I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that reaffirmation of itself is a cruel hoax unless it is followed by action? There is nothing to stop Sarajevo being saved. Can something now be done?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has taken a long and honourable interest in these matters. He knows the difficulties of proceeding in quite the way he has often suggested. I would do no more at this stage than repeat what I said in an earlier answer—the British Government will continue to do everything that they properly and responsibly can to achieve a settlement that will stop the bloodshed in Bosnia.

Local Government (Scotland)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Will right hon. and hon. Members take their seats? The Secretary of State is waiting to make a statement.
Mr. Lang: With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement about local government in Scotland.
The Government's proposals for local government reorganisation in Scotland have been the subject of detailed consultation and discussion for the last two years. Throughout that time, support for the concept of single-tier local government has been strong and sustained. I have received a great deal of valuable comment from a wide range of individuals and organisations.
I am publishing today a White Paper which sets out our decisions on the new structure. I am also publishing a leaflet, which will be made widely available in Scotland, and summaries of the responses that I received to our second consultation paper on local government reform and our paper about the future of water and sewerage services. I have placed copies of those documents in the Vote Office, where they will be available in the usual way when I have completed this statement.
The Government have decided to establish a single-tier structure of local government throughout Scotland, comprising 28 authorities. The details of those authorities are set out in the White Paper. The new authorities will vary significantly in size and character, reflecting local wishes, circumstances and requirements.
We intend to re-establish the four Scottish cities as unitary councils and to create powerful new authorities on their outskirts to act as a counterbalance. In the more rural areas of Scotland, the new authorities will inevitably cover substantial areas, but areas for which our consultation has shown there is an established identity. The three islands authorities will remain unchanged.
The new authorities, whatever their size, will be encouraged and expected to pursue actively the adoption of schemes of decentralised management and administration to ensure that decisions are taken at the most local level practicable, enabling people to discuss problems with their council without having to make a long journey to its headquarters. I shall be asking authorities to prepare and publish comprehensive schemes of decentralisation.
The new authorities will all be responsible for providing the full range of local authority services, including education, housing and social work. The Government consider, however, that the reporter service for children's hearings would be more effectively provided as a national service, and I am proposing to establish a new body for that purpose. In addition, economies of scale available in the water and sewerage industry point to fewer, rather than more, bodies responsible for those services than we have at present. Further, customers should be able to benefit from the efficiencies and investment in the water and sewerage infrastructure which can be provided by the private sector.
The existing police forces and fire brigades will be retained. Some statutory co-operation will be required for their oversight and for the management of the Strathclyde
470
passenger transport executive. In all other respects, it will be for individual authorities to make appropriate arrangements for the delivery of services in their areas. I shall expect to see a considerable development of the enabling role of authorities and a willingness to explore further the possibilities of co-operation with the private sector as they explore new ways of delivering services more efficiently. I shall be looking also for a greater willingness to share the expertise of specialist staff.
The changes I have announced will, of course, have implications for local government staff. I have already announced the Government's intention to establish a staff commission in Scotland to oversee the transfer process and to provide me with appropriate advice. Early retirement or redundancy compensation will be available in cases where particular staff are not required by the new authorities under the new structure and further decisions about those arrangements will be taken in due course.
I have, of course, made it clear that I expect the new structure to cost less than the present two-tier system. Savings of up to £65 million per annum can be expected from the new structure and those savings are likely to pay back the inevitable transitional costs within four or five years. The actual level of savings achieved by the new structure will ultimately depend upon the actions of the new authorities themselves.
The main objective of the reorganisation is not:, hòwever, to cut costs; it is to increase the effectiveness of local government in arranging the delivery of services and responding to local needs and concerns. I believe that the new structure will make local authorities more accountable and responsive to the people they serve and will help all authorities to achieve the standards already reached by the best. It will remove the confusion which undoubtedly exists over which council is responsible for which function, so that users know where to go when they are dissatisfied. It offers local government in Scotland the prospect of a bright, dynamic future. It will give a major boost to the implementation of the citizens charter in Scottish local government.
My intention is to introduce a Bill to implement those arrangements. Subject to the parliamentary consideration of the arrangements being completed, I hope that it will be possible for elections to the new authorities to take place in the spring of 1995, to give them until 1 April 1996 to establish themselves and to prepare for the assumption of responsibility from existing authorities on that date. Thereafter, election to the new councils will take place every three years.
The proposals I have announced today are of the utmost importance to everybody in Scotland. They reflect the strong and growing support for all-purpose councils in Scotland. They represent a tremendous opportunity to improve and strengthen our local government system and the delivey of local services and they are a great stride forward for local democracy in Scotland. I commend the White Paper to the House.
Mr. Tom Clarke: We have listened to a statement from the Secretary of State and we are being asked to consider a White Paper for which there is no consensus in Scotland, no support and no demand, and which runs counter to the stories from the Treasury that it faces—because of its policies—a £50 billion deficit. Where

471
will the right hon. Gentleman find the money for his absurd and unwanted proposals? Which services does the Scottish Office intend to cut?
On water privatisation, the people of Scotland are entitled to claim that at least this unlistening Government have, in some respects—but some only—heard their voice, but only because the Secretary of State has abandoned his ludicrous proposals for outright privatisation—[Interruption.] If that is not the case, and if the Scottish Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)—who appears to have undue weight in these matters—takes a contrary view, perhaps we will hear it before the end of our questions on the statement. The Government's ludicrous extremes over water have at least been restricted for the moment. Nevertheless, in the light of Government betrayals over so many Scottish issues—from Rosyth to Ravenscraig—we are entitled to ask specific questions on water, and we do.
Why has the Secretary of State taken water out of local authority control? How will board appointees keep charges down even when they must provide profits for private financiers? What guarantees can the Secretary of State give on the future ownership of water and on protecting Scottish consumers from the threat of water disconnections—a subject that the right hon. Gentleman seems reluctant to discuss?
Why does the Secretary of State disregard the overwhelming view of the people of Scotland when he says that he takes that as much into account in Eastwood as in Edinburgh? Eighty-nine per cent. of the people oppose water privatisation. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman end the argument by saying that the matter is finished and final?
The Secretary of State's somewhat thin statement is in contrast with a document of 30 pages that reeks of dogma, centralisation, and policies that the Scottish people utterly reject. That dogma involves education, social work and essential local services and does not disguise—and nor can members of the Government Front Bench—the hidden agenda of centralisation, commercialism and privatisation which flies in the face of the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland.
I ask the Secretary of State, who represents a minority party in Scotland, to justify his statement that there will be no joint boards, when he intends to have police and fire services in Strathclyde run by joint committees from 10 different councils. How can he justify the massive destruction of Scottish local government on the ground of the efficient provision of social services, and at the same time take upon himself the power to impose joint boards where he thinks fit? Where is democracy and accountability there? Who in Scotland made representations to the Secretary of State in response to his document, saying that is what they wanted?
How can the Secretary of State justify the centralising of reporting to children's hearing services in advance of producing comprehensive legislation later this year, as he promised earlier?
Of less importance to people's lives but more outrageous is the gerrymandering that the Secretary of State's proposals represent for Scotland's future. They are unashamedly and undisguised not proposals for local government reform, improving the quality of the delivery of service, cost efficiency or local democracy. No one in Scotland is fooled into thinking that. The proposals are
472
about Tory revenge on the Scottish people and on Scottish local government, which the Government clearly utterly detest.
As the hon. Member for Eastwood has often said, Thatcherism still rules—and it is no more acceptable in Scotland today than it ever was. How can the right hon. Gentleman expect the House to take seriously the Eastwood solution to these important matters—the creation of safe havens for the beleaguered minority of Scottish Tories, which at present account for an absurd 16 per cent., seeking to impose dictatorial policies on us?
How can he expect anyone to take seriously his plans for Greater Eastwood, Greater Berwickshire and Greater Milngavie, and his plan to put Stirling district and Perth district on a par with Fife and with Highland region? How can we take seriously proposals for the reform of local government that ignore the thoughtful and constructive Wheatley commission, and the thoughtful and constructive debate that followed?
This is a disgrace to local government and to the way in which we deal with national government throughout the United Kingdom. This is a bankrupt policy from a bankrupt Government, unrepresentative and unworthy of the Scottish people. It will be as utterly rejected today as the Tories were in April last year.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) said that there was no consensus for the policy for the reform of local government. I suggest that he look at some of the submissions that we have received in response to the consultation process, which has gone on in great detail over the last two years. They have shown increasing support for single-tier local authorities.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Treasury, as though seeking to imply that the exercise was Treasury-driven. I have come under no direct pressure from the Treasury in regard to my proposals. The Treasury, like other Government Departments, has taken an interest in the proposals and has expressed itself content with them. I am not surprised, because we are not talking about an additional cost of £600 million, as the hon. Gentleman claimed; there will be transitional costs which, on the greatest present estimates, will be less than a third of that. We are talking of savings of up to £65 million a year—over £1 million a week—as a result of the contraction of local government that we are comtemplating.
As to water, the kindest thing that can be said about the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that he must have written his response before he had even read last week's issue of The Scotsman, let alone heard my statement today. The hon. Gentleman has totally misjudged this campaign, and has attributed to the Government a policy that we have not adopted. Like the grand old Duke of York, he has led his men up the hill, and now he must turn round and lead them down again.
What we are proposing is a sensible way forward for water in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman asked why it was being taken out of local authority control. The answer is that 28 water authorities would be extremely inefficient, lead to wide variations in costs and impose extra burdens on consumers. What we are proposing with the three authorities, using the private sector for future capital investment, will lead to the efficient delivery of water and raise the necessary investment, without imposing an

473
unnecessary burden on the taxpayer. It was the Leader of the Opposition who said that the question of ownership was irrelevant.
The hon. Gentleman said that I was reluctant to speak about disconnections. I draw his attention to what I said as recently as yesterday, which is that we have no plans for any change to the present arrangements.
The hon. Gentleman questioned the future of the reporter to children's services. We are anxious to deliver an efficient service without imposing excessive burdens on local authorities, many of whose departments in this regard would consist of only one or two individuals. That would not be a cost-effective way of delivering the services.
As to joint boards, I know that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed because, yet again, we have shot one of his foxes. We do not intend to increase the number of joint boards in Scotland; we see no need for more boards. We will continue to have joint boards for fire services, for police services, for the passenger transport executive and for the assessors. We are leaving the rest to local authorities to arrange what best suits their needs and the interests of their residents. The right way forward is to encourage responsible behaviour in local authorities.
As to the map, I encourage the hon. Gentleman to study our proposals more carefully before he rushes into a judgment. There will be no safe havens for bureaucracy, for duplication or for waste of taxpayers' resources.
The whole story of the hon. Gentleman's reaction to our important proposals for the reform of local government over recent months has been one of scaremongering. Last autumn, he claimed that we had a hidden agenda for a national police force, water privatisation, spending cuts, job losses, greater central control and a Treasury veto. On every one of those issues the hon. Gentleman is now seen to be wrong. What we are proposing is for the best future of local democracy in Scotland in the 21st century.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the warm welcome from my constituency and the constituencies surrounding mine for the abolition of Strathclyde regional council? My constituents have never identified with that council. I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to the responses, which have allowed the establishment of a Kyle and Carrick council. My constituents will identify with that council and will feel that they can influence the activities and accountability of the councillors elected to that body and exercise some control. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that, like me, he will welcome the re-emergence of many of the old county names in what we are now proposing for the future structure of local government. I agree with my hon. Friend, as, I am sure, does the Labour party, on the abolition of Strathclyde region. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the Leader of the Opposition, said:
"When we look at all the services provided by local government—both personal and protective—there can be no possible justification for the size of the Strathclyde region. It varies from being two and a half times to five times too big."
—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 25 January 1973; c. 207.]
474
I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will welcome the replacement of Strathclyde region with no fewer than 10 independent local authorities.
Mrs. Ray Michie: Well, well, was it all worth waiting for? After all the hype we have a document that has been lying on the press desk for the past week and is only now being presented to the House.
Is the Secretary of State aware that he has no right to introduce single-tier local authorities in Scotland without setting up a Scottish Parliament to look after the affairs that he now holds undemocratically in his hands? With hindsight, does he agree that this will be a costly exercise, that he has laid himself open to the charge of political manipulation and that he should have had an independent commission to investigate all the matters of local government reform?
I believe that the Secretary of State's announcement about water is just the beginning of the road to privatisation. Is he not aware that 94 per cent. of the submissions to his office were against his plans for water? How many letters and submissions does it require for him to listen to what the people of Scotland have said?
This is a complete mess. We have overlapping councils and parliamentary seats and overlapping local enterprise companies. We have mixed-up water and police authorities and there is no coherence or stability. I reject it, and I believe that the people of Scotland will reject it also.
Mr. Lang: I am surprised that the hon. Lady has made no mention of the future of Argyll and makes no attempt to reflect the interests of her constituents. Argyll district council expressed its keenness to have a single-tier structure and a willingness to take into Argyll pieces of neighbouring territory if that were thought appropriate.
The hon. Lady asked whether the statement was worth waiting for. My answer is an emphatic "Yes". I am certain that the people of Scotland will warmly welcome the implementation of these proposals and the improved delivery of services that they will bring.
The hon. Lady mentioned the setting up of a Scottish Parliament before local government can be reformed. The policies of the Labour party for setting up a separate Scottish Parliament would drain power from local government. I have it on the authority of Mrs. Jean McFadden, the leader of Glasgow district council, that
"There may well be a tendency for a Scottish Parliament to suck up power from below."
That is the fact. These proposals will be welcomed in Argyll, as they will be welcomed elsewhere in Scotland.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I shall try to call as many hon. Members as possible but I ask for the House's co-operation in the form of brisk questions and brisk answers to help me to do so.
Mr. George Kynoch: In welcoming the advent of the proposed single-tier local authorities and my right hon. Friend's sensible and realistic proposals for water services, may I ask whether he will fully consider any representations that he receives from constituencies such as mine about the effective local delivery of services in larger rural areas? During the Committee stage of the Bill, will he be willing to reconsider the splitting of the Mearns from the former local county of Kincardineshire?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for the underlying thrust of our proposals, which I am sure will be of great advantage to the north-east of Scotland and, indeed, to the rest of Scotland. As for the detailed proposals, such issues will come up for consideration as the Bill goes through the House and, in due course, once Parliament has decided on the map, the Local Government Boundary Commission will immediately go to work on them. There will be plenty of opportunity for my hon. Friend to advance any thoughts that he may have on the precise nature of the boundaries.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Who does the Secretary of State think he is kidding? Does he not realise that the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland will recognise this as a squalid job creation scheme for Tory councillors and quango members and that everyone responsible for it, including the Secretary of State, is corrupt and unfit to hold public office?
Mr. Lang: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will carefully examine the proposals for his part of Scotland and for the rest of Scotland. We are removing unnecessary bureaucracy and duplication, improving local accountability and creating greater accessibility and clarity in the delivery of local government services. If the hon. Gentleman does not share my objectives, he should be considering his own priorities.
Mr. John Marshall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I take points of order after statements. If the House were not so noisy, we could hear what hon. Members said. I think that there is some concern that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) used the word "corrupt". I did not hear it—[Interruption.] Order. If the House were quieter, we could all hear what was going on. I did not hear the hon. Gentleman. He may have used the word but if the House were quieter, I could hear. Unless the Speaker hears, there is nothing I can do about it, so I ask the House to remain quiet so that I and everyone else can hear what is going on.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be met with a thunderous roar of approval by the people of the city of Aberdeen, who have long campaigned for an all-purpose city council, and that includes the ruling Labour group of the present city district council? Does my right hon. Friend agree that what he has announced is subsidiarity in action, giving local decision makers the right to make local decisions in local communities, which is far removed from what is on offer from the Opposition, who would take decision making away from local communities and transfer it to a central belt in Edinburgh?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the city of Aberdeen will be a strong and effective all-purpose authority. I also believe that the surrounding area of Aberdeenshire will provide an effective counterbalance and that there will soon be a vibrant and extremely efficient local government system in north-east Scotland.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that his wish that the White Paper should be regarded as a sensible reform of local government would carry more credence but for his ill-conceived
476
decision to have the whole process carried out by the Scottish Office, not by means of a proper inquiry? Does he accept that there will be considerable dissatisfaction in the Grampian area about the break-up of Grampian regional council, which I hope he will concede has done a great deal for fishing and the rural areas of north-east Scotland? Although there will certainly be great satisfaction at the restoration of a single-tier authority for the city of Aberdeen, what is the rationale for the new addition of Westhill, other than his determined gerrymandering to dilute Labour control of the city?
Mr. Lang: Yes, Grampian has been an efficient region, but we had to make decisions as we examined the map of Scotland. We were told at one stage that the whole excercise was a plan to abolish the regions of Scotland. It was no such thing—indeed, four of the regions will survive under our proposals, some in slightly reduced form. We have sought to find the most effective pattern and structure for each part of Scotland. We are not imposing a blueprint, but considering the circumstances of each area and finding the right solution. Although Grampian has been a successful and effective region, I believe that the new authorities that we shall set up in the north-east will be more effective. I should say that there was little support for the continuance of Grampian region.
Mr. Andrew, Welsh: Does the Secretary of State understand that everyone can see that the document is a paving Bill for stealing Scotland's water through Tory quangos? This is the end of the road for the Westminster system, and the Secretary of State has no place left to hide. His gerrymandered map is an insult to democracy and an affront to Scotland. Every Scottish Member of Parliament worth his or her salt should oppose it. It is an insult, a betrayal of democracy and a betrayal of Scotland. It must be rejected.
Mr. Lang: May I say to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] By leaving the Chamber, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have not only scored an own goal, but have left me with an open goal. He left because he was so deeply embarrassed about the fact that Angus district favoured a single-tier authority based on Angus, which is what we propose.
Mr. John Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend surprised that those who were reluctant personally to pay for the cost of local government are so interested in the structure of local government?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. It is incumbent on all parties in the House to raise their horizons above party self-interest and to look to the future interests of Scottish local government.
Mr. George Galloway: Does not the document represent a kind of "electoral cleansing" —a desperate effort by a discredited Government to sweep together as many Tory voters as can possibly be found to form a kind of East Renfrewstan, as we have in Eastwood? Would it not be better if the Government went the whole hog and allowed Tory voters to opt out of the local authority in whose area they live and to choose another more suited to their political tastes? Better still, why do they not rent an island somewher off the coast of Scotland

477
—Rockall, for example, would be big enough—where all the remaining Scottish Conservatives could be collected, and could live in the wild blue yonder thereafter?
Is not the truth that a Government without popular support—they have less popular support now than the risible amount that they polled in April 1992—cannot possibly command the authority for proposals of such magnitude? Is not the only way forward a referendum for Scotland and a parliament in Scotland, so that the Scottish people can decide how and where they are governed?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Fifteen months ago, he and his hon. Friends were talking about the Tory party being wiped out in Scotland. Now, simply because we are reforming local government, they seem to think that we are suddenly going to sweep the country. The Conservative party has always been a modest participant in local government in Scotland, and the suggestion that we could construct a scenario to benefit us at the expense of other parties is preposterous. I am surprised that the Labour party seems so uncertain of its prospects at the next local government elections under the new arrangements.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that many of his colleagues in England will look enviously on the new streamlined structure of local government in Scotland, and that we hope to catch him up soon? If my right hon. Friend is thinking of renting islands, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) suggested, will he rent a Greek island and put the socialists—what is left of them —on it?
Mr. Lang: I shall leave my hon. Friend's latter suggestion hanging in the air, but I welcome his support for my proposals. I believe that they represent an effective, coherent and clear-cut solution which will meet Scotland's needs. I hope that England will be as successful in its activities as we shall be in ours.
Mr. John Maxton: Can the Secretary of State explain to the House the principles according to which he links Eastwood and Barrhead, which are five miles apart and have no direct bus link, instead of putting Eastwood where it ought to be, in the city of Glasgow, where its people work and where they use the leisure facilities and the halls? Under his proposals, the people of Eastwood will pay nothing towards those services. Is it not an act of political cowardice—giving in to his junior Minister and to those selfish, greedy electors he represents, who are not prepared to pay for the services they use?
Mr. Lang: I am glad that we have been able to revive the county of Renfrewshire, and that it is of a size that enables us to propose two authorties in that county, as we are doing in Ayrshire, Lanarkshire and other parts of Scotland. I believe that what we are proposing is the right way forward for those areas and for Scotland as a whole. Those matters will be fully debated as the Bill goes through Parliament.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there was wide support for single-tier authorities, and that he has listened carefully to
478
representations? Does not the success of Conservative Members of Parliament, in their representations on behalf of their constituents, show the difference between the right honourable whingers on the Opposition Benches and Conservative Members who put forward logical cases?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I can assure him that there was substantial support for single-tier authorities in our initial consultation process. That support has increased considerably and, in the most recent opinion poll, was shown to stand substantially higher than that for alternative solutions.
Mr. Norman Hogg: The Secretary of State's undistinguished statement this afternoon says little or nothing about jobs and inward investment. It is not clear to me how local enterprise companies will sit with the new authorities. Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about that? Is it not the case, for example, that the new towns with development corporations will be covered by local enterprise companies? Where will Dunbartonshire enterprise boundaries end in the new structure as it affects the new town of Cumbernauld? Will the Minister say something generally about the new towns?
Mr. Lang: I am glad to do so, and the hon. Gentleman mentions a significant point. We shall consider the boundaries of local enterprise companies, health boards and other such organisations and, where appropriate, we shall propose the rationalisation of boundaries.
Under our proposals, there will be one new town—Cumbernauld—in north Lanarkshire, and one new town —East Kilbride—in south Lanarkshire. The new towns will benefit from the change because they will deal with one local authority instead of with two, and that will also improve inward investment relationships with local government.
Mr. Graham Riddick: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his carefully crafted proposals for local government in Scotland, but is he aware that some Conservative Members will be a little disappointed that the water industry is not to be speedily privatised? Can he confirm that the resources necessary for the much-needed investment in the water industry in Scotland will not come from the public sector pot—where obviously the priorities should be schools, hospitals, roads and so on—but rather from the private sector?
I hope that you have noticed, Madam Speaker, that I have followed the advice you gave me yesterday about the need for moderate language. I have not said a word about Monklands.
Mr. Lang: I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend. He will appreciate that the circumstances in Scotland are different from those in England, where water authorities had existed for some years. At present, water in Scotland is a local authority service. We are proposing the establishment of water authorities, but they will raise most of their resources for new capital investment from the private sector, which will reduce the demand for resources from other areas of Government expenditure.
Mr. John Home Robertson: The Secretary of State talked about reviving Scotland's counties. Does he accept that East Lothian can never be part of the Borders, let alone part of West Lothian, and

479
that he has no right to split the historic county of East Lothian in two? What community of interest is there between Cockenzie and Coldstream, and what about the non-existent link between Prestonpans and Livingston, for goodness' sake? Is he aware that the geographical centre of his proposed Tory mini-Bantustan, composed of Berwickshire and the eastern part of East Lothian, is a place 1,000 ft up in the Lammermuirs called the Hungry Snout, which is quite a good description of the expensive, unworkable and squalid set-up that he is proposing?
Mr. Lang: For all I know, it forms part of the hon. Gentleman's estate. East Lothian is not part of the Borders under our proposals, any more than it has been historically. What we propose is broadly in line with what used to be a parliamentary constituency and—most interestingly—seems to conform to what the independent Boundary Commission now proposes for the future parliamentary constituency.
Sir David Steel: Does the Secretary of State recall that yesterday his ministerial colleague rebuked me for extravagant language and urged me to wait for the proposals? Now that I have seen them, I marvel at my moderation. They are the most corrupt proposals presented to the House by any Government during my time in this place.
As regards the Borders area, the Secretary of Stale will remember putting two options in his consultation document. What he now proposes is neither of those options. How does he justify that? What was the point of the consultation? As he has always told us that the Borders region is doubtfully viable, with a population of 100,000, why does he now propose to chop it up and take Berwickshire out to satisfy a few local government Tories?
Mr. Lang: We made it clear when we published the consultation paper that we were including four illustrative options and that we were not suggesting that the choice need be confined to them. We are talking not about a handbook for six-year-old schoolchildren, saying, 'Pick one of the four," but about illustrative options from which guidance could be given to people replying to the consultation exercise and making their suggestions.
The right hon. Gentleman used extreme language today. I note that he used similar language in his criticism of the Boundary Commission following its proposals for the area containing his constituency and that of his neighbour. I have to suspect the hon. Gentleman and his party of gerrymandering the future parliamentary boundaries in their area.
Mrs. Irene Adams: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the people of Scotland on the magnificent fight that they have put up against his proposals for all-out water privatisation? Will he be assured that they will not be fooled by his proposals for privatisation by the back door?
Will the Secretary of State justify the fact that there is no commission to look at Scotland's local government boundaries, and explain to me how, in his reforming of Renfrewshire, he has come up with proposals for two councils, one of which consists of the only Tory constituency in Renfrewshire plus the only two Tory-held wards in Paisley and the other of which consists of four Labour-held constituencies, with populations of 88,000 and 265,000 respectively?
480
Will the right hon. Gentleman further confirm that in reality he put his proposals not to this House today, but to The Scotsman last week?
Mr. Lang: I can confirm to the hon. Lady that I did no such thing. I deplore the leaking of any Government document. As the hon. Lady knows, we never comment on allegedly leaked documents.
For water, what we propose is a Scottish solution suitable for Scottish circumstances. I believe that it will be effective in the delivery of water services in future.
The hon. Lady referred to Renfrewshire. I should have thought that she would welcome the restoration of Renfrewshire as an area of all-purpose authorities in its own right. I am glad, too, that we have been able to divide it into two authorities. They do not need to be numerically equal any more than they need to be geographically equal. What we need is a proper and sensible division between east and west Renfrewshire, and that will no doubt be debated further as the Bill proceeds through Parliament.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Before the Secretary of State reminds me of the fact, may I make it clear that I have always advocated an all-purpose authority for the city of Dundee, but we do not want it under the present gerrymandered proposals.
Do you, Madam Speaker, feel as disturbed as I do at the fact that Ministers preface every statement that they make about Northern Ireland by making it clear that no change will take place without the consent of the majority in Northern Ireland, but that we get no such statements from the Secretary of State for Scotland? Is it not extremely relevant that, in the period leading up to 22 July, it is repeatedly being emphasised that change will not take place in Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority? Why does not the Secretary of State fight his and Scotland's corner in the Cabinet?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming what the Government propose for Dundee. I suppose that he will be accusing me of gerrymandering next. As we have eight Conservative councillors out of 40 in the area that will form Dundee council, I hardly think that such a charge would be credible.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: It would be less than honest of me not to welcome one part of the White Paper—the recognition that Cambuslang and Rutherglen are separate communities in their own right. However—as the saying goes—let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friends and I will be defending the continued existence of Strathclyde regional council, which is one of the best councils in the history of local government in Scotland. If the process is not to be devalued and defiled as a gerrymandered issue, will the Secretary of State explain why no separate council has been recommended for Cambuslang and Rutherglen, which are in my constituency and have a similar population to Eastwood, Stirling and Berwickshire? What is the difference?
Mr. Lang: That area is traditionally part of Lanarkshire and it will go into south Lanarkshire. I am surprised to find the hon. Gentleman defending Strathclyde. I would be surprised if he found strong support for that among his constituents. I believe, as does the Leader of the Opposition, that Strathclyde is too large.

481
The 10 independent self-governing local authority areas that we propose will be widely welcomed throughout the Strathclyde area.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: I was brought up in Glasgow, and have lived in the north side of the city all my life. I am not all that familiar with the south side, but it has always been my understanding that King's Park and Toryglen were part of the city of Glasgow. Why has the Secretary of State sought to take those areas out of Glasgow when he claims that he is trying to make local government more accessible to the people?
I mean no disrespect to the people of Giffnock and Newton Mearns, but the vast majority of those who are lucky enough to be in a job work mainly in the Glasgow area—sometimes in businesses, sometimes in lawyers' firms—sometimes in the Strathclyde region. Why is the Secretary of State allowing Eastwood to become an authority? The only conclusion that I can reach is that his ear has been bent day after day by the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). If the Secretary of State accepts that all of us are equal, why does the Under-Secretary of State have more say than any other hon. Member?
Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman can imagine, Toryglen is a place after my own heart. I understand that, historically, some 85 per cent. of Toryglen and King's Park have formed part of Lanarkshire. The hon. Gentleman suggests that we propose to make Eastwood an all-purpose authority on its own. That is not part of our proposals.
Mr. John McAllion: Is the Secretary of State aware that the private sector is already describing his proposed water authorities as business units which will promote the franchising and market testing of Scotland's water by as early as 1995? Does he not yet understand that, having failed his own market test in Scotland at the last general election, he has no democratic authority whatever for any of the changes that he has announced this afternoon? Therefore, when he introduces the Bill, he can expect not just token opposition from us, but unrelenting hostility, resistance and obstruction to ensure that these measures never see the light of day in Scotland.
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for promising to take a close interest in these matters.
Mr. Alistair Darling: Will not the reforms result in Scotland being run largely by quangos staffed by Tory party members and those prepared to pay into Tory party funds? Does the Secretary of State accept that, by attempting to gerrymander councils that the Tory party can control, he is corrupting the political system in Scotland in a way that would have done the former eastern European communist system proud?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong on both points. I feel certain that Edinburgh, which has been widely welcomed in the area as an all-purpose authority, will be extremely successful in advancing the interests of his constituents.
Mr. Adam Ingram: Scotland will see the statement for what it really is: a piece of political chicanery of the worst kind. As others have said, it is a form of political corruption.
Will the Secretary of State explain why it is right for Stirling, with a population of 81,000, and Eastwood, with a population of 88,000, to be given an authority in their own right while my area of East Kilbride, which has the same population and is economically stronger, is denied that right?
Mr. Lang: In drawing up the map we took account not just of individual areas but of their relationship to neighbouring areas and the way in which they fitted in to the overall map for Scotland. I believe that it is right that we should be willing to reflect the diversity and variety of the demography and geography of Scotland. We have sought to do that with the proposals. We have always made it clear that size, in geographical and population terms, would vary. I believe that that is generally widely welcomed.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the fact that, if he wishes to retain the links between communities, the severing of the links between Falkirk, Alloa and Stirling stands ill beside the retention of Fife region virtually in its entirety? Could that be because he is more concerned about the political fate of his ministeral colleague than he is about the good governance of the area? Will he also reflect upon the fact that, within Clackmannan district, there are Catholic children who go to school at St. Modan's high school in Stirling, and there is no provision in the White Paper for cross-boundary help for youngsters for whom there is no educational provision in the proposed areas?
Mr. Lang: It is always the case with boundaries between local government authorities that some services overlap and sensible relationships are quickly and easily arrived at. Clackmannan and Falkirk are compact and industrialised areas, widely different from Stirling, which is largely a rural area. Our proposal to revive much of the old Stirling county will be warmly welcomed there. I was most impressed by Stirling district council's submission to me.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: Does the Secretary of State for Scotland think that the House believes that this document is about local government democracy? Is it not a cost-saving exercise? The Secretary of State for Scotland has gone on about the saving of £65 million, but he does not tell us who will pay the penalty. Thousands of employees, men and women, in Strathclyde and all over Scotland have dedicated their lives to local authorities. If the right hon. Gentleman was really serious as Secretary of State for Scotland, he would have set up a commission similar to that in 1975 when Wheatley considered management and corporate structures.
In going for option D on water privatisation, the Secretary of State is inviting the private sector to invest, but the people of Scotland do not want anything to do with the private sector, franchising or anything else. Nor do they want anything to do with this gerrymandering, this jumble sale of boundaries, which has nothing to do with democracy, and we shall oppose it. If anybody is to do anything about local government reorganisation, it should be a Scottish Parliament.
Madam Speaker: Order. This is question time. I did ask for brief questions.
Mr. Lang: I shall certainly answer the two new points that the hon. Gentleman raised. First, with regard to whether this is a cost-saving exercise, the hon. Gentleman should have a word with those on the Opposition Front Bench who for the past few months have been busy trying to persuade everyone that this exercise will cost a fortune. The fact is that it will save money. It will save up to £65 million per year—about £1 million a week. With regard to redundancies, there will be fewer employees in local government, because we are contemplating reducing the number of authorities from 65 to 28. That means less duplication and less bureaucracy. But we estimate that the number of employees will be reduced by less than 1 per cent.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: The Secretary of State has now confirmed that when the Prime Minister said after the last general election that he would take stock, what he really meant was that he would take the mickey. That is what this gerrymandering statement means to us today. Yesterday, the Secretary of State asked me to contain my soul in patience until the statement was made about the number of councillors that he proposed in the new local authorities—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am trying to contain my patience, but I am now listening for a question rather than a statement. Will the hon. Gentleman come to a question, please?
Mr. Hood: Will the Secretary of State now tell us what he refused to tell me yesterday—the number of councillors that he proposes for the so-called new local authorities?
Mr. Lang: I envisage that, taking districts and regions as they are at present, the number of councillors will fall from over 1,600 to over 1,200.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Secretary of State accept a warm welcome for the fact that water will remain in public ownership and that there will be no law of disconnection in Scotland? Does he accept that the people of Scotland, led by the Labour party and everyone else who is prepared to campaign in that direction, will keep it that way this side of a general election, and that the general election in Scotland will be fought largely on that issue and on the issue of returning water to public accountability?
Will the Secretary of State also consider that, when I say that the ludicrous proposal to call Ayrshire north Ayrshire when it stretches all the way down to Dumfries and Galloway is a falsehood, an absurdity and an offence to reason, I am joined not just by everyone in the Labour party, not just by everybody with any common sense in Ayrshire, but by the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the Tory party? Does he further accept that there will be an intensive cross-party campaign against the gerrymandering of Ayrshire?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman need not bother campaigning for the return of water to public accountability, because it will not have left it. On his point about the name of the Ayrshire authorities, the document makes it clear—I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has not had the opportunity to read it—that the Government will welcome suggestions for any changes of name.
Mr. William McKelvey: I have an inkling towards all-purpose authorities. An obvious all-purpose authority would have been Ayrshire, with Kilmarnock as its capital. I cannot see for the life of me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] I cannot understand why the Secretary of State saw fit to divide Ayrshire into north and south. Is that divide amendable, and if there is to be a separation, may we propose that Ayrshire should stand as a single, all-purpose, tiered authority? Will the Secretary of State assure us that he will give that consideration? I am sure that the majority of people in Ayrshire would wish to suggest that, if they have not already done so.
Mr. Lang: The combined population of what we propose to be north Ayrshire and south Ayrshire will be 376,000. We felt that that would be too large for a local authority covering that geographical area, and that it was possible to divide Ayrshire to create a more accountable local authority and to enable Kilmarnock, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, to become a central town in the Ayrshire local authority structure. I believe that that is right. In seeking to divide Ayrshire, we decided that one of the best boundaries was one that was established by Lord Wheatley and his commission.
Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State answer this question honestly—I know it will be a change: will he confirm that, during the consultation, the vast majority of people from Ayrshire wanted an all-Ayrshire authority, including Enterprise Ayrshire, the health board, the chamber of commerce and most of the MPs and councillors, and that the only people who wanted the Kyle and Carrick authority were the few discredited Tories there and the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie)? Will he therefore pay attention to the consultation? It is not a question of names or viability—Ayrshire is a viable authority. Will he accept the views of the people of Ayrshire and agree to an all-Ayrshire authority?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman was sufficiently honest to concede that there had been support in Ayrshire for Kyle and Carrick as a unitary authority. Kilmarnock and Loudoun also supported its proposed unitary status. What we propose strikes the right balance between local loyalties and the need for authorities to be large enough to ensure the efficient delivery of services.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Even the Secretary of State will agree that nobody in the House would accuse me of over-statement, but there is almost unanimous agreement that we have heard a pathetic response to the demands of the people of Scotland to have a say in their own affairs. The Secretary of State for Scotland has waved a paper, a document, to the House that represents appeasement of Scotland's interest which we find utterly repugnant.
For that reason, and in view of his weak and pathetic response, may I say, through you, Madam Speaker, and with great respect to you, that my hon. Friends will proceed to Downing street to ask for the resignation of this pathetic Secretary of State. He has yet again destroyed Scotland's interest. In the words of Leo Amery to Chamberlain's Government:
"You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing … In the name of God, go!"—Official Report, 7 May 1940; Vol. 360, c. 1150.]—
[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I call the Secretary of State to reply.
Mr. Lang: I am not sure whether there is very much to reply to. There are certainly no Scottish Labour Members to whom to reply. They will be disappointed. I suppose that they will reach Downing street about 10 minutes from now, but they will find that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is not there. As most of the rest of the country knows, my right hon. Friend is still in Japan. I am sure that the messenger on the door will be happy to take a message.

Business of the House
4.30 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 12 JULY—Report stage of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Motion on the International Development Association (Tenth Replenishment) Order.
TUESDAY 13 JULY—Remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Motion on the Education (Assistend Places) (Amendment) Regulations.
Motion on the Partnerships and Unlimited Companies (Accounts) regulations.
WEDNESDAY 14 JULY—Assuming that Scottish Labour Members are back from Downing street, Opposition Day (17th allotted day).
Until about seven o'clock, there will be a debate on Scottish local government and water privatisation, followed by a debate on debt, trade and development after the G7 summit. Both debates arise on Opposition motions.
THURSDAY 15 JULY—Until about seven o'clock, remaining stages of the Welsh Language Bill [Lords]s.
Motion on the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Irealand) Order.
FRIDAY 16 JULY—Debate entitled "Tackling Fraud and Abuse in Social Security" on ass motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 19 JULY—Supplemental timetable motion on and consideration of Lords amendments to the Education Bill.
I regret that I am not in a position today to announce the precise dates of the summer recess. However, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that Government business will be taken in the week commencing 26 July.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 14 July at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows: Committee A, document No. 6744/93 relating to non-rotational set-aside and document No. 7033/93 relating to arable land set-aside. Committee B, document No. 4148/93 relating to the legal protection of biotechnological inventions.
[Wednesday 14 July:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community documents: 6744/93, non-rotational set-aside; 7033/93, arable set-aside. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 79-xxix ( 1992–93 ) and HC 79-xxx ( 1992–93 ).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: 4148193, patenting of biotechnological inventions. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 79-xix ( 1992–93 ).]
Mr. Nicholas Brown: I thank the Leader of the House for telling us the business for next week. Will he consider again the amount of time being allocated to the Education Bill? As I understand it, there are 622 Government amendments and 14 amendments that have been tabled against the wishes of the Government. Apparently the amendments include 34

487
new clauses. If the Education Bill is so bad that it already requires so many amendments, surely it is a mistake to try to bulldoze it through the House by force of numbers. Surely it would be better to get it through by force of reason. That would require more discussion than the Leader of the House seems to be willing to allocate. However, at least we shall have some discussion on education matters.
The Government tell us that public expenditure is the largest single concern of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, yet we have not been allowed to discuss the details of the Government's public expenditure plans for last year, let alone for this year. A debate is long overdue. I reiterate the Opposition's call for such a debate.
May we also have a debate on some of the reports now emanating from the Public Accounts Committee? There is a report on major defence projects and especially on the AR1 scandal, or HMS De Lorean, as I understand it is known in the industry. May we have a special debate on the National Audit Office report on the Welsh Development Agency, which will be considered by the Public Accounts Committee?
In particular, I ask the Leader of the House how it is possible for a man with three previous criminal convictions for deception to be appointed to a senior post in the Welsh Development Agency. Does the Conservative party regard that as qualifications? How can a former international director of that agency not only work as a private consultant as well, but be paid off with a £230,000 golden handshake? Those are outrageous states of affairs which the National Audit Office has uncovered. The House should discuss them at an earlier moment. Will the Leader of the House at least assure me that Doctor Gwyn Jones will be suspended from his other public appointments, pending a further inquiry into the matter?
Finally, I wish to raise an issue that ought to command consensus in the House. May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the Opposition's support in principle for the unified budget statement and for the investigation into the procedures that will be adopted by the Procedure Committee? However, I deplore the fact that the Government are trying to pre-empt the Procedure Committee's work by making amendments to this year's Finance (No. 2) Bill that effectively take some of the major decisions well before the House, or even the Procedure Committee, has had a chance to consider the matters. Even at this late stage, I urge the Leader of the House to persuade his colleagues on the Treasury Bench to drop the offensive clause 202 from the Finance (No. 2) Bill pending its consideration by the Procedure Committee.
Mr. Newton: I cannot guarantee to find more time for discussions on the Education Bill, but of course I am, as ever, content for the matters to be further discussed through the usual channels. I say that with perhaps some scepticism about what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said about allowing the forces of reason to prevail. The Government, of course, always allow the forces of reason to prevail. There has not been much reason shown by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends on this and other matters.
I cannot add to what I have said about public expenditure on previous occasions. But I draw attention again to the fact that there will be a substantial opportunity to debate those matters on Third Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill next week. The hon. Gentleman's
488
points about the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office will be noted, I am sure, by my right hon. and hon. Friends. They may also be noted by the Chairman and the members of the Liaison Committee in considering what other subjects should be recommended for any estimates days at some future stage.
I would not want to pre-empt the consideration that my right hon. and hon. Friends will give to the various reports, and they will respond in due course. In return, I hope that the Opposition will acknowledge that, while it is right that the report should be studied, it should not detract from the fact that the Welsh Development Agency, for example, has a record of outstanding achievement in promoting new investment and jobs to the benefit of the people of Wales.
I will make sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends are made aware of what the hon. Gentleman said about the unified budget. It must be right to take advantage of the fact that we are passing a Finance Bill to make changes that are seen to be necessary to the process on which we are embarking. That is without prejudice to my right hon. Friends having their attention drawn to what the hon. Gentleman said.
Sir Anthony Grant: Is any progress being made towards the implementation of the all-party Jopling report? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the way that we conduct our affairs in the House is regarded with derision by the public and with bewilderment by other countries? Most hon. Members want the reforms—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: They don't.
Sir Anthony Grant: With the exception of a minority of jurassic dinosaurs, hon. Members of all parties want the reforms. It is high time that they were put into effect.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend speaks for many hon. Members on both sides of the House. He will be aware, as I mentioned last week, that there have been disturbing reports of the proceedings on the matter in the parliamentary Labour party.
The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has written to me about the matter, although not with the straightforward yes that my hon. Friend would have wished to hear.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Leader of the House accept that the statement about local government in Scotland made this afternoon by the Secretary of State for Scotland was deeply controversial, to put it mildly? Notwithstanding the welcome half Supply Day that the official Opposition will have next week, will the right hon. Gentleman give us an undertaking that, in the spillover Session when we return from the summer recess, once people have had a chance to digest the proposals for local government in Scotland, and before Second Reading, there will be a debate in Government time? That would enable the force of feeling in Scotland to be brought to bear on the Government about the results that some of the proposals will have.
I assume that the Government will give an assurance that, if local people demonstrate beyond peradventure that they are against the proposals, their objections will be borne in mind before the proposals are finalised and the Bill is introduced.
Mr. Newton: I can safely observe at least that I did not need the hon. Gentleman to tell me that the proposals were controversial. I had observed that in the past few minutes. In response to his specific question, I cannot give him the undertaking that he requests. Let us see how we get on in the debate next week. Then we can give further consideration to these matters.
Mr. James Couchman: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a full debate on the proposal to extend the selected list scheme for pharmaceuticals? The matter has not been discussed in the Chamber since the Government proposed the scheme in November last year. It is widely rumoured that the Government intend to lay three orders next week which will extend the list. The methods used by the committee are causing considerable anxiety to doctors and patients and, indeed, to the pharmaceutical industry. I remind the House that I have an interest in the matter.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment. His interest in the matter is well known. The proper thing for me to do is to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. John Hume: Given that an event took place yesterday which has fundamental implications for the rule of law and for justice and democracy in this country, and that an action was taken by the Home Secretary which is usually taken only by dictators, why has no statement been made to the House and why has no time been allowed to debate the issue? I refer to the case in which a young constituent of mine who had been held for months on a serious charge with no evidence was told by a magistrate in Britain's so-called respected courts that he left the court without a stain on his character. Before he got to the door he was handcuffed. The Secretary of State for Home Affairs had signed an exclusion order. There has been no debate of any description on the matter.
More than 3,000 people have died on the streets of Northern Ireland. Does the Leader of the House agree that if that were happening on the streets of Britain, it would be discussed every day of the week by a packed House until the problem was resolved? Does he agree that the fact that it is discussed only occasionally late on a Thursday night to let British Members have a long weekend shows clearly that, in spite of the repeated guarantees that the Government give—such guarantees were given often in the past week to buy votes on 22 July—[Interruption.] No, on 22 July—the social chapter. Is not the lack of discussion a clear sign that the Government have psychologically withdrawn from Northern Ireland?
Mr. Newton: No, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of those matters. I can only say, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said, that for him to make an exclusion order he has to be satisfied, in accordance with criteria laid down by Parliament, that someone has been involved in the commission, perpetration or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with Northern Ireland. My right hon. and learned Friend reviewed all the information before him, including material that would not be admissible as evidence in court proceedings. On the basis of that information, he was satisfied that the statutory criteria were met.
Mr. Rupert Allason: My right hon. Friend will recognise that the defence White Paper published on Monday was one of the most important documents published in the post-second world war era. Does he agree that Britain is at a crossroads in defence terms? It either remains a global power with a right to a seat on the Security Council or it becomes a backwater—a small island off the north coast of Europe.
Bearing in mind the importance of that defence White Paper and the implications for Britain's defence needs in the future, does my right hon. Friend accept that there is an urgent need to debate the issue? Will he give an assurance to the House that he will break with convention and that we shall not have to wait for 12 months to have such an important debate?
Mr. Newton: May I make two points which echo something that I said last week? I think that I am right in saying that the convention is that, following the publication of the defence estimates—I entirely accept that the White Paper is a significant document—the first step is for the Defence Select Committee to consider it and, if it wishes to do so, to make a report. That is appropriate in this case. I shall certainly make every endeavour—I underline that—to ensure that the new defence estimates are debated rather more rapidly than proved possible with the previous set of defence estimates.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Leader of the House invite the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House next week following the statement made by the High Court about Derek Bentley? I believe that it is the wish of the House that the Home Secretary makes a statement about the case. There is widespread support both in the House and outside for a posthumous pardon.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is considering the text of yesterday's court judgment and will decide what action to take in the light of it. He clearly needs to give it proper and careful consideration. I would not want to go beyond that this afternoon.
Mr. John McWilliam: Will the Leader of the House prevail on the Secretary of State for Defence to come to the House next week to make a statement on the ammunition ordering programme for the next five years in the light of the short-time working announced today at the royal ordnance factory Birtley?
Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to bring my right hon. and learned Friend here to make such a statement next week, but I understand the reasons why the hon. Gentleman raises the point. I shall ensure that it is drawn to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Leader of the House recognise the urgency of the need for a debate on the Welsh Development Agency? The Public Accounts Committee report is a remarkable account of corruption, incompetence and nepotism in a public body. The great urgency arises because the two men responsible still hold public office. One is the chairman of the Broadcasting Council for Wales. The other is the Secretary of State for Employment. We must root out those two people. The report proves that neither of them is fit to hold public office.
Mr. Newton: I made some comments on that matter earlier in these exchanges and I shall not add to them. The report has been published. The hon. Gentleman referred to it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has issued a press release today in which he makes it clear that he will examine carefully what the report says. That must be the right course.
Mr. Alan Williams: Will the Leader of the House think again about the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) for a debate on the WDA and the report published today by the Public Accounts Committee? While I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about the excellent industrial record of the WDA, will he bear in mind the fact that it had that excellent record before it introduced rip-off, expensive, private motoring schemes for executives, before it introduced a quarter of a million pound redundancy package complete with gagging clauses, before it spent a third of a million pounds on privatisation proposals that were concealed from Parliament and before it appointed a professional conman as marketing director to join the amateurs who were already at the WDA?
Mr. Newton: Whatever may be appropriate in terms of careful examination of the recommendations and comments made in the report, it is rather unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman should use language of that nature about people. He would probably have to be rather more careful with his language if he were speaking outside the Chamber. Leaving that aside, I repeat that my right hon. Friends, not only in the Welsh Office but elsewhere, will carefully study what the report says. That is the right course.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House press the Prime Minister to make a statement next week on the Government's policy on Bosnia quite separate from any statement on the outcome of the G7 conference? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that, bearing in mind the fact that the people of Sarajevo have been hit by an average of 500 artillery shells a day over the past year and are now without water or electricity, his description of Government policy at Prime Minister's Question Time will be judged as pathetically inadequate?
Will he impress on the Prime Minister the fact that it is now time for the British Government to press on the international community a course of decisive action that will lift the siege and allow the people of Sarajevo to overcome the attack on them by Serbian forces over the past year?
Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the issues to which he adverts have been discussed at the G7 summit in Tokyo and have been the subject of comments and statements from there. It would seem to be appropriate, if the hon. Gentleman so wishes, to raise the matter in relation to any statement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may wish to make about the G7 summit as a whole. I am certainly not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman undertakings beyond that at present.
Mr. Skinner: Will the Leader of the House give us some Government time to discuss the coal industry, and in particular the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation? If the coal industy is privatised, many dependent disabled miners and others will lose out if that organisation is dismantled. When the right hon. Gentleman provides that
492
time, could he drop a little note to the leader of the Liberal Democratic party, who made that special effort in Hyde Park in October to support the miners, and tell him to turn up to vote for the miners because, on a vital vote last Monday, he was nowhere to be found?
Mr. Newton: The second part and punchline of the hon. Gentleman's question appeared to be directed at the Liberal Democrat Bench behind him, where I see that there is an appropriate messenger in the form of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), the Liberal Chief Whip, to transmit that message to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), and no doubt he will do so. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am sure that he will be able to raise that matter further in the context of any discussions we may have in due course about the Government's privatisation proposals.
Mr. David Winnick: May I press the Leader of the House about the need for a statement from the Home Secretary in respect of the case of John Matthews? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition Members who have consistently made clear their total detestation of all forms of terrorist violence, not least from the provisional IRA, nevertheless remain very concerned indeed about the exclusion order made against Mr. Matthews, bearing in mind what was said earlier—that that person left the court without a stain on his character? The case is very serious and it concerns civil liberties. I hope that the Leader of the House will try to persuade the Home Secretary to come to the House on Monday and explain precisely why he decided on the exclusion order.
Mr. Newton: I will, of course, in line with my usual practice, draw the Home Secretary's attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, I must repeat what I said earlier—that Parliament provided the power of exclusion as an exceptional measure against the grave threat of terrorism. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has set out how he has acted in accordance with the requirements of the law in that case.
Mrs. Barbara Roche: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate when the Government reply to the report of the National Heritage Select Committee on privacy? As I am sure the Leader of the House is aware, that report deals with the work of the Press Complaints Commission. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me and take this opportunity to congratulate a member of that commission, Mr. Gerald Isaaman, on his 25 years as editor of the Hampstead and Highgate Express, which is a very fine local newspaper?
Mr. Newton: While I cannot immediately undertake to arrange another debate in that area at the moment, I am happy to join the hon. Lady in her tribute to the editor of the "Ham and High". As it happens, in the interval in my life when I did not live in Essex, I lived in Hornsey. My children started their schooling in Highgate, and I am well aware of the standing of that newspaper and its editor in her part of London.
Mr. John Spellar: About a year ago, the House debated the excesses of cowboy wheel clampers and the end of May marked the closing date for submissions to the Home Office. Will the Leader of the House prevail on

493
the Home Secretary to bring proposals to the House before the summer recess so that the clampers know, during the summer, that they are on notice?
Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to do that, but I am sure that he will wish to reach conclusions as soon as possible in the light of the consultation and announce them in an appropriate way.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Some of us were privileged to hear in the House my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) describe the plight of two of his constituents, the London taxi drivers whose taxis were turned into living bombs, and their brave and public-spirited action. Some of us are very concerned that the right people should be convicted for those offences.
According to the magistrate in the case of John Matthews, there has been no stain on his character. However, the Home Secretary then immediately placed a massive stain on his character. That assassination of character is very worrying. Indeed, even more dangerous might be the assassination of John Matthews himself, as the Home Secretary may have pointed the finger at him so that Protestant paramilitaries might take action against him. The Home Secretary should come to the House to answer questions on this very serious subject that affects an individual's civil liberties.
Mr. Newton: I make no complaint about the fact that the hon. Gentleman has felt it right to raise that matter again. However, quite clearly, I cannot add to what I have already said on two previous occasions.

ESTIMATES DAY
[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1993–94
  Class XIII, Vote 4
  Department of Social Security

  Pensions
  [Relevant document: First Report from the Social Security Committee of Session 1992–93 on The Operation of Pension Funds: The Recovery of Assets ( House of Commons Paper No. 189)]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £1,505,632,000, and including a Supplementary Sum of £810,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Department of Social Security on administration, for agency payments, and for certain other services including grants to local authorities and voluntary organisations.—[Mr. Hague.]
  4.56 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: It is a pleasure to open this afternoon's debate on a vote that takes note of a report by the Select Committee on Social Security and which draws attention to the grants in aid to the occupational pensions advisory service and to the Maxwell pensioners' trust.
  I begin the debate by putting on record the Select Committee's thanks to a number of individuals and organisations. When the Committee began what is now turning out to be a mammoth task, considering the ownership and control of Britain's occupational pensions schemes, we were blessed—I use that word advisedly—by the services of Philip Chappell as one of our specialist advisers. Some months ago, Philip Chappell died after bravely trying to ward off brain cancer. While that death was a total blow to his family, it was also a severe knock to radical forces in this country.
  Some hon. Members will be aware that Philip Chappell and Lord Vinson formulated a number of very important radical ideas about why and how individuals should own their own pension funds. Those ideas stemmed from those two individuals. Philip was not only a most courteous and careful attender of our Select Committee gatherings; there was about him a boyish enthusiasm for ideas which endeared him to each and every member of the Committee on both sides of the table—if I may use that phrase. When one met Philip, one stretched across to meet him because his moral earnestness was totally attractive.
  There is a sadness about our debate today as we have lost a great radical champion on pensions and capital ownership in this country. As my grandmother would say, "Dark clouds have silver linings." The Committee has similarly been blessed by an initiative of the National Audit Office which has allowed us to have seconded to the Committee one of its staff—Mr. Jonathan Cable.
  All members of the Committee would wish me to say that the quality of our work in this area and related areas is very much determined by the high standards that Jonathan brings to his work. He does that in conjunction

  495
  with our new special adviser, Peter Mills. The Committee is thankful to both those people as it is to the House of Commons Library for the care and diligence that it shows us when answering our inquiries.
  I begin one part of the debate by recapping for the House the reports of the Select Committee and the work that it has undertaken, not merely in the field of the ownership of pension funds, but specifically relating to the plight of the Maxwell pensioners. Some hon. Members were not in the House when we made our first report on the theft by Maxwell of much of the pension fund.
  Following the publication of that report, the Government responded very quickly to one of our main proposals, which was to establish the Goode committee. This will report in late September. If it does not report on the key question of the ownership and control of pension funds, that will be seen by many of us to be a cop-out and the loss of a great deal of parliamentary time. I hope that that initial report helped to sharpen and focus the debate that has ensued.
  Secondly, the Select Committee reported two persons to the House for contempt. It is not advisable to dwell on that report for contempt now. I merely wish to record that at some stage the Select Committee, which has a long memory, will wish it to be debated in the House.
  Thirdly, the Select Committee has already reported on the recovery process. It said that that was an initial report and part of today's debate is about it. Shortly, however, we shall be making a much more major contribution to the study of the recovery process, when we will look at three of the four agents deputised for the task of recovering both assets which were stolen and assets which were misappropriated or are in disarray as a result of Robert Maxwell's behaviour, and then his death.
  It is true to say that, while we have rightly been concerned with the Maxwell pensioners, and it has been totally proper for the Select Committee to put them at the centre of its consideration—indeed, they have looked to the Select Committee to champion their cause—the Committee has not been concerned only with their plight. We have tried to use what has happened to those tens of thousands of people as a barium meal is used for an X-ray; we have been concerned to draw out the weaknesses of occupational pensions, to enliven and inform the debate, and to draw general policy conclusions from our considerations, not being concerned only—I emphasise the word only—with the Maxwell pensioners, important though they are.
  I turn now to what the Government have done in this area. I hope that I do not embarrass the Under-Secretary —whom I welcome for the first time in this debate to his post on the Treasury Bench—by going through the various moves that the Government have accomplished.
  First, very soon after the extent of this awful theft became apparent, the Government agreed to drip-feed the pension funds to ensure that pensions were paid. The Government are to be congratulated on that and on using taxpayers' money—not their money—to good effect. That initial sum has already been spent.
  The second move made by the Government to help to minimise the horror of this enormous theft of pension funds was, in effect, to give the pension funds a loan of £100 million or so, which the Government have every right to call in now. to underwrite the guaranteed mint mum pension under the relevant social security Act. So they are to be congratulated on that.
  496
  Next, they deserve congratulation on setting up the Maxwell pension units and, above all, on appointing Sir John Cuckney to an overseeing job in this whole area. Our friends who sit elsewhere in this Chamber have been slow to wake up to the importance of this initiative. When we look at the initiative that the Government have taken in trying to combine public responsibility and private initiative, the Maxwell pension units and the role of Sir John Cuckney will, I believe, be at the forefront of the debate.
  I am sure that the whole House joins me in emphasising the thanks that I now pay publicly to Sir John for the work that he does and the skill that he brings to that task. He is a public servant of considerable distinction. Many Maxwell pensioners are particularly grateful to him, because it is from the trust fund that he established that they are now being paid their weekly or monthly pensions.
  The next reason for which we have to record thanks to the Government is that, through the initiative of Sir John Cuckney, we now have in place Sir Peter Webster, a retired High Court judge, who is attempting to build up some expertise in the area of mediation in this country. It is fair to say that he is probably the first person of that standing to attempt such a task and our thanks go to him.
  Next, the Government have established the Goode committee, and we await patiently, but anxiously, its findings, due in September this year.
  Lastly, the Government have taken the initiative, through the Board of Trade, to investigate the Mirror group prospectus. The Select Committee believes that that has very important repercussions for many of the pensioners.
  I shall end by calling for some Government action, but it is right and proper that, in looking at this today, we should record what the Government have done. I shall watch with considerable interest how schizophrenic the Under-Secretary is when he comments on the Government's record. He knows that, if he is too boastful about what the Government have done, he will clearly be committing them to an interventionist line, from which they have tried to shield themselves. So I am sure that we shall have that pleasure before too many hours have passed.
  There are two topics on which I shall not comment, because I am anxious that every hon. Member who has played a part in previous debates and in the Select Committee should have a chance to speak.
  The first is the cost of the recovery process. It will probably reach something like £50 million before the task is finished, which is a ginormous sum. I will not dwell on it, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy), who hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, intends to concentrate on that aspect. The second area of real concern relates to the two pensioner groups that have been left out in the cold. I guess that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) will be dealing with that.
  I will end by looking at the actions that we now want the Government to take, or not to take.
  The first crucial necessity is that pressure is kept up on the main players in the Maxwell saga so that it is brought to an end as quickly as possible. There are a number of ways in which we as Members can help—by having debates such as we are having today, the work that the Select Committee can do, the statements that Ministers and Opposition spokespersons can make in their

  497
  contributions to these debates, and the comments that Ministers can make both throughout the country and in letters that are published.
  It is essential that none of the main players—whether it be those who are, in a sense, in the dock for playing a part in the theft of these assets, or those committed by the courts to the recovery of the assets—believes that they can relax, sit back and take their time, because the patience of the pensioners is clearly running out. Keeping up the pressure, therefore, is a very important task, in which this debate will play some part.
  Secondly, there is the question of the distribution of the common investment fund. As I expected, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) is in his place. Given that he has given the parties to the common investment fund such a good old shaking in the past, and a justifiable one, I need not dwell too long on that. I leave the common investment fund and its main participants to his gentle but firm boot.
  Thirdly, I hope that we are not going to hear today that the Government should call a halt to the whole proceedings and shovel out large sums of taxpayers' money. There is something that the Government. can do, but I am not in favour of their taking over the entire deficit and suggesting that the taxpayer should meet the total cost.
  The recovery process is in operation and other forces are at work to gather funds for the depleted pension funds. However, I believe that, in the near future, the Government should make a statement on what they believe to be the likely shortfall when the whole process has been concluded, which may not be for three or four years, and at that stage to suggest how they envisage that sum being made up.
  Some of us noted that the Securities and Investments Board recently fined Invesco MIM £750,000 for malpractices over its stewardship of some of the Maxwell pension funds. I hope that the Government will be asking the SIB to pay that fine, and other fines that we shall hear about shortly which will make £750,000 mere chicken feed, and that those funds will be paid into the Maxwell pension funds to help rebuild the capital stock.
  I hope that the Government will judge the situation carefully and, if they consider that it would be useful to bring the parties together soon, to suggest a round table meeting. There will be three parties to that round table meeting.
  Thanks to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West and others, the Government need not concern themselves too much with the distribution of the common investment fund. The money is there; the question is when the assets are realised and how they are distributed. I am sure that the process will take its natural course.
  There is also the disputed ownership of some assets. Sadly, it is now clear that those disputes will probably end in the courts, will cost a great deal of money in legal fees and, at the end of the day, will be settled. I hope that rightful restitution will ensue from that activity and that the assets will be returned to Maxwell pension fund holders.
  There is another matter on which the Government may be able to act. There are already some writs out, but there will be many more on those City institutions which were
  498
  only too willing to work with Robert Maxwell and take his fees. Some of them are grand institutions, and I am sure that they now wish that Mr. Maxwell had never crossed their path.
  They know perfectly well that, if matters are not settled, they will be dragged through the courts and that process will be time-consuming and immensely expensive. Their professional reputations will suffer and some may be fatally flawed as a result of those cases. At some stage soon they may well have an interest in settling, and I hope the Government will keep a watching brief so that, when the minds of those people are concentrated—as Doctor Johnson said, being hanged in the morning concentrates the mind wonderfully, and so does losing one's professional reputation—the Government will act swiftly to bring the parties together.
  When they know what the shortfall will be, the Government may consider what small, modest contribution the taxpayer should make, but they should suggest to those professional bodies that the time has come for them to contribute and make good whatever shortfall there is when the recovery process and the legal proceedings have been completed.
  I end as I began, by underlining our commitment to the Maxwell pensioners.
  Mr. David Porter: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I was briefly a member of the Select Committee in the last Parliament. May I ask him just two questions? First, will the Committee keep a watching eye on Maxwell victims who are part of British International Helicopters and who had a particular problem which made them different from other Maxwell victims?
  Secondly, in its first report, the Committee suggested that, if the Government did not produce a Bill on occupational pensions, the Committee itself might do so. Is that still the hon. Gentleman's intention?
  Mr. Field: I hope that, following the Goode committee. the Government will bring forward its most radical proposals. If not, I hope that they will at least seek to amend those proposals.
  On the hon. Gentleman's second point about those caught in the sale of the helicopter company, when the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Select Committee, he was a doughty champion of his and some other Members' constituents, and his intervention underlines that point. However, I understand that the hon. Member for Dover will deal with that point if he is lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I end as I began by focusing our attention on the Maxwell pensioners. Since the House last debated the plight of Maxwell pensioners, a considerable number of them have died. That should concentrate our minds on the task of maintaining pressure and trying to seek settlements without resort to the courts.
  We should also expect the Government, who do not have a bad record in protecting the interests of the Maxwell pensioners, not to be frightened by their record but to build on it and, if the timing is right, to try to get those professional organisations which grew fat on fees from Robert Maxwell to pass on some of that fat to rebuilding the pension funds, so that, when we next debate the plight of Maxwell pensioners, it will be in celebration of reaching a conclusion instead of recording that more of them have died awaiting a resolution to their plight.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: If have two reasons for speaking in the debate: first, I have been fortunate to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker; and, secondly, my constituency abuts that of Watford, the one-time print centre of the United Kingdom until Robert Maxwell operated upon it, leaving a considerable number of unemployed people and a large number of pensioners. When I heard of his death late in 1991, little did I know the difficulties and the effect that his passing would have not only on me but, more important, on my constituents.
  It is ironic that, three months before Robert Maxwell's death, I saw a line diagram of the management structure of the Maxwell empire. I remember thinking that it was a management structure designed for purposes other than ease of management control. Little did I know that within a few months I would be among those trying to unravel where the money had gone. I believe that the behaviour of some British institutions in that affair requires the type of examination to which the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) referred.
  The House can imagine my horror and dismay when I found that hundreds of pensioners in my constituency were in danger of having the roof taken from above their heads. When the truth began to filter through, I cursed the man for what he was doing to my constituents. However, now that there is some stability for those pensioners" I can see, perhaps with a little more tolerance, part of the reasoning behind his actions.
  It is true that Robert Maxwell was an egotist, a bully and a thug, but. I can understand what drove him to try to save his empire. I make that comment because Robert Maxwell is not unique. In future, there will be other Maxwells; I hope that they will not be as big but will be teeny ones. The House should face the fact that other pensioners in other occupational schemes are going short, and will go short, of their pensions because we have not closed the loophole that allows pension funds to be raided in that way.
  Fortunately, in this case, a large number of Maxwell pensioners were involved when the shortfall in funds began to show in early 1992. I say "fortunately" because, had there been only a small number of them, the case would not have received the same publicity and they woulld not have been in the fortunate position that they are in today. They were also fortunate in that Maxwell was a flashy character who commanded plenty of newsprint before and after his departure. But, as I say, other pensioners in other occupational schemes have not been so lucky.
  The Government's position is simple, and I understand and support it. They cannot be expected to bail out every pension scheme that goes wrong. It would be morally wrong to use vast sums of taxpayers' money in that way. But in the Maxwell case, with such large numbers descending on the social security services for support—to pay mortgages and make up for lost pensions—more money would have been lost had the Government not contributed.
  When I first examined the position of the pensioners, I thought of R. A. Butler. If an hon. Member went to Rab with a problem, one of his first questions always was, "How many of you are there?" If the reply was, "Just me," the chances of achieving a favourable response or a change
  500
  of Government policy were slim. But a reply such as, "I have a large number of people outside demanding action," focused Rab's mind on the issue in hand.
  I admit to being a mere spear-carrier in the great Conservative party. I appreciated early on that, if I was to be of real help in the pensioners' cause, I needed the strength of numbers around me. I did a trawl through the House and was fortunate to persuade more than 70 hon. Members to attend the first Maxwell pensioners' meeting. I thank the hon. Member for Birkenhead for joining me as co-chairman of the group, which helped to make it an all-party affair and to lift it out of the endless possibilities of party bickering that the situation could have engendered. I also appreciate the efforts of other hon. Members who supported my idea of a lifebelt.
  I shall not go into the details of the many meetings that took place. I am grateful to the Secretary of State not only for taking up the suggestion that was made in that context but for going much further and setting up the pension units and seconding senior civil servants to enable moneys to be traced. Setting up the Cuckney fund was of great assistance, and I am grateful to Sir John Cuckney and Mr. Ballard, both of whom dealt with some of the trustees of the fund in a more delicate fashion than I did at various stages of the affair.
  With the partial distribution of the common investment fund, we have a breathing space, but it is only that and we must look to the future urgently. We cannot relax and say. "We need not worry. Nothing will happen for another two or three years." We must press on with all speed.
  Looking to the future and to the position of Government on pensions, it is clear that they face a huge dilemma. A study of the demographic profile of this country reveals an aging population, a subject on which my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) will speak if he has an opportunity to address the House. He has done research and majored on that issue and has expressed much concern about the future.
  In 1901, only 17 per cent. of men and 22 per cent. of women lived to be 75. The figures are now 52 and 70 respectively, and it is calculated that the 4 million people involved will grow to 6 million in the next four decades. The numbers aged over 85 will triple in those four decades. The Daily Mail today points out that one in five are over 60, an increase of 8 per cent. in 10 years, and that the trend will continue.
  The dilemma facing the Government is horrendous. They must persuade as many people as possible to accept the full responsibility of pension payments, getting them into occupational schemes as well as disclaiming financial responsibility for those schemes.
  The Government want to get people into occupational schemes for obvious and sensible financial reasons, but surely they have a moral responsibility to ensure that those people are protected. The Government cannot say, "You are now out of the state scheme, into occupational schemes, and on your own." They must accept that, when people are moved from one to the other—let us not forget the contributions of 2 per cent., or whatever the figure was, which encouraged people to move from SERPS to occupational pension schemes—they retain some responsibility.
  Some may point to the work of the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation, and I agree that it has received some criticism during the Maxwell affair. I fear that it was a stable door closing operation, the horse

  501
  having bolted; the door being closed, the remaining horses are locked in the stable. Unfortunately, the horse that got out has caused an immense amount of damage and hardship to pensioners.
  We are awaiting the Goode report and cannot predict what it will contain, but it must propose some form of safety net. What I am suggesting is not like a bolt from the blue. There is already in place, for example, the air travel trust. Under that, if people book a package holiday and the airline on which they are to travel fails, there is a £30 million fund to pick up the costs of the failure. That money is made up of a levy on the industry, authorised by the Government. With the recent collapse of the International Leisure Group, a great chunk of that £30 million was absorbed. It is now being rebuilt and the Government are guaranteeing it.
  I see no reason why another fund, paid for by the pension companies, should not be established. The levy need not be vast, bearing in mind the billions of pounds that go into occupational pension funds every year. Whatever form it takes, a safety net organisation should be established to pick up the Maxwells of the future to prevent pensioners falling on hard times.
  I shall detail only one of the many cases that have come to my attention, literally that of the proverbial little old lady. In no way could she have survived in her house without her pension money. Her small mortgage was coming to an end and she needed money to pay the mortgage if she was to remain in her home.
  It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that a scheme is established involving the whole pensions industry. The House has a duty to make sure that, should there be Maxwells in the future, pensioners will be protected.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. John Gunnell: It is clear to me as I look around the House that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members who will take part in the debate are members of the Select Committee and have therefore developed a certain expertise in the subject. My only expertise comes from frequently meeting many of the Maxwell pensioners who live in Leeds.
  Leeds is the home of the former printers, E. J. Arnold, the company which was taken over by Robert Maxwell and which was the basis of the Headington pension fund, one of the funds that is less happy just now. There are also in Leeds a number of other printers who were taken over by Maxwell, but the pensioners in those companies come under the Maxwell works scheme and are more fortunate than their fellows, although they attend the same meetings as pensioners from the Headington scheme.
  Those pensioners meet about once a month and I often attend their meetings. I am always struck by the way in which they cannot take for granted the almost everyday matters that we accept as normal. For example, we assume that at the end of the month there will be a salary cheque waiting for us. Most of us also assume that, having put in our claims, we shall receive our travel allowances, and so on. We know that those will come at the end of the month so we do not worry about them.
  As Robert Maxwell has been gone for 20 months, but pensions have nevertheless been paid, we might expect
  502
  pensioners to believe that they will continue to be paid. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was right to praise the actions that have been taken to ensure that. However, the Maxwell pensioners are not entirely certain that their pensions will continue to arrive.
  That might seem strange, given existing guarantees, but it is not really that strange, because the original £2·5 million that was properly made available is now exhausted and the money is coming from the £6 million that Sir John Cuckney was able to raise through voluntary donations. Obviously, the pensioners can estimate the length of time that that is likely to last before it, too, is exhausted.
  Elderly people rely on their pension cheques arriving for the rest of their lives and they need to be reassured that that will happen. Hon. Members concerned about the matter should meet pensioners and talk to them. Indeed, the Minister represents a seat not so far from Leeds—I welcome a Yorkshire Member in the office that he holds —and the Maxwell pensioners would be happy to meet him. Although some things have not gone as they hoped and they have had disappointments, I am sure that they would not shout at him. They would have a sensible discussion about the issues on the table and the best way forward.
  The whole community of Leeds have been involved in supporting the Maxwell pensioners. I pay tribute to the work of the Yorkshire newspapers, particularly the Yorkshire Evening Post, which continually emphasised the injustice suffered by the pensioners and our obligation to ensure that their pensions were paid.
  I pay particular tribute to one blind pensioner in my constituency, Ivy Needham, who leads the Leeds pensioners. When we think of Robert Maxwell and his wealth and of Ivy Needham struggling in her council house in Middleton, it is clear that Ivy is an apt symbol of the injustice that the pensioners have suffered. I knew Ivy before all this arose. She put pressure on me because a class for the blind and partially sighted in a local school faced a rent increase. She certainly let me know what she thought of that. In some ways, the injustice of the events surrounding Robert Maxwell inspired Ivy to lead the Maxwell pensioners, despite her physical handicap.
  As the Minister knows, Ivy was recently granted up to £7,500 legal aid for her application to the European Court where, as the symbolic pensioner, she is pursuing a claim against the Government for failing to implement EC directive 80/897, which requires member states to take the steps that are necessary to protect the pensions of former employees of insolvent companies. The legal aid covers the preliminary work needed to establish whether there is a case to be heard.
  I believe that it is in the Government's interests that that case is heard. It would be valuable to know whether the directive applies. I regret that the Government are not committed to ensuring that the case is heard so that we can know what judgments will be made. To have knowledge of such judgments would be helpful not just to Ivy Needham, the symbolic pensioner, but to the Select Committee—which, I am sure, would want to see European judgments on the matter—and the Government.
  There are one or two matters that I hope will be resolved in today's debate. I recognise that setting up the Maxwell pension unit is an achievement for the Government. The civil servant who heads that unit is leaving—or he may have just left. As he gave good and clear leadership to the unit, I want the Minister to assure

  503
  me that the fact that he has returned to his native department does not mean any lessening of the Government's commitment to the work of that unit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said, there are tasks still to be carried out. There is a clear co-ordinating job for the unit as the distribution of the Cuckney investment fund is arranged and assets are recovered. The unit's excellent leadership has been especially helpful in that process.
  I want the Minister to clarify the position on the state earnings-related pension scheme. We recognise that not having to pay to get back into SERPS is a positive move by the Government, and it should be seen as such. However, people are a little uncertain about when and whether that money will become payable. We need to know what the shortfall will be between the money raised and the money required. The £100 million involved in that is clearly relevant.
  We must look at pension funds that are especially disadvantaged. People in Leeds come from two different schemes, so they are able to compare one with the other. The Maxwell pensioners had hoped for a 5 per cent. increase but are to get 3 per cent. When they compare their position with that of pensioners in the other scheme, who are to have no increase, perhaps they will not feel too badly about not getting the full 5 per cent. There should be justice between the schemes and I hope that the Minister will say something about that.
  As hon. Members have said, at the end of the day there will be some shortfall. Assets have been identified and there are now mechanisms to ensure that they are recovered. That fact gives some validity to the Government's assertion that had they underwritten the necessary money from the start, that information would not have been discovered and the assets identified and recovered.
  It becomes less valid as more information is received. At some point there will be a gap, and I want to be certain that when it is reached, the matter will be positively resolved. I do not want my pensioners, who worry week by week, to continue worrying into the distant future. The time must come when Maxwell pensioners in Leeds will be able to celebrate and to say, "We can stop meeting on the basis that we meet now, because we are assured that our pensions will continue to arrive in the post for as long as we need them."
  5.40 pm
  Mr. David Shaw: Eleven million people have occupational pensions, and 5 million have personal pensions. That is a major success story and a tremendous achievement by the Government, which has contributed to a true capital-owning democracy, greater security in retirement and a better understanding by many more people of the economic processes by which this country creates wealth.
  When the history of the Thatcher and Major Governments is written, people will pay great attention to the fact that so many members of the public were able to increase their ownership of the community by home ownership, pension ownership or other assets.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the final quarter of 1992, 44,000 owners of personal pensions allowed them to lapse? What
  504
  will they think when they look back on the age of Thatcherism? They have no personal or occupational pension or SERPS.
  Mr. Shaw: There will always be people who, for one reason or another, do not continue their payments. Sadly, many people are oversold individual schemes—but they can obtain restitution under the Financial Services Act 1986. A lapse of 44,000 pensions schemes out of 5 million is not enormously significant—and it occurred at the peak of a recessionary period, when many people may have felt that it was difficult to keep up their payments. I have every confidence that many of them will return to their schemes, and that a large number of them may be members of other schemes anyway. Some people discover that they are in too many schemes and that the Inland Revenue has rules that prohibit that. There are several reasons why membership of schemes is cancelled.
  I have not even mentioned the number of people who have life assurance policies and who save through unit trusts. A major change has been achieved and I look forward to the day when the Labour party will join that debate on an equal footing and will welcome that development.
  Many of the 16 million pension scheme members have no problems or fears, whether their schemes are personal or occupational. They will pursue worthwhile careers while they save for their years of retirement and will then enjoy many years of happy retirement with no problems. However, members of the Social Security Select Committee recognise that some schemes have problems.
  The Select Committee has examined several schemes, including the Harland and Wolff scheme in Northern Ireland, which has problems, and has discussed the Belling and Lucas schemes. The Select Committee is also concerned about the Dormobile scheme, with which I had a particular problem, because a number of my constituents were concerned about a mysterious loan that had been made.
  Sadly, some schemes have been brought to the Select Committee's attention and they need careful investigation and review. However, it surely cannot be the long-term role of a Select Committee to become involved in problems of that kind. We must establish a mechanism that allows for problems to be resolved in a better way.
  A number of organisations are involved, including the occupational pensions advisory service, and they do the best job that they can in the circumstances. Perhaps the Goode report will recommend that a better way be found of structuring the various advisory bodies and support mechanisms. I hope that the Government will always play an active role in supporting them. Given that there are 16 million pension scheme members, it is incumbent on the Government never to abandon or be accused of abandoning those people, but always to examine better ways of protecting the interests of scheme members and of ensuring that this country's pension system remains one of the best in the world.
  The Select Committee began examining occupational pension schemes in general in July 1991. When the Chairman and I began discussing with colleagues our producing a report on occupational schemes, little did we realise that Mr. Maxwell was at that very moment already secretly ripping off his company's pension fund to the tune of £220 million. As our report got under way, that figure was to grow to £450 million. We must have had a sixth

  505
  sense in July 1991. Mr. Maxwell went overboard—jumped overboard, as it would now appear—in November 1991, and within a month it was apparent that the Maxwell fund was encountering serious difficulties. The Select Committee therefore extended its investigations.
  Following the Select Committee's initial work in the last Parliament, the Department of Trade and Industry announced that the Mirror Group prospectus would be investigated, and the Government established the Goode committee to investigate aspects of occupational pensions. The Securities and Futures Association—unbeknown to some, but this is now know to all—investigated Goldman Sachs and its role in the Maxwell dealings.
  The Investment Management Regulatory Organisation appeared before the Select Committee, and there came to light a number of deficiencies in the way that it had treated the Maxwell companies. As a consequence, IMRO examined its own organisation and the role of its members, and that led to Invesco MIM recently being fined £2 million including costs. There is no question but that, in just those four areas, the Select Committee had a considerable impact on initiating serious examination of some of the problems surrounding the Maxwell affair.
  I am delighted with the Government's response to the Select Committee. There is no question but that the action of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security in establishing the Maxwell pension unit displayed remarkable sensitivity in recognising that a serious problem existed that required special attention. That unit has been an incredible success. The Maxwell pension trust, which my right hon. Friend also initiated, has also been enormously successful, with the Government paying its administrative costs, so that it has not been a burden on any pensioners. That trust has helped to raise a considerable amount of money, to ensure that Maxwell pensioners have their legitimate current needs met for the foreseeable future.
  The Government's contribution of £2·5 million to support certain pensioners in pension schemes in financial difficulties is an important and compassionate measure that has helped a number of pensioners—including a small number who were direct pensioners of companies that went into liquidation. There was therefore no pension scheme to pay them and they were dependent on those companies' survival. Once the companies went into liquidation, the pensioners were left without any money. The Government's £2·5 million certainly came to their rescue.
  More important than anything else, the Government have, in effect, lent £100 million to the Maxwell pension schemes by deferring collection of state scheme premiums. Many of us have difficulty in understanding how it operates, and I will not attempt to explain the complexities of that particular transaction. It is one that, even as an accountant, I find difficult to follow; it is very intricate. There is no doubt that the Maxwell pensioners have benefited a great deal from collection being deferred and that there is no interest payable.
  Mr. Frank Field: It is worth putting on record the fact that both the hon. Gentleman and I have sounded sycophantic when talking about the Government. That is because the Government did many of the things that we asked them to do.
  Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as an Opposition Member, for pointing that out. It is a delight that hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that there has been an all-party move on this issue to keep it off the main political agenda. Inevitably, there are differing political views about certain aspects and individuals involved, but there has been tremendous cross-party agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) made great efforts, together with the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and myself, to avoid getting to a point where the Maxwell pensioners lost because of political wrangling.
  Mr. David Lidington: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is considerable concern—particularly among the deferred pensioners involved in the Maxwell schemes—that the Government's intention might be to postpone premium and interest payments only until the pension funds are able once again to meet their liabilities to pensioners currently in receipt of pensions, rather than until the schemes are able to cope with their liabilities to deferred pensioners? It would be reassuring to many of the deferred pensioners, including those whom I represent, if the Government responded generously this evening.
  Mr. Shaw: I commend that course to my hon. Friend the Minister. We welcome him to the Front Bench for his first major debate on this issue, which I hope will be one of many—although not too many!
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) makes a strong point about deferred pensioners. There will be considerable concern if the Government cannot find a way of bridging the gap. The Committee has increasing confidence that that can be done, if the institutions that have done wrong meet their commitments to make restitution. Moreover, because of the various events that have taken place with the pension funds, the Committee feels that it might be possible to reconstruct the position and enable much of what has been lost to be recovered. That can be achieved, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, only if we get to a point where the Government can ensure that there is enough support in the intervening period.
  I hope that the institutions that are to blame will come forward, in the not too distant future, and recognise their responsibility. That would ensure that the public-purse commitment would not continue for long. We have to consider the many other pensioners, the many disabled and other people who need help from the public purse. If the institutions and companies involved with Mr. Maxwell have done wrong, they should be made to pay out soon. We could then get on with the business of government and Parliament and ensure that the £300 billion a year of public spending goes to those in need, and not to finance those financial institutions that may have done wrong.
  I am particularly concerned about two pension schemes. One is the Maxwell Communication Corporation works pension scheme, and the other is the British Island Helicopters pension scheme. My hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Mr. Porter) and for St. Ives (Mr. Harris)—both former members of the Select Committee—have taken considerable interest in that matter during the last year and a half.
  Those two schemes are in a terrible position. Mirror Group Newspapers issued a prospectus that said, in paragraph 3(a) of the accountant's report, that the works

  507
  scheme would be incorporated into the Mirror Group Newspapers pension scheme. The prospectus was issued in April 1991; by the time Mr. Maxwell had jumped overboard in November 1991, a commitment to the board of directors, in a prospectus—a doctrine issued under the Companies Act—had not been carried out. That is an appalling state of affairs for someone like myself who has been involved in the issuing of prospectuses; it is appalling that a commitment should have been given and, many months later, not been carried out.
  There is no doubt that the directors of Mirror Group Newspapers—many of whom are still directors—must address the issue of meeting the commitment in the prospectus, or should resign and cease to hold any public or corporate office in the land. They are unfit to be directors of public companies—as Mr. Maxwell was described—if they cannot meet the commitment in the prospectus.
  There is also an appalling situation with British Island Helicopters. Mr. Maxwell said that he would bring those pensioners into the Mirror Group Newspapers scheme, and in that instance he did so. There was a substantial liability, therefore, to pay pensions to British Island Helicopters employees. What has happened is that the old Mirror Group Newspapers scheme has effectively been closed and a new scheme started, but the British Island Helicopters members are not included in the new scheme.
  A clear commitment was made by Mirror Group Newspapers and its pension fund to British Island Helicopters' members. There is clearly a moral commitment, even if legal devices enable the fund to get out of it. It is totally unsatisfactory that an existing legal and moral commitment like that could be avoided by closing down an old scheme and opening a new one.
  I turn now to the issue of whistleblowing and corporate governance. As I said at the beginning of my speech, this has cost the Government money. The Government have, compassionately, come up with money, but they should not have had to do so. If the Maxwell empire had been properly run—and the people who know about the irregularities in it had spoken at an earlier stage—we would not have had this problem.
  Deborah Maxwell is no relation to any of the Maxwell family—it is coincidental that she has that name—but she is a solicitor, a member of the Law Society, and on 19 November 1990 she wrote three memoranda. Having read the memoranda, I think that she is a very competent solicitor, with considerable skills and abilities.
  In one memorandum, Deborah Maxwell points out that there are implications in the share dealing involving MCC shares that concern the takeover code. She refers to stock exchange compliance in relation to family private companies and their shareholdings in public companies and also to section 134 in part VI of the Companies Act 1985, which deals with the 3 per cent. disclosure rules in regard to shareholdings in public companies. She mentions that there had been a panel ruling in relation to Maxwell family companies and their concert-party relationships, and she refers to the put option by Goldman Sachs and the notification to the stock exchange of the implications arising from that put option. That was a substantive and well-produced memorandum.
  A second memorandum states:
  "The failure to disclose this holding could have consequences under section 47 of the Financial Services Act
  508
  1986, a copy of which I attach. This concerns, inter alia, the making of misleading statements to and the concealment of any material facts from the investment community."
  The memorandum goes on to state:
  "Trevor Cook has I believe advised you separately on the IMR0 aspects of this holding … The other matter of this which you must be satisfied about is that the trustees of BIM"—
  Bishopsgate Investment Management—
  "have properly carried out their duties, inter alia, to act in the best interests of the various pensions funds in making these investment decisions."
  Deborah Maxwell was querying whether investment decisions were being made properly by the trustees of BIM, or whether investment decisions were being made by Maxwell in his personal or family interest.
  The third memorandum states:
  "Following my conversation with Robert Maxwell on Saturday, it has as you know been agreed that, with effect from today, I am relieved of any compliance responsibilities in relation to BIM and MCC generally.
  I am attaching two files relating respectively to the private holdings in MCC (the family and the Maxwell Foundation)"
  in Liechtenstein, of course—
  "and BIM's holding in MCC. Each file has a summary on top to show the present status. I will tomorrow let you have such other files as I keep relating to other companies in which BIM owns shares.
  I recommend that you give the BIM file to Trevor Cook who is already up to date with the position. I consider that the MCC private side holdings file should go to Robert Bunn who knows all the background information and has up to date details."
  Those are three very good memoranda. They are clear and to the point. As I have just shown, in the third memo, Deborah Maxwell gave up her duties. She resigned. Hon. Members may be sad to know that, according to another memorandum, when she resigned she moved down the corridor and was given a salary increase of some £75,000 a year. She was also paid £50,000 in cash for leaving her job as compliance officer. She used £40,000 cash to repay her mortgage with the building society.
  Hon. Members will no doubt be concerned that this person, who on 19 November 1990—a year before Mr. Maxwell jumped overboard—had substantial knowledge about the fact that Mr. Maxwell, in a host of areas, was potentially breaking the law or breaking City codes and regulations, had received a substantial sum and ceased her duties when whistleblowing could have occurred. It is a great tragedy for the pensioners, who, in the end, have lost many hundreds of millions of pounds, that £50,000 managed to secure her silence in a way that could have been critical in the circumstances.
  We should not blame Deborah Maxwell alone. There were many other potential whistleblowers who could have prevented the enormous cost that the Government have incurred in helping the Maxwell pensioners. A number of directors of MCC knew of the problems. Sadly, they did not know of much else. I have seen the board minutes of that corporation. It is difficult to envisage what the board thought was the business of MCC. I understood that it was publishing, but the board minutes show no reference to publishing. All one can see is a number of transactions with banks as Mr. Maxwell was rapidly renegotiating his loans.
  As I have said, we know that Deborah Maxwell knew. We also know that Goldman Sachs had immense knowledge of the Maxwell empire. It knew that he was a desperate man from the way in which he was structuring

  509
  his deals. It knew that he was short of cash and was involved in strange deals. It knew that there was a severe risk of a false market developing for MCC shares. Indeed, many people believe that there was a false market. We also know that Lord Donoughue knew of irregularities involving stock lending.
  There were many more who knew about problems in the Maxwell empire because there were many resignations in Maxwell companies in the last two years. In many instances, the money involved, as with Deborah Maxwell, was only £50,000. In other instances, people received £100,000. In the Maxwell empire, £100,000 here or £100,000 there was nothing if it secured silence. It was £250,000 that secured the silence of Lord Donoughue.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker. (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that he must not criticise Members of the other place.
  Mr. Shaw: It has been difficult. I have tried merely to state fact and avoid criticism. A payment of £250,000 was made and, in the view of many, it did secure silence.
  Occasionally, the sums involved were greater than £250,000. Jean-Pierre Anselmimi, as far as one can make out from documentation, knew virtually everything that went on in the Maxwell empire up to his resignation. It took £300,000 to buy his silence.
  My final point concerns restitution. Who will pay back the pensioners' money? Enough information about wrongdoing is now emerging. I do not think that we need to see a trial next year in order to establish whether serious wrongdoing has occurred. Common sense shows that there has been some wrongdoing by some parties who must, in many instances, remain nameless for the purposes of this debate and for legal reasons.
  The Government have committed no wrong. As I said earlier, they have bent over backwards to try to assist in different ways. The reality is that private individuals and the private sector have failed the Maxwell pensioners. There is no justification for public expenditure being taken away from important Government programmes in order to continue bailing out those involved in this affair and so that some institutions and private individuals can be let off the hook. The City firms that failed in their duties in their enthusiasm to do business with Maxwell, and the private individuals who were directors of his companies and took large sums of money on resignation simply because they knew too much, must make their contributions to restitution for the pensioners.
  I believe that a list should be prepared showing all those involved. Contributions should be invited and every lawful method should be used to ensure that contributions are made. It may be that the largest contribution should be £100 million. Many hon. Members know what sort of financial institution should be contributing at that level. Smaller contributions should also be made, right down to £50,000 or so from some private individuals who have benefited enormously from the Maxwell pension problems.
  I hope that the Government will do everything that they can to continue to help the pensioners. I hope that they will take a particular interest in the plight of the MCC works pensioners and the British Island Helicopters pensioners, who have particular problems, even worse than those of
  510
  many others. I hope that we are not far away from a resolution—perhaps on the second anniversary, or just before it, of Mr. Maxwell going overboard—to this awful and appalling problem that has upset so many people in their pension years.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I apologise to the House, and especially to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), for being a little late. I was hosting a reception for Deaf Accord, which overran slightly. I did not hear everything that the hon. Gentleman had to say but I heard some. As other hon. Members have done, I thank him for the work that he has done since the sad story broke and I also thank the Select Committee on Social Security for the progress that it has made.
  May I reverse the sycophancy and say that, although it is good to witness the hon. Gentleman's good nature in his thanking the Government for their response, the House must nevertheless be grateful to him for his work and for ensuring that the arguments were presented in a way that would secure that response. I shall not break the spirit of all-party accord, but I believe that the Government have a little more responsibility for certain aspects of the matter than has been acknowledged.
  I pick up where the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) left off. He spoke of those who should contribute to reinstating the Maxwell pension fund. It is deeply disappointing that the City of London appears to have lost sight of just how much damage has been done to its interests, and that it has shown so little concern about what it could and should do to repair that damage.
  In the last Parliament, I was a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which compiled a report on financial services and the single market. We travelled to the main European financial centres such as Paris, Madrid, Milan and Frankfurt. There was no doubt that the credibility of British financial institutions had been deeply undermined by the Maxwell experience. That was especially so in Germany, where we have had considerable difficulty in getting our way of managing pension funds accepted. If the Germans had their way, our system would not be admitted in the European Community.
  I acknowledge that considerable benefits have accrued from the way in which the reputable life and pension institutions in the City of London make a pound work much harder than almost any other comparable institutions in the world. We do not want to lose that, so I wish to make it clear that my remarks are not designed to undermine those institutions, although I suppose that one could argue—and the Germans surely would argue —that, if our pension administration followed their law, the Maxwell case could not have arisen.
  We must complete the reform of our pension fund law to ensure that such an occurrence is almost impossible in the future. If we can achieve that, we might eventually be able to ensure that the pensioners who have been defrauded will receive full compensation, including contributions from the City. I accept that the Government should not jump straight in and pay for the consequences of fraud, but on behalf of the pensioners I am obliged to say that, although the bit-by-bit access to funds is better than nothing and although it ensures that the day-to-day bills can be paid, it does not make for a long, happy and

  511
  planned retirement. It seriously undermines the plans that many people had for their retirement, and we can all have a great deal of sympathy for people in that situation.
  Mr. Page: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the mental processes of pensioners who are wondering where the next penny will come from, but does he accept that it is incumbent on the unit to ensure that the money was supplied only to the various pension funds when it was needed—in other words, to continue to apply pressure on to reach a decision, because some were not over-hasty in, for example, resolving the common investment fund allocations?
  Mr. Bruce: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but individual pensioners are still left in a difficult position. Such pressure was regrettably necessary to produce some results.
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that one of the messages that goes out to the pensioners from this debate is one of reassurance that the House is ultimately determined to ensure that restitution in full is made but that we are also adamant that payment, as far as possible in full, must be made by those who made mistakes or were responsible for wrongdoing?
  Mr. Bruce: I entirely agree. Having had numerous meetings with Ministers, I understand their difficulty in saying that in such terms although I think that many would like to. All we can ask is that they say nothing that undermines the sentiment that the hon. Gentleman has expressed.
  The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) referred to members of pension schemes with annual reviews but no guaranteed increase. I have been contacted on their behalf, and I understand that more than 1,000 people are members of two or three such schemes. Following on from what I said earlier, it is understood that getting a payment is better than not getting a payment, but their concern is that, had the money not been stolen, they could reasonably have been assured that they would have received at least a cost of living rise every year for the foreseeable future.
  For those who retired recently and perhaps took early retirement, the thought that their pension is fixed for the next 20 or 30 years, if they live that long, or even for 15 or 20 years, is a further worry. I therefore hope that full restitution might include returning to those people the money that they might reasonably have expected to get from the fund if it had not been stolen. I have been asked to make that suggestion to the House.
  I echo the points made about deferred pensioners. There appear to be different views. The claim that the £100 million to which the Secretary of State referred is effectively an interest free loan cannot be squared, but the issue was raised in an intervention. I am sure that the Minister has taken note, and I merely want to reinforce the point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has members of three different former Maxwell schemes in his constituency and has asked to be associated with my remarks. He has been active on their behalf and has made representations to try to ensure that they get full refund of that to which they are entitled.
  512
  My particular point of constituency interest has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Dover. I do not mean to criticise him in his absence, but the correct name of the firm to which he referred is British International Helicopters, not British Island Helicopters. The firm has its headquarters in my constituency. I have been very much involved with the company—more involved than I might have wished—since it was sold by British Airways.
  When selling the company, British Airways' management behaved dishonestly and despicably towards its work force. The management, especially the then chairman and the current chief executive and chairman—I do not need to name them because everyone knows who they are—treated members of all parties with absolute contempt.
  They convened a meeting shortly after I was elected. They invited me, the then hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, Sir Albert McQuarrie who was a Conservative, and the present hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). In front of an audience of several hundred employees, they asked us to campaign for the Nott assurances to be implemented and for British Airways to be privatised as a single entity, specifically on behalf of the work force of British International Helicopters.
  Before the ink on the privatisation agreement was dry, we discovered that the management were in secret negotiations to sell the company, initially to a Mr. Meade —a person at least as disreputable as, if not more so than, the person to whom it ultimately was sold. I managed to blow the whistle on that deal when I heard about it, because I happened to be due to ask the Prime Minister a parliamentary question that day, and the negotiations were broken off 24 hours after the matter was raised during Prime Minister's questions. According to information brought to my attention more recently, Ministers had intervened to say that that sale should not go through.
  That is a pertinent point. Hon. Members with a particular interest in British International Helicopters have had numerous meetings with Ministers, and we believe not only that the employees have been appallingly treated, but that the Government have a responsibility rather different from any responsibility that they may have for the other companies.
  Basically, the Government gave their approval to the sale to Robert Maxwell, whom they had previously designated as a person unfit to run a public company. I am sure that the Minister is already aware of the fact, but I should like to make it clear to him that the hon. Members apart from myself who have a constituency interest in the company include the hon. Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), for Waveney (Mr. Porter), and for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the hon. Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) and the Secretary of State for Transport. So it certainly is an all-party group.
  I do not expect the Minister to acknowledge the belief that the Government have a moral responsibility arising out of the sale—indeed, some of his colleagues have refused to accept that. Nevertheless, everyone in the all-party group believes that that moral responsibility exists. That is not simply a personal view of mine. The hon. Member for St. Ives, in particular, has vigorously expressed the same view.
  The hon. Member for Dover has to some extent brought us up to date on the way in which the Mirror Group has treated BI H pensioners. Those pensioners were

  513
  induced by an agreement between Maxwell and British Airways to transfer from the British Airways pension fund to the Mirror Group pension fund. They then contributed to the Mirror Group fund, and the day that Robert Maxwell fell overboard the company went into administration because of the way it had been managed. I should like to put on record the fact that the company has been bought out by its management and staff and is now trading successfully. Nevertheless, not only those people's pensions but their entire livelihoods were put at risk. Indeed, a number of them lost their jobs.
  I find it breathtaking that the directors and management of the Mirror Group can simply expel a group of people from the pension fund with impunity. I read with some interest the exchanges between the hon. Member for Dover and the chairman of the trustees, Mr. Colin Cornwall, and the brittleness of the atmosphere comes through even on the printed page. I have met Mr. Cornwall, and I appreciate his compromised position, but I am concerned by the fact that he felt unable to speak out in a more forthright way as a trustee of the original fund.
  In response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Dover in the Select Committee, Mr. Cornwall said that the decision effectively to freeze the old scheme and to set up a new scheme to which the employees were not party
  "was a decision of MGN. The trustees really had no status in the matter of who should or who should not be eligible for the Past Service Scheme … we simply are not in a position to bandy words with MGN, which has the sole control over who is and who is not admitted in their Past Service Scheme".
  That may be the literal and legal truth, but in terms of moral justice it is an outrageous position for the trustees to have taken. I certainly hope that it may yet be possible to resolve the matter without recourse to the courts, but legal action is still not ruled out.
  At a meeting between the all-party group and the present Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), who was then a Minister responsible for social security, it was suggested that we might try to secure arbitration. Sir John Cuckney was approached, but he felt unable to arbitrate.
  I have been told that representatives of the BIH pensioners have now briefed officials of the Maxwell pension unit on their legal claims, and we are now waiting to see whether that will secure some kind of mediation. The legal claims being made by BIH staff against the Mirror Group and its professional advisers have been shown to me and, although I am not a qualified lawyer, they seem to me to have a strong legal case. They certainly believe that they have.
  I repeat that the moral responsibility seems to me incontrovertible, and I should regard it as most regrettable if the case had to go to court. I hope that we may be able to secure some justice, and anything that the Minister can do behind the scenes to bring that about would be much appreciated by all the parties involved in and concerned about BIH. I repeat my belief that the Government have more responsibility here than they have for some of the other schemes.
  Arthur Andersen, which acted as the administrator for BIH, has accepted liability under section 58(b), covering contracting back into SERPS, and the negotiation concerns only the size of that liability. The firm has
  514
  approached the Inland Revenue because the Revenue is a preferred creditor in the liquidation of BIH, ahead of the trustees, and there is an £11 million corporation tax bill. The firm has asked the Revenue to allow payment, once the figure is decided, to be tax deductible.
  The current position is that the Revenue has said:
  "tax credits, having been given once, cannot be repeated".
  The sources in BIH to whom I have been talking say that they understand that argument, and that in normal circumstances they would accept it, but that if the Government could re-assess the matter, that would be of enormous assistance in enabling the transition to take place. I know that such a procedure would be exceptional, but I argue that the Government's involvement is exceptional, and it would be a gesture that might help to move the matter forward.
  Each debate that we have had in the House and in the Committees has enabled us to secure progress. I am grateful for the cross-party nature of the support and for the constructive attitude of Ministers. Even if the questions that I have asked cannot be answered in a forthright manner at the Dispatch Box today, I hope that they will be taken fully on board, and that ultimately we shall be able to ensure that every pensioner who has been affected will have his or her rights fully restored.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: I begin by congratulating the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, on which I serve, on the way in which he has conducted the Committee's deliberations on this subject. Many members of the Select Committee, of all party loyalties, are surprised that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is not yet the leader of the Labour party. If he ever gets fed up with waiting for that distinguished post, the outstanding way in which he has conducted our investigations into the Maxwell affair over the past two years suggests that he would make an ideal candidate to run the Serious Fraud Office, which clearly needs improved management. The training and expertise that the hon. Gentleman has developed in investigating fraud make him the ideal man to take on that responsibility.
  I am a layman in such debates. I have no accountancy or legal expertise, so some of the arguments and investigations of the tangled affairs of Mr. Maxwell have been beyond me. Three or four points, however, emerged strongly from the Committee hearings.
  First, I was surprised at how easy it is in the City simply to transfer securities from one holder to another and from one physical location to another. Because so many securities are bearer certificates—there is no stamp on them saying who they belong to or what organisation claims their ownership—it seems to be possible to pick them up, carry them somewhere else and claim to own them, or to dispose of them. That surprised me.
  Secondly, I was surprised by the way in which apparently elementary tricks, such as calling one firm BIM, Bishopsgate Investment Management, and another BIT, Bishopsgate Investment Trust, makes it possible to shuffle shares around with no one noticing what is being done, because BIT and BIM look so similar on a transaction document. Robert Maxwell did not need to develop extraordinary accountancy skills to carry out some of his frauds. Elementary techniques of that kind were used.

  515
  Thirdly, it appears that the regulatory organisations let Maxwell pensioners down. The Investment Management Regulatory Organisation has already accepted some responsibility. Many of us have been rather surprised at the narrow role that the Occupational Pensions Board has played in the affair. I hope that the Goode committee—an ingenious and suitable name—will examine the possibility of establishing a new regulatory authority to supervise pension funds. However, any new organisation that is established must displace an existing one. It would be a pity if there were a multiplicity of organisations.
  Sir Donald Thompson: I have just joined the debate, having been about my duties in other parts of the House, and I shall intervene only briefly. Committee members will know that, by nature, people who have retired are getting older and worry more and more, once they have retired, about their pensions going wrong. Does my hon. Friend think it a good idea, not only that there should be an ombudsman, but that there should be a system whereby pensioners could appeal, for example, to special commissioners? They could then give evidence and at least get that worry off their chest and into the open.
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend's suggestion is an interesting one, which I hope that the Minister will consider and perhaps deal with in his speech.
  My final observation about the investigation of the Maxwell affair is simply on the extraordinary cost of professional fees, which are clocking up at a very high rate. That is an additional argument to the many already advanced in our debate for a negotiated settlement, which does not involve years of elaborate wranglings in the courts. I understand that many of the organisations involved are ready for a negotiated settlement, but a problem has arisen because of insurance entitlements. Many insurance companies will pay out only if a final legal case has resolved liability. I hope that Sir John Cuckney —who has made such a distinguished contribution to solving those problems—is able to solve that one as well.
  There is a danger of these debates—we have fallen into that trap a little today—ending with exchanges of mutual admiration in which different members of the Select Committee agree on how marvellously it has done. So I was thinking of something controversial and outrageous to say.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Uncharacteristically so.
  Mr. Willetts: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I was thinking of saying something uncharacteristically outrageous and controversial.
  We have better prospects for a sensible pensions policy in this country than almost every other advanced western country.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Outrageous.
  Mr. Willetts: Yes. What an outrageous remark. I was afraid that it would stir up dispute.
  I was very surprised by the remarks made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who committed the classic Liberal Democratic assumption that it is all better in Germany; they have all got it sorted out on the continent. We heard eloquent praise of how German pension regulation would have made the Maxwell affair impossible here.
  516
  However, the extraordinarily high self-investment in the German system is shocking, with company pension funds investing in the companies for which the employees work. That is one reason why Germany does not have a healthy takeover market for its firms. The only way in which they can manage to run the risks of self-investment is by pension funds insuring against the risk that the company in which they invest does not go bankrupt.
  Such insurance is only possible in a stable economic environment. It will be interesting to observe, as Germany goes into deep recession, whether the insurance premiums that German pensioners have to pay rise and whether that forces a change in the behaviour of German pension funds, by opening up German capital markets so that they more closely resemble those in Britain and America. We have a healthy system of properly funded private pension arrangements, which is much better than in most other advanced countries.
  Secondly, the public sector has avoided making the bogus promises that have brought state social security arrangements into such disrepute in many other countries. We have not been trapped in the seductive politics, but dangerous economics, of the chain letter, which has bedevilled state pension arrangements in other countries. Ending the link between the basic pension and earnings and linking it solely with prices has been crucial.
  Thirdly, in this country we do not face the dramatic demographic change that is in prospect for some other advanced western nations. Although there will be an increase in the number of old-age pensioners in the 21st century, I think that it is manageable. I do not think that it is, of itself, a reason for crisis measures.
  The Government surely should base their approach to pensions policy on the fundamental principle that we in the Conservative party believe that it is best that claims on future resources should be registered in the form of private contracts wherever possible. I appreciate that one could not imagine that slogan on the blue baize of the Conservative party conference platform—it might need to be put rather more crisply—but it is a fundamental principle.
  It is better if people's claims on the resources on which they are to live in retirement can be registered through the ownership of private assets—through their personal pensions, savings or occupational pensions. That is more reliable than relying on the state's promise that it will tax future generations to pay for pensions.
  Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman promised that he would be controversial. At what part of his speech will that start?
  Mr. Willetts: One of the other pleasures of serving under the hon. Member for Birkenhead on the Social Security Select Committee is that occasionally he comes up with ideas so radical and imaginative that we Conservative members find ourselves acting the role of the boring old greybeards. I know that we have in prospect an exciting pamphlet for him on pensions policy, which may be an example of that.
  Mr. Page: If my hon. Friend wants to be controversial, I find some of his remarks extremely controversial. His laid-back approach towards the demographic profile is unwise and unjustified. If I were him, I would be exceedingly careful about projecting that profile as a solution to our future.
  Mr. Willetts: I will not detain the House with a learned debate on the nature of the demographic change confronting the country. Suffice it to say that, in the 1960s and 1970s, we had an age-dependency ratio rather worse than the average for OECD countries. In the next century, we face the prospect of an age-dependency ratio rather better than that in other advanced OECD countries. That subject is obviously being discussed at the G7 summit this week, and quite rightly so. Anything that can be done to shift the burden of pension provision from the public to the private sector makes sense, but we do not face the sort of demographic crisis which confronts countries such as Japan.
  I hope that, in his concluding remarks, the Minister will range also into the wider aspects of the debate on occupational pensions. We look forward with keen anticipation to his first speech from the Dispatch Box—the first of many, no doubt. As occupational pension provision is covered by the estimate, I hope that he will give a signal to the occupational pension industry, which is seeking clear guidance on what will happen to the pension age.
  Almost all experts agree that the case for equalising the pension age at 65 is unassailable. That is widely accepted. I have not come across a single expert on social policy who, if he were given £3 billion by Father Christmas, would spend it on pensions for men aged 60 to 65. That is not a sensible priority. It is much more sensible to move towards a higher equal pension age of 65 for women. That is the trend in other advanced western countries and I hope that we shall participate in that trend.
  I hope also that there will be progress on establishing an age-related bonus for people who opt out of the state earnings-related pension scheme. To achieve success in encouraging people to opt out of SERPS and to take out personal pensions, a sensible framework of incentives is required. That means that the incentives have to be age-related. I hope that we shall hear more on the encouragement of personal pensions.
  I am concerned that the personal pension regime will experience the same difficulties as the Government's policy on share ownership. They had enormous success in spreading share ownership more widely, but insufficient success in making that share ownership deep. Similarly, the Government have had enormous success in increasing the take-up of personal pensions—5 million new personal pensions have been taken out. But those personal pensions need to be substantial. They need to be deep and valuable investments. That means encouraging employers wherever possible to contribute to personal pensions.
  I have been told by people in the industry that, at the moment, group personal pensions, which would provide the right incentive for employers to contribute to personal pension arrangements, are virtually impossible to organise in Britain because of the absurd regulations under the Financial Services Act 1986. It would be marvellous if encouragement could be given to group personal pensions as a way of ensuring that personal pension provision was deep as well as wide.
  I hope that the important connection between the occupational pension provision and the tax regime will be recognised in this debate. Having served for several years as the Chancellor's PPS, the Minister is in an ideal position —I can see him perking up—to have a broad view and to bring together the fundamental considerations of tax policy and those of pensions policy.
  518
  Is it right, for example, that tax rules oblige people when they retire to take the full income from their occupational pension immediately? There might be a lot of sense in allowing people to take a rather lower income initially and to continue to accumulate savings in their pension scheme so that if later they need nursing home provision or greater social services provision, they can take a higher pension. I hope that, in his keenly awaited debut, the Minister will be able to address some of those questions.
  6.42 pm
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy: As my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) will confirm, I am too new a Member of the House to remember the beginning of the Select Committee's review of pensions. When I joined the Committee last October, many months of work had already been completed.
  First, let me echo the welcome that has been given to the establishment of the pension law review committee, which I suspect has given rise to a sense of relief among those serving on the Select Committee. Had the Government not accepted the case for the establishment of that committee and had we been committed to doing the work ourselves, I for one would have felt many years older by now.
  I have been comforted by the fact that members and non-members of the Select Committee alike have confessed to finding the subject complex. I enjoyed our interview with Sir Peter Webster two days ago. Sir Peter was able to tell us little—in fact, he came to tell us how little he could tell us, as it is in the nature of his job as mediator that he shares confidential information with the parties between whom he is mediating—but he did tell us that this was the most complicated affair that he had encountered.
  I may not feel any less at sea, but it is a comfort to know that others also feel at sea in this very complicated affair. I commend Sir Peter's appointment as a mediator. I wish him success in his endeavours, and I feel that his role will be vital in persuading those who hold disputed assets to seek resolution of the disputes rather than allowing the matter to drag on in the courts.
  The criminal aspects of the affair have greatly curtailed the work of the Select Committee and have caused us problems. I shall not refer to those aspects except to say that, as a member of the Select Committee, I am very concerned about costs. Thousands of hours are being spent by lawyers, receivers and administrators and their support staff on work that is clearly essential, and it is worth putting on record the real fear that the money being recovered on behalf of the various creditors—not just the pensioners—is being quickly eroded. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead explained, he estimates that the figure will reach £50 million. I think that that is a conservative estimate, although I hope that it will not greatly exceed that.
  There are one or two people who regularly attend our open sessions, whose faces tell their own story—I refer to the representatives of the pensioners, who listen carefully to the comments of those whom we interview. I can see Mr. Ken Trench—the chairman of the Mirror Pensioners Action Group—in the Gallery, listening carefully to our debate.

  519
  We interviewed representatives of Price Waterhouse, Robson Rhodes, Buehler Phillips and Arthur Andersen —the four agencies referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead. We know the fees that are being charged by those four reputable and highly thought-of companies—fees no doubt commensurate with their standing—and I get the impression that the pensioners are not yet convinced that the labourers are worthy of their hire.
  The people representing those four agencies must be able to demonstrate not just to the Select Committee but to the pensioners that the work that they are doing justifies the costs that they are bringing in this case. They have some way to go in doing that, although I particularly commend the representatives of Arthur Andersen, who have impressed me by the openness of their approach and their readiness to share with us the details of their work.
  As a member of the Select Committee, my second concern is about the recovery process being undertaken in relation to Maxwell Communications Corporation. It became clear that the Law Debenture Corporation, as trustees for the pensioner group, is not being given observer status on the creditors' committee.
  I accept that there is not an organised conspiracy among the other creditors to keep the pensioners' representatives off the committee; however, the thought that, in trading the millions and millions of pounds worth of debt related to this whole sorry affair, major banks—including Barclays and banks in America—are swapping places on the creditors' committee at a time when representatives of the pensioners cannot participate in it, leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. I hope that that can be rectified in the near future.
  I should like to touch on the situation in the north-west, where almost every constituency has pensioners or deferred pensioners who are affected, either directly through the Mirror Group or through the hundreds of other companies that Maxwell bought up.
  As a member of the Select Committee on Social Security, I put on record my thanks to those hon. Members of all parties in the north-west who have worked to represent pensioners, although few pensioners in my constituency were affected. I am grateful to other hon. Members for the knowledge and expertise that they have brought to this matter.
  I do not wish to score a political point, but Robert Maxwell did not lay the ground rules as to how pension funds could be raided. I hope that the Government will take that on board in their dealings with the pension funds of the state enterprises that they currently own and are considering privatising.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: I would describe myself as one of the lay members of the original Maxwell pensioners group of Members of Parliament. More than 100 of us were active immediately the situation arose. Since then, much work has been done, particularly by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and by my hon. Friends the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) and for Dover (Mr. Shaw). On behalf of my constituents, I should like to thank them for their continuing work and assiduous approach.
  520
  I have a number of pensioners from a variety of Maxwell companies who were subjected to his blandishments, not only through written submissions to them when he took over their companies, but by his video film, which encouraged them to think that he, of all people, would look after them from the cradle to the grave. They faced an appalling situation and there has been real progress since those early days by the Government and the agencies that they established to deal with the problem. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on that action.
  Many points have been well covered in the debate and I shall not go over them again except to emphasise what has already been said: that the standing of the City took a terrible beating by the Maxwell example and it behoves the City to continue to play a full part in righting that wrong. The standing of particular companies in the City also took a beating, as did that of individuals. I support the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover concerning individuals who should not be running companies where they clearly carried out wrongdoing over the Maxwell pensions.
  Equally, in addressing the broader issue of pensions, it is important that, ultimately, the independence of more trustees on pension funds from the companies whose pensions they are running is established. It is difficult for staff representatives, for example, or company directors, who may also be pension trustees, to stand up against even more powerful people in a company who may wish to take action that is not correct in pension terms. I ask for a better balance in trustees.
  I used to work for Hambro's bank. All of us, as prospective pensioners, were grateful for the good offices of the senior people there who were trustees of the fund, because they handled it extremely well. We want to keep them doing that, but we also need to take action to deal with those who may not handle pensions properly. That needs to be covered for the future.
  As I said in an intervention, hon. Members cannot rest easy until all those pensioners receive restitution in full for what they are owed. By that, I mean not only current pensions, but pensions in the future. The roll-up of interest would have enabled those pension funds to keep pace with increases in the cost of living, or other commitments that those pensions had in them when people joined them in terms of improvements over the years. These are big targets to achieve, but I believe that, on the progress achieved so far, their achievement is not out of our reach.
  I congratulate the Government on their action so far. I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister who is to make his first contribution on this important issue. I hope that he will prove to us that the Maxwell pensioners' future will be safe in his hands and those of his right hon. and hon. Friends.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: I shall resist the temptation to be sycophantic towards the Government. That will not be difficult because, with the exception of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), Conservative Members have spoken with an air of complacency and self-satisfaction which is misplaced.
  The hon. Member for Havant valuably suggested that the demographic time bomb will not be as great as expected. At most, it will occur for a 10-year period, and after that there will be no problem. But that demographic

  521
  time bomb was the reason that the Government degraded SERPS. The Maxwell pensioners, the deferred Maxwell pensioners and everyone else are now in considerable peril. The great problem is that the Select Committee's report might well dissuade people from some of the advantages of occupational pensions and put them into the difficult waters of personal pension schemes.
  Conservative Members have boasted about the 5 million in those schemes. When 4 million were in the schemes a distinguished actuary, Bryn Davies, said that at least 1 million had been persuaded against their financial interests and they should opt back into SERPS. Neither the Government nor anyone else will advise them on that.
  The situation is far worse today. I gave examples of those who have not kept up their contributions. We know about only a tiny group in one quarter of last year who had been in schemes for fewer than two years. Of them, 44,000 have allowed their schemes to lapse. They have no personal pension scheme, no SERPS and no occupational scheme. They can look forward to the future with fear.
  Choice is a fine thing, but it means nothing unless one can make an informed choice. It is virtually impossible to make the choices that are necessary now. On joining a personal pension scheme, the first matter to consider is age. Generally, a lower age should be a great advantage. Last week, the distinguished firm of actuaries Bacon and Woodrow produced the valuable expert calculation that the pivotal age was 47 for men and 39 for women. Even more valuably, it went through what advice was on offer from the insurance companies. That varied from 40 to 52 for men and 30 and 47 for women. That means that on that crucial decision, on the so-called best advice, many women will be going into pension schemes nine years too soon and others eight years too long.
  But age is not the only factor when deciding whether to join the scheme. Other decisions and calculations have to be made that are impossible for a lay person. On the question of terminating contributions to a personal pension scheme—a serious matter because the schemes have been in existence for only a short time, a maximum of six years—Bacon and Woodrow said that many firms are charging two years' premiums for people to pull out. Those who have been bribed to come out of the scheme by all kinds of incentives, by attacking SERPS and denigrating its value, find themselves in that dilemma.
  A fortnight ago, a financial adviser from Independent Financial Services in Paignton, Devon, gave a typical example of that. It is a remarkable story. He wrote:
  "We are acting for a client who effected an Albany Life retirement annuity seven years ago for a monthly contribution of £40. So far the value built up within the contract amounts to just over £4,100.
  The client wishes to transfer, because of changes in his circumstances, to another fund provider. The transfer value offered him is £2,700. A huge £1,400 is being deducted by the existing provider.
  The firm concerned asks how the company could justify the equivalent of three years' contributions from a retirement annuity that has been in force for just seven years. It asks:
  "Do the financial advisers selling Albany's products realise how high the charges are?"
  The implications of that question are serious, because companies such as Albany Life are giving advice.
  522
  On Monday, while I was driving to the House of Commons, I heard a splendind programme, "Money Box", on which a man rang in to describe his situation. I was so surprised to hear it that I checked with the producers of the programme to see whether the figures given where right.
  The firm that the person described was a reputable body, the Scottish Amicable Life Assurance Society, which was behaving in a rather less than amicable way with him. He is in business on his own; he took out a flexible retirement plan and paid £3,000 in the first year. He had trouble in the second year with the recession and his contribution to the flexible plan was £1,500. He has just discovered that the society deducted commission of £1,700 from the total because he had disturbed the scheme. That is little short of criminal, but it is not unusual.
  Virtually all the 5 million people who joined personal pension schemes have seen almost the whole value of their bribe, the initial contribution given to them, disappear in the first year as a result of commission charges taken by commission-hungry salesmen and by administration charges. The pensioners' funds are virtually worthless after that period. They will live to regret their decision to join the personal pension scheme.
  They will not look back with satisfaction, although the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) claimed that they would. By joing such personal pensions, they have been cheated out of SERPS, which was a sound scheme, which could have been amended and which would have got through the demographic changes in the next century.
  We have a generation of people who should be looking forward to their retirement and to an income that is assured. Instead, there are 5 million people who are not looking forward to a pension scheme—they are not pension schemes—but who are contributing to saving schemes with no assured outcome. They cannot work out what changes there will be in the stock market by the time they retire. They could lose dramatically. We have a generation of people on personal pensions who can look forward to an uncertain future and a future of fear about their finances in their retirement.
  7.2 pm
  Mrs. Llin Golding: I welcome the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) to his first debate as Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. I think that I have worked out the significance of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) immediately transferring him back to the Treasury team; it was to remind him to bring money.
  This evening, the Government should take the reputed advice of the Foreign Secretary and do something for once just because it is the right thing to do. They should give justice to the victims of the massive Maxwell fraud. The members of the Maxwell pension schemes, especially the majority who are not yet pensioners, need us to continue to give attention to their plight. They are concerned that the impression is being given that their problem has been solved. That is far from being true.
  I congratulate the Select Committee and especially its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, on their continuing effort to obtain justice for the members of the Maxwell pension scheme. The Maxwell Pensioners Action Committee is anxious that we and the public understand that enormous problems remain.

  523
  Those problems are the failure so far to recover the assets taken from the pension funds by Maxwell, which found their way into the banks and other financial institutions, the refusal of the insurance companies to settle the claims from the trustees, the difficulty of sorting out who is entitled to what from the common investment fund, uncertainty about section 58B settlements and the bulk transfer claims, such as that undermining the AGB scheme. One trustee pointed out that the returns so far have been small and has put the amount still outstanding at £440 million. He points out that pension funds that are being wound up need even greater assets than those that are continuing.
  A considerable amount of the assets taken by Maxwell has been tracked down—to the value, I am told, of £188 million. However, it is one thing to discover where the money is and another thing to get it back. Except for NatWest, the banks and other financial institutions holding assets given as security against loans are reluctant to part with them.
  The trading debt has increased the difficulties. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, one thing is certain. On present form, the matter will take a long time to settle. No writs of claim have yet been issued by the trustees. The insurance companies appear to be adamant that they will not pay up the £75 million claimed by the schemes because of material non-disclosure. As the action group put it, that amounts to saying:
  "fraud was going on at the time of the renewal. You did not tell the institutions about that fraud. Therefore the policy is void and you cannot claim for the fraud."
  As I have said, there is even difficulty about the allocation of moneys in the common investment fund, although it is thought that that will be sorted out fairly shortly. I have been told that there are difficulties with the implementation of section 58B of the Social Security Act 1990 which makes any deficiency in pension funds that have to be wound up a debt on the employer company. Will the Minister clarify what payments have been made when he winds up the debate?
  Given all the problems that threaten the viability of the Maxwell pension schemes, is it any wonder that those who depend on them, especially the deferred pensioners, are so worried? Their worries were not dispelled when they read that the trustees of the various Maxwell pension funds had told the Select Committee that they were guardedly optimistic that, within three to five years, recoveries would be sufficient to cover in full the pensions of all current pensioners and those of most deferred pensioners.
  Those pensioners ask the obvious question. What happens until the recoveries are made? What about the annual increases? Which deferred pensioners will not be covered? What happens if, as at least one trustee believes, the hopes expressed by the other trustees are too optimistic? Whether one takes an optimistic or pessimistic view, it is clear that there is an obvious need for the Government to give substantial further aid.
  Some help has been given by the Government which has been acknowledged by many hon. Members who have spoken tonight. A £2·5 million grant was initially given to tide over the funds, but that has now all gone. Help is now being given from a trust fund which was created under the chairmanship of Sir John Cuckney, to whom tribute has been paid by many hon. Members tonight.
  524
  The fund has raised just over £6 million from outside voluntary donations. When it was established, the chairman of the National Association of Pension Funds, Brian Macmahon, said:
  "We hope that the trust fund will grow to make up most, if not all, of the eventual shortfall in the Maxwell funds."
  I am afraid that the City has not been very generous.
  The Secretary of State announced the deferral of state scheme premiums to the national insurance fund in respect of the payment of guaranteed minimum pensions for as long as he is satisfied that
  "it would not be in the best interests of scheme members to enforce payment."
  A press release claimed that that was equivalent to an interest-free loan of £100 million. However, according to outside experts, the value of that depends on whether it means postponement until after the liabilities to deferred members as well as those to existing pensioners have been met.
  If it means only deferment until the liabilities of existing pensioners have been met, it will give nothing new—certainly not £100 million. To be helpful and for it to be something more than a public relations exercise, the Minister must defer payment until the needs of the deferred pensioners have been met. As the Minister has been asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), what is the situation? The Minister must clear this up today. If the Government's claim to have lent £100 million interest-free proves to be wrong, there is even more reason why we should question their refusal to do more to clear up the unholy mess.
  The position of the Secretary of State has been clear from the start. He claims that no Government could accept a duty to make good losses resulting from fraud or theft of savings. Ministers have added the argument that in any case, if they were to underwrite those pensions, the banks and others who hold vast sums in security against loans would be under less pressure to make settlements. These arguments understandably are rejected totally by pension scheme members. They hold the Government to be as responsible for the loss of their savings as they were for those of the Barlow Clowes investors—who, incidentally, received £160 million.
  The Government were responsible in two ways. They provided a useless system of controls and failed to implement an EC directive. On the first point, there can be no doubt that their dogmatic and doctrinaire encouragement of the self-regulation of the occupational pensions sector proved to be a disaster. Given the massive potential for fraud which Maxwell exploited, there is no justification for the self-regulation of the conduct of pension funds.
  The Securities and Investments Board report showed that the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation's involvement with the Maxwell companies both before and after Maxwell's death was woefully inadequate. The SIB has not for legal reasons published the whole IMRO report. When it does so, pensioners believe that it will establish even further the responsibility of the Government.
  The second reason for holding the Government responsible for the plight of Maxwell pensioners is their refusal to implement Community directive 80/987 of 20 October 1980, which requires, among other things, that EC member states ensure that necessary measures are taken to protect the pensions interests of ex-employees. I know that the Government will argue that they have

  525
  complied because there are provisions in the Insolvency Act 1986 and statutory instruments that provide for the protection of contributions to pension funds. But these do not give required statutory protection for pension benefits. In view of that neglect, the pensioners are determined to get justice from the EC if they do not get it from the Government.
  Ministers will know that the European Court has made it clear that, if the Government have not implemented the directive, the employee is entitled to damages. They will also know of the several thousand petitions that were handed to the President of the European Commission in Strasbourg in January, and that Ivy Needham has now been awarded legal aid on appeal to have her case for damages against the Government prepared for presentation to the European Court. What nonsense it is that Ivy Needham, for a pension of £52 a month, should have to expose the incompetence and callousness of the Government before she can obtain justice.
  The culpability of the Government is clear. They share with Maxwell responsibility for the disaster. Clearly, had they not been blinded by their phobia of giving protection to employees, that would not have happened. They ought now to be doing everything that they possibly can to remove the anxiety from the members of the Maxwell pension scheme and to enable them to have a secure retirement.
  The Government must make it clear during the period of recovery of the missing money that they will make resources available to cover the pensions. Their argument that the financial institutions would be less likely to pay up does not hold water. Those banks, insurance companies and other institutions would be far more likely to pay up if they were faced by trustees who were actively supported by the Government. The need for the Government to accept responsibility goes to the heart of the matter.
  I am told, however, that there are other smaller actions which the Government could take to give help to trustees. One is to reduce even further the difficulties of the trustees in obtaining information from the liquidators and others to tackle the problem of VAT payments for schemes where the company has gone into liquidation.
  I know that the reference to the Occupational Pensions Advisory Service on the Order Paper is a peg on which to hang a wider debate. However, I would not like to miss an opportunity to thank that organisation for all the work that it is doing and particularly to those volunteers who do so much good work and give so much of their time and effort.
  A reference to occupational pensions in general is also included on the Order Paper. I will not, however, repeat all that I have said previously about the need to provide security for and meet the legitimate aspirations of members of pension funds. I await the report of the Goode committee with great hopes that it will end the scandal of employers who milk pension funds for their own purposes without care for their employees and of the Government who let them do it. In the meantime, I appeal to the Government to give help to those who suffered and still suffer from the Maxwell disaster.
  7.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague): This has been a wide-ranging and interesting debate with some fascinating features. Foremost among them was the fear of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who opened the debate, that it might degenerate into excessive sycophancy. A non-partisan atmosphere prevailed through most of the debate, despite the attempts of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) to inject some acrimony into it. In the end it took the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), whom I thank for her welcome to the Front Bench, to bring some real acrimony into the debate.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House may think on reflection that to allege that the Government share with Robert Maxwell the responsibility for the problems of Maxwell pensioners is an allegation too far. It is certainly one that I wish to reject at the outset. The debate has also been interesting because some hon. Members have spoken up strongly on behalf of their constituents. I respect them for doing so.
  Some called on the Government not to do certain things as well as to do certain things. One or two called on the Government to adopt a certain policy but not to say so —a requirement that presents particular challenges for me in making a response from the Front Bench. But I shall do my best in the time available to respond to some of the points that have been made.
  The debate has highlighted some difficult issues and several aspects of occupational pension provision in which many right hon. and hon. Members believe that there is a case for changing the law. Not surprisingly, much comment has focused on the position of the Maxwell pension schemes, and I shall dwell on the Maxwell affair in some detail in a moment.
  It is worth remembering that the debate also takes place against the background of greatly expanded pension provision in Britain in recent years. The growth of occupational pension schemes has been of huge importance in lifting the living standards of the average pensioner well above the levels in the 1960s or 1970s.
  That is why the questions raised in the debate tonight are so important and why issues surrounding the future of occupational pension schemes—whether it be the equalisation of benefits for men and women, freedom of choice in pension provision, or the framework of regulation and law within which pension schemes operate —deserve detailed and careful consideration.
  The Government have clear objectives for the future of pension provision. They include encouraging individual responsibility and enabling the working population to make adequate financial provision for retirement; encouraging freedom of choice between alternative forms of pension provision; ensuring equality between men and women following the decision of the European Court of Justice in the Barber case; and improving the security of pension rights in response to the widespread and wholly understandable public concern in the wake of the Maxwell affair.
  Before I deal with what should be done in future, I remind the House that in recent years we have taken some significant steps in the direction of achieving the objectives that I have outlined. We have given individuals the right to opt out of their employer's occupational pension scheme,

  527
  to make voluntary contributions to improve their pension provision and to contract out of SERPS into an appropriate personal pension.
  The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), who sadly is not with us for the moment, criticised the history of personal pensions. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention and that of the House to a leaflet, entitled "Thinking about a Personal Pension", which was launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a couple of weeks ago. It was widely unpublicised despite the best efforts of the Department of Social Security. However, for all those contemplating a personal pension, it is well worth reading.
  Millions of people have used the opportunity presented by personal pensions to enhance their pension provision in a way that they could not have done before. In addition, we have tried to ensure that individuals can make a more informed choice about their pension provision.
  We may have further to go, but we have introduced regulations which place a statutory obligation on schemes to provide greater disclosure of information and there are more controls to provide for secure pension provision. Since 1990, employers have been unable to take taxable refunds from scheme surpluses if they have not first guaranteed pension increases in line with prices up to a maximum of 5 per cent. a year.
  Regulations now restrict to 5 per cent. the amount that pension schemes can invest in associated or connected companies and individuals can now obtain more help if they are dissatisfied with their pension provider. I join the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme in paying tribute to the work of the occupational pensions advisory service, which represents extremely good value for money for the grant in aid that it receives from the Government. It has now been given secure financial backing and the first pensions ombudsman was appointed in April 1991 to provide an independent avenue of redress for people who have suffered injustice at the hands of their pension schemes.
  The pensions registry has been set up to help scheme members trace past pension rights. The schemes must pay a levy which pays for the register and for consumer protection measures like the ombudsman. Considerable progress has been made on these issues, but I recognise that the principal concern expressed by all hon. Members has been the Maxwell affair and its aftermath.
  The Government welcome the Social Security Select Committee's continuing interest in the recovery of the Maxwell pension schemes' assets. We share its concerns over the plight of the pensioners and the need for the recovery process to move rapidly towards a conclusion. I understand the anxiety that Maxwell pensioners suffer thinking about the uncertainty of payments in future. The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) referred to that anxiety. It is a considerable tribute to the hon. Gentleman's constituent Ivy Needham that, although I have not yet met her, her name is very familiar to me after only a few weeks in office.
  The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South asked whether I would be prepared to meet Ivy Needham and other Maxwell pensioners in Leeds. In a way, that will save me writing a letter, as I was about to write to Ivy Needham to tell her that I would be very happy to meet her arid her colleagues in Leeds. They are allowed to shout at me as much as they like, because I understand how strongly they feel about these matters.
  528
  The Government's response to the legacy of chaos left behind by Robert Maxwell has helped to facilitate considerable progress. We do not want—and have not tried—to give the impression that the problem has been solved. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme referred to that impression. The problem has not been solved. However, the initiatives that we have taken have ensured that pensions continue to be paid while work continues to recover the missing pension scheme assets.
  Last summer, we made available £2·5 million in funding, which the hon. Member for Birkenhead rightly insisted on calling taxpayers' money. I only wish that he could sometimes make those on the Opposition Front Bench as conscious as he is that Government money is taxpayers' money. We provided that emergency funding last year to help pension schemes pay pensions.
  That role has now been taken on by the Maxwell pensioners trust which we set up under the chairmanship of Sir John Cuckney. The trust has raised more than £6·3 million—enough money to pay pensions for another three years. We have therefore created a substantial breathing space for the pension schemes to make further asset recoveries and to pursue such other claims for damages or against employers as the trustees and liquidators think fit.
  Last October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a further important measure to help the Maxwell pension schemes when he agreed to use his discretion to defer the collection of state scheme premiums. It may be helpful if I say a few words about that, because several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), have raised that point.
  Currently, three of the Maxwell pension schemes, representing two thirds of all pension scheme members affected by Maxwell, have contracted back into the state earnings-related pension scheme. Currently some £2·7 million of annual pension entitlements of those scheme members are being met through SERPS. Those sums will increase as more pensioners reach pension age.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has exercised his discretion to postpone collection of the state scheme premiums that would normally be payable and which, for those three schemes, amount to some £100 million. That is important additional assistance to rebuilding the Maxwell schemes, particularly in the shorter term. As long as my right hon. Friend is satisfied that it would not be in the interests of scheme members to enforce payment, he can choose not to do so, but it would be quite wrong, and a considerable mistake on the Government's part, to give general guarantees or blanket assurances.
  I would not want scheme trustees to think that they can relax their efforts to achieve anything less than the maximum possible restoration of their assets. We will continue to discuss the exercise of that discretion with scheme trustees on a scheme-by-scheme basis. However, we have no intention of enforcing the payment of state scheme premiums automatically when a scheme has covered its liabilities for pensions in payment.
  As a result of the Government's initiative, the pension scheme trustees and the liquidators have not been left to untangle the web of confusion woven by Robert Maxwell alone. They have at their disposal the considerable services of Sir John Cuckney. Many hon. Members have referred to his outstanding work, and they were right to do so. He and the Maxwell pensions unit continue to encourage

  529
  informal methods of dispute resolution, such as mediation, rather than lengthy and costly legal action in the courts. The Maxwell pensions unit continues to be available to assist the pension scheme trustees and the liquidators and administrators in any way it can.
  Hon. Members have complimented civil servants on their good work in managing the Maxwell pensions unit. I can reassure those who raised the matter that the return to his native Department—as one hon. Member put it—of the civil servant heading the unit does not imply that the unit is ceasing its work. I expect its work to continue for some time. It is in very capable hands. The civil servant in question has become one of the trustees of the Maxwell pensioners trust and he will continue his work in that way.
  Over the 18 months that have elapsed since Robert Maxwell died, I am well aware that the long-term position of some of the pension scheme members remains uncertain. However, we have made visible progress. The Headington pension plan, for example, which was unable to make any pension payments, has been able to resume paying 75 per cent. of its pensions. The remaining 25 per cent. continues to be provided by the Maxwell pensioners trust. For the longer term, the pension scheme trustees recently told the Select Committee that they were now guardedly optimistic about meeting their pension liabilities in full.
  The Select Committee expressed concern in its report on the length of time that was being taken to release funds to the pension schemes from the common investment fund. Sir John and the MPU have given active encouragement to the trustees and liquidators who have recently been able to agree each scheme's minimum share of the £173 million currently held in the common investment fund. The minimum shares in total add up to 80 per cent. of the fund leaving only 20 per cent. in question.
  That has enabled an initial advance of some 16 million to be made to the pension schemes and it has provided the first step in the solution to this problem. I hope that agreement will soon be reached on resolving the remaining issues. That will enable a full allocation of the common investment fund to be made and will clarify the long-term asset position of the schemes.
  Some hon. Members referred to the gap and wanted to know what will happen when the extent of the gap is clarified. However, it is still too early to say what the gap will be. A substantial amount of work remains to be done. The Maxwell empire kept appalling records of what had happened to different transactions; they wove a very complex web.
  I join the chairman of the SIB, who appeared before the Select Committee yesterday, in urging City institutions to resolve speedily disputes over pension scheme assets. I hope that all parties involved will work constructively with the trustees and the liquidators over the next few months to secure a speedy resolution of all these complex claims.
  Mr. Frank Field: Would the Under-Secretary support the SIB if it paid over the fines of City institutions to the Maxwell pension fund?
  Mr. Hague: All that I am prepared to say for the purpose of this debate is that I very much support what the hon. Gentleman said about urging everyone to come to a resolution as speedily as possible. For tonight, I must leave
  530
  it at that. I know that other hon. Members wish to intervene and I do not wish to take too many minutes of the time that hon. Members are hoping to spend on education matters.
  Clearly, there is much work still to be done before the pensioners' distress and anxiety can be relieved. The Government will continue to support Sir John Cuckney in his efforts to bring a speedy conclusion to this affair.
  The Maxwell saga has contributed to the raising of wider issues about the regulation of pension funds, many of which have been touched on in this debate. The Goode committee is continuing its review of the framework of law and regulation within which occupational pension schemes operate. The Government look forward, as I am sure does the rest of the country, to receiving that report towards the end of September.
  Some hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page), put strong views about what should happen after that. It would be wrong of me to second-guess that committee's recommendations or to comment on proposals that might pre-empt the committee's careful consideration of these important and complex issues, but the Government look forward to receiving and studying the report and hearing the comments of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House on its recommendations.
  Within the lifetime of this Parliament, the Government and the House will need to take a number of decisions about different aspects of occupational pensions. Taken together, they will have far-reaching implications for tomorrow's work force, for future pensioners and for society as a whole, as we grapple with the consequences of demographic change. No doubt the Select Committee will play its part in helping us to cope with the intricacies of these decisions.
  There are many things that we need to do. We must legislate for equal state pension ages for men and women. Once the European Court of Justice's decision in the Coloroll case is available, we will need to address the implications for occupational pension schemes and take account of the consequences for contracting-out arrangements.
  Meanwhile, we are committed to ensuring that personal pensions remain attractive across the age range, and we are considering a structure of age-related rebates to achieve this. We also want to take into account recent work on the treatment of pension rights on divorce—a very important subject in its own right.
  We shall be seeking to bring about a framework for occupational pensions which is stable, while allowing pension vehicles of various types to develop and flourish; which is secure, in order to give people confidence, whatever type of pension provision they make: and which is fair to employers, employees, pensioners and deferred pensioners.
  This has been a constructive, though short, debate and has been helpful in setting the scene and identifying some of the issues. We are all indebted to the hon. Member for Birkenhead and the other members of the Select Committee for the careful attention that they have paid to pensions issues in recent months, and for providing the opportunity for this debate.
  The debate was concluded, and the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).

ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1993–94
  Class VII, Vote 8

    Education Spending
    [Relevant documents: First Report from the Education Committee of Session 1992–93 on The Department for Education's Expenditure Plans 1992–93 to 1994–95 (House of Commons Paper No. 305) and the Government Response thereto (House of Commons Paper No. 695); Report of the Department for Education and Office for Standards in Education: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1993–94 to 1995–96 (Cm. 2210)]
    Motion made, and Question proposed.
    That a further sum, not exceeding £15,520,183,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on revenue support grant, on residual payments of rate support grants, on payment of non-domestic rates to receiving authorities in England, on a grant providing support to certain receiving authorities affected by changes in the calculations underlying revenue support grant as a result of population change, on a grant providing transitional support for certain local authorities, on a grant to compensate 75 per cent. of the expenditure incurred by them on preparation work for the council tax, on payments to specified bodies and the Commission for Local Administration in England, on payments for Valuation Office Agency rating and valuation services, on payments to meet the expenses of valuation tribunals, and on payments in respect of expenditure by the Local Government Commission.—[Mr. Forth.]
    7.35 pm
    Sir Malcolm Thornton: This, of course, is a notable first for the Education Select Committee in so far as we have been able to secure our share of what is by any definition a very short period of debating time for two important subjects—the one about social security and now the one about education. I would like to see all Select Committee reports given time to be debated on the Floor of the House, so that the House would have the opportunity of sharing with the members of the Select Committees some of the evidence that they have received and the conclusions that they have drawn from that evidence.
    I am particularly pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education on the Front Bench. With his customary courtesy, he dropped me a line to say that he had been able to rearrange an engagement for this evening as he was particularly anxious to share in what he, too, recognises as a notable first. I thank him for giving up what is, after all, a very precious Thursday evening when he could be elsewhere. I also thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who, I understand, will be contributing to the debate a little later.
    Our report, which was published on 11 February 1993, followed the progression of reports which this Committee and its predecessor Committees made on Department for Education, formerly Department of Education and Science, expenditure. It follows, therefore, a pattern that
    532
    has been established over the years, in which we have sought to do a number of things. Perhaps the most important has been to try to improve the presentation of the figures so that they can be more readily understood by more people.
    As we discovered in our recent deliberations with the officials of the DFE, there is considerable difficulty in finding one's way through the tables of figures and the statistics which make up the running of a very intricate and complicated Department. I believe that my colleagues would wish me to pay tribute to the Department for the fact that improvements have been made in the presentation of the information. However, to use a term that we all know well, there is still room for improvement, and we hope to see continuing improvement in the future.
    I want to draw attention to three points which arise from our report and which I believe are worthy of attention.
    The first relates to plans. Although the total of local authority expenditure, nearly half of which goes on education, is now planned and controlled by the Government, the Department publishes no plans for spending by local authorities. We have recommended that the least that should happen is the breaking down of the total into sub-blocks—under-fives, primary, secondary, post-16, and other—and that we should be able to look at the outturn and spending for the coming year, which should be presented in terms of these blocks.
    We also stress the point of accountability. This was a matter that exercised the Committee quite considerably. It is vital for people at every level, whether they be school governors, parents, local councillors, Members of Parliament or whatever, to be able to identify quite clearly who is responsible for the various elements of expenditure within our education system.
    Questions have been presented to successive Secretaries of State on this subject which have left the Committee still unwilling to accept that this vacuum of accountability should be allowed to continue. The Committee is saying that there should be greater accountability and that efforts should he made to find out exactly who is responsible for what.
    As a former local authority man, I can understand the difficulties as regards what comes from the centre and is hypothecated by statute, or whatever, and what is delegated to the rim, as it were, in terms of the local authority, and now, with the changed legislation, is delegated to yet another rim, the schools. I know that my hon. Friends who have been members of local authorities will share my view that there is a vacuum. We all know that it is exploited by hon. Members on both sides of the House, as they can point the finger at someone else.
    In the crucial area of education spending, it is important that we should have direct accountability and the ability to ask those who make the decisions and are responsible for them some questions about the whys and wherefores. I hope that the Department will examine that issue so that we can anticipate some improvements next year.
    The Committee experienced some difficulties with the statistics in the report and we have considerable sympathy with the Department. The collation of the returns from local authorities is quite unacceptably bad. The fact that, some eight months after the turn of the financial year, we have fewer than 50 per cent. of the returns is not acceptable by any standards. If Parliament—and that means the

    533
    Select Committee—is to scrutinise the figures in any sensible way, we must improve the way in which the information is collected. That would allow us to look more critically at the outturn of education spending and examine accountability in a more sensible and meaningful way.
    Another point in our report concerns the amount of capital expenditure on grant-maintained schools. We concluded that there was certainly an imbalance as emphasis had been placed on capital expenditure for grant-maintained schools, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said clearly that it was a matter of policy.
    Although I accept that there are other means available to local authorities, such as the use of capital receipts being transferred from one area of expenditure to another, the constraints under which the vast majority of local authorities operate are such that, in reality, that option is seldom possible or available to them.
    We are concerned about the disparity of funding as the gap is shown to widen over the next few years. That is unsupportable, given the state of repair of many of our schools—an issue which the Select Committee has considered for many years and which must be addressed.
    The principle of grant-maintained schools is very much part of the Government's policy, but in order to have fairness we should ensure that state schools—the local education authority maintained schools—are at least given the same opportunities.
    I ask my right hon. Friend to look critically at whether the expectation that the money will be there is to be realised. There was a distinct feeling among members of the Committee that the belief that that would happen was a triumph of hope over expectation.
    I shall now make one of two wider remarks. I recognise that we are short of time and other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. The debate is essentially about the estimates, and we spend vast sums of money on education. Therefore, any comments which affect education and the way in which money is spent must be valid.
    In recent months, we have seen problems right across the educational spectrum; problems arising from the main principles of the Government's legislation, the national curriculum and the issues that flow from it. I have said on many occasions and reiterate tonight that those principles are absolutely right. However, I find it inconceivable that, so many years after I believed the debate about the principles of a national curriculum, the principles of rigour, the principles of testing and assessment to be over, that debate still continues.
    I believe that there is evidence of widespread support in schools for the principle of the national curriculum and that the excitement about the entitlement of every child in the country to a certain basic level of education can be taken as read.
    Few people who work in education and in schools would dispute the need for rigour in the system and some means of testing and assessing. Those words assume different meanings for different people. Perhaps we all go back to our own childhood too often and try to relate to a world which, if it ever existed, is more in people's imagination than in reality.
    534
    Deficiencies have occurred in the detail and the implementation. I have said that putting legislation on the statute book is to some extent the easier part of the exercise. What is vital is how that change is managed and implemented. We have seen some polarisation in the implementation of the reforms which can be described only as unfortunate.
    It cannot work without partnership—the partnership that we all recognise to be vital between school and home and the equally essential partnership that I believe also to be vital between the Government and schools and those who work in education. We have to do everything in our power to ensure that the polarisation that has taken place is reversed and we must bring people together to talk about the implementation.
    A great deal is said about the Dearing review, which I believe is broadly welcomed. We await with great interest Sir Ron Dearing's recommendations. I believe that he is taking evidence from anyone who cares to give it, as well as seeking advice from various groups. At this stage, I have no reservations about the opportunities for people to contribute to that review.
    Sir Ron Dearing has shown himself to be a man of independent thought, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked him to address four specific questions. I hope that the Dearing review presents more than just an opportunity to look at how the system is working; it should give everyone an opportunity to take one step backwards from the current confrontation.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend will acknowledge that, while there is clearly a short-term problem that has to be examined by Sir Ron Dearing, there are other problems which perhaps need medium and longer term solutions. If Sir Ron Dearing does the first part of his job as well as I hope he will—indeed, he must if we are to make progress in this debate—there will be other matters he can address also by continuing the vital consultation processes.
    As far as the reforms are concerned, we should see a continuous process of fine tuning and improvement. Above all else, the acid test has to be practicality. Will it work and, if it works, will it deliver what we want?
    The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): I am listening with care to my hon. Friend's remarks. He will be aware that, as chairman of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, Sir Ron Dearing will, for the term of his office, have a continuing role in reviewing precisely the subjects to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Sir Malcolm Thornton: I am aware of that, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for confirming the point. Seeing Sir Ron as an independent figure—as a bridge over which people can walk to transfer views from one side to the other—is critical. It is also important for my right hon. Friend to realise that if Sir Ron is to do his job, he must continue to show, as he has shown so far, his independence.
    It is always open to Government to accept or reject advice. While that is right, so long as we can be sure that the advice is objective—I have in the past said that I have not always been sure that it has been objective—at least we shall know that the people concerned, about whom I have spoken, have had an opportunity to contribute.
    If we are really serious about having a mass, high level system of education, we must recognise that the changes implemented over the years have been vital. But I make no

    535
    apology for reiterating my earlier point: that that cannot be achieved without co-operation. Secretaries of State have the right—I defend my right hon. Friend's right in the matter, just as I defended the right of a predecessor of his, Baroness Williams of Crosby—to put forward policies, and we and others have the right to challenge them. But once those policies have been put forward and the principles decided, it behoves everyone to try to make them work.
    The Secretary of State must lead from the front in that exercise. He knows better than anyone that the polarisation that has existed for some time must be undone. We trust the Dearing review will produce sensible proposals. I hope that everybody—including people in the trade unions who have perhaps used the present situation to exaggerate matters and undermine some of the basic principles to which I referred, about which I thought there had been agreement years ago but which have been dragged back into the arena—is serious about wanting to achieve what we all wish to achieve. If so, we must take a step backwards so that we may take several steps forward to meet each other.
    Too many people are adopting preconceived ideas about the reforms which most people agree are absolutely necessary. Teachers, Ministers, trade unionists and everybody else accept that only one group of people matters—not teachers or Ministers, but the children in our schools for whom the education system exists. If we can remember that, we shall make progress, and in doing so we shall achieve what everybody, inside and outside education, wants—a systematic and controlled improvement in an education system that must serve Britain into the middle of the next century.
    7.53 pm
    Mr. David Jamieson: The debate is helping to highlight the difference of view across the Floor of the House. Education is described in the document in the language of management, finance, systems and constant tinkering. In contrast, my hon. Friend and I see education not just as a means of enhancing individuals' life changes but as an investment for society at large.
    That is why we would have liked to see in the document a reference to spending on nursery education, because that would be giving the best possible start to all children. We want children to be taught by the best and most highly qualified teachers. We reject totally the notion of a mum's army. We want high-quality teachers and high-quality teaching, and we want people with the qualifications to bring that about.
    We contrast that with the spectre of the profession now, laden with bureaucracy. I shall concentrate my remarks on the need for the accountability of funds in the system of schooling. After all, we ate told in the document that next year nearly £l 7 billion of taxpayers' money will be spent on the education system. We want that money to be clearly accountable to the taxpayer in the proper manner. Even the document says that local authorities should be accountable to their electorates. We do not disagree with that.
    We believe that if a local education authority can be voted in to do a job, people locally should also have the power to vote an LEA out, if that is what they want. To have effective accountability of the substantial sums of
    536
    taxpayers' money about which we are speaking, it must be as near to the people as possible, and particularly near those who pay the taxes and receive the services. It is unquestionable that over the years LEAs have served us well, but unfortunately they are now being blamed for many of the supposed ills of the education system.
    The Government have created a need for change in the funding arrangements, with policies for opting out, by creating grant-maintained schools. I shall not tonight argue the principle of GM schools, although we have not seen the predicted avalanche. The policy is now progressing at a snail's pace, despite the cajoling that has occurred and the bribes that have been given.
    To fund the GM schools we need a funding agency, Which is yet another quango to be added to the long list of quangos. In recent years, the Conservatives have found a new enthusiasm for quangos that was not shared by former Governments. For example, Baroness Thatcher, when Prime Minister, said in answer to a parliamentary question in 1980:
    "We shall hope to make more progress in the future by reducing further the number of quangos".—[Official Report, 4 December 1980; Vol. 995, c. 424.]
    A few months later, the same Prime Minister, when again asked about quangos, said:
    "We were able to announce yesterday a further reduction of 140 or so in the quangos. That is very good news".—[Official Report, 19 May 1981; Vol. 4, c. 151.]
    Yet today, in the post-Thatcher renaissance era of Conservatism, the greatest growth industry in Britain is quangos. Who are the unelected, independent-minded people who are free from party politics and who sit on quangos?
    Mr. Don Foster: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to latest estimates, quangos are now assumed to be responsible for one fifth of all public expenditure?
    Mr. Jamieson: I was aware of that and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing it out. This week, a question was tabled asking about the representatives on the Further Education Funding Council and about their political affiliations. I gather that two members of that body, a Mr. Bennett and a Mr. Fallon, were both Tory Members until 1992. Mr. Bennett is described by Roth in Parliamentary Profiles as a
    "hard-Right Thatcherite educator".
    When the Tories fail at the ballot box in local elections, they then denigrate and undermine the work of councils. To regain local control, they dispose of the democratic institutions and replace them with quangos run by Tory placemen—in this case, failed Tory politicians. It is the new philosophy. If the Tories cannot gain the confidence of the people, they go through the back door and exercise control through quangos. Those quangos, freed from democratically accountable, meddling councillors, develop rather as the Welsh Development Agency has done.
    Of course, I hope that organisations will not develop that way because a report from the Public Accounts Committee published today claims that the WDA is run like a private fiefdom. Is that what we are to expect of the funding agency, which is charged with spending £17 billion of taxpayers' money? Will it be run as a private fiefdom for the benefit of those who serve on it, paying consultancy fees for a study into the possibility of privatising itself, with massive golden handshakes to its former members?
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): Do I assume that, because the hon. Gentleman says that the funding agency is responsible for a £17 billion spend, he anticipates that all schools will shortly vote to become grant-maintained?
    Mr. Jamieson: That is the Minister's aspiration, not mine. Whether the figure is £1 billion or £17 billion, that is the hon. Gentleman's aspiration, not Labour's aspiration. We do not want any grant-maintained schools. Instead of a funding agency, we want councils to run their own systems, accounting for their own money, in the extremely good and democratic way that they have done that for many years.
    In Committee on the Education Bill, it became clear that the funding agency would meet in private. The public, whether they be parents, governors or other interested parties, cannot attend its meetings. It will be unsullied by public scrutiny, faithfully performing the will of its political masters in Sanctuary house. How appropriately named is that building.
    Much of the new legislation during recent years has resulted in a massive growth of bureaucracy, both in the classroom and in other aspects of school life. I have been a supporter of local management of schools for many years. Long before the Government introduced that, I felt that it would be a good system for running schools. It is a way of making better-quality decisions in schools, and where the system is running successfully that is happening.
    Local autonomy is very valuable, but we must accept that it does not necessarily lead to a reduction in bureaucracy and overall administration. The theory is that local management of schools moves administration from local education authorities to the schools; the myth is that the overall amount of bureaucracy and administration is therefore reduced. The sacrifice is in the economies of scale that cannot be achieved.
    Page 14 of the recent Audit Commission report states:
    "A number of schools increased administrators' hours quite sharply as they took over their budgets."
    Local management of schools has caused more duplication and administration. That is inevitable. In many cases, it is due to inexperience, so I accept that over the years there may be an improvement. The system was introduced too hurriedly, and there was too little training. Where is the evidence that the increase in administration in schools is matched by a reduction in the LEAs?
    In so many areas of policy, we are sailing into uncharted waters and are unclear about where responsibilities lie. We had an example of that at a meeting of the Education Select Committee only a few weeks ago. Senior officials from the Department for Education were asked a simple question: what was the difference between an authority in which 74 per cent. of schools had opted out and an authority in which 76 per cent. of schools had opted out? The answer was:
    "I think it might be wise if we offered a note on that question …we are at the edge of our expertise here, I think."
    [Interruption.] The Minister laughs. If he does not think that he is at the edge of his expertise, I hope that he will instruct some of his civil servants so that they can understand how the system will work.
    It was made clear at that Select Committee meeting that even his senior civil servants did not know how the system would work. I look forward to the Minister giving us the answer that his senior civil servants could not. If senior officials from the Department for Education do not
    538
    understand how the system will work, how can we expect local education authorities, governors, head teachers and parents to understand?
    At that same meeting, it also became clear that the financing of the bureaucracy and administration of the funding agency would come out of the aggregate school budget, not out of that part designated for grant-maintained schools. Therefore, it will be a burden on all schools, both LEA and grant-maintained.
    If the Government get their wish—which I doubt they will—pursue their policies and more schools become grant maintained, I fear that much of the £17 billion funding intended to be spent on our education system next year will fall into the hands of an unaccountable body. The education system needs clear, unequivocal lines of responsibility. With the way that things are going, we will not achieve that.
    8.7 pm
    Sir Paul Beresford: Our debate began on the right lines by looking at accountability. The different notions of accountability are interesting. For many of us who are parents of school-age children in London, especially in inner London, some of the points made tonight about accountability will cause a wry smile. As many people are aware, until recently education in inner London was under the control of the Labour-controlled Inner London education authority.
    That notorious authority had the biggest expenditure in the country per child, per teacher, per school, per anything we can imagine. Coupled with that, it consistently had one of the worst results in the country for GCSE and A-levels. Year in, year out, it had the highest expenditure and the second or third worst results in the country. Many of us saw that as a case of Labour local government playing progressive education with our children's future and using other people's money to do it. There was little or no real accountability.
    Spread across inner London were neighbourhood mixed-ability comprehensives, the best of which were bad and the worst indescribable. There was no diversity and no choice. We had to take our children to the neighbourhood school whether or not we liked it. There was no competition between schools or within schools. To hear an ILEA primary school teacher complaining that even on sports day no child was allowed to come first in the egg-and-spoon race was a classic example of ILEA's attitude.
    To cover those appalling results, ILEA decided to massage them and to introduce "disadvantage factors", to push that high-spending authority a little higher up the league. That meant nothing to the parents, when they thought about it—and even less to potential employers, who want to know about a youth's educational achievements, not about his or her environmental disadvantages.
    Until ILEA disappeared, there was no real feel about individual schools, no results, and no choice except to opt out completely. That happened in one instance. In division 10, around 46 per cent. of secondary school children who should have been in those schools opted out. Twice the national average attended independent schools. They stayed away in droves. Many others stayed away by truancy.

    539
    Many outer-London areas—including my own of Croydon, which borders Lambeth—viewed accountability differently. They introduced variety with Church, comprehensive and independent schools and, recently, two city technology colleges. They pioneered standardised testing years ago and published results. That helps with accountability to parents, who can then choose the school that they wish. It involved not only accountability but limited competition, which tended to force up standards.
    The demand for nursery education was also recognised and the number of places in Croydon is increasing from 600 to 1,800 next year. We anticipate that demand will be completely met very shortly. That will be done without any bleating for extra Government money.
    With the division of ILEA, different boroughs took different approaches. Lambeth and Southwark continued as before—using ILEA methods, achieving ILEA results, and incurring massive expenditure. Division 10, however, took a hint from Croydon and introduced variety and choice, published results and created competition. There is no geographical tie, but a range of comprehensive, Church and magnet schools, independent schools with assisted places, and CTCs.
    In that way, in just three years the 46 per cent. opt-out rate has fallen to 27 per cent., not including the CTCs; truancy is down; and every three or four-year-old child in division 10, in Wandsworth, is offered free nursery education. The budget has been cut by £20 million in real terms, to produce a better service. Schools are competing and results are improving.
    In just three years, the number of children with no GCSE passes has fallen to one in 10, from one in five at the tail end of ILEA. The number of children gaining one or more GCSE passes at grade A to C has increased from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. and the number achieving five GCSE passes at grade A to C has risen from 17 per cent. under ILEA to 27 per cent. Those results are not good, but they are a lot better than under Labour-controlled 1LEA's unaccountable approach.
    The United Kingdom is already spending more per pupil than Germany or Japan, but to produce poorer results. It is a question not of how much is spent but of the way in which it is spent, and of the abuse that we see in Labour-controlled inner London. The answer must be to take a leaf out of a book of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) and go for accountability.
    There needs to be more variety and choice and schools must be encouraged to become grant-maintained. If they do, and we can move expenditure in such a way that those schools have revenue for capital plus revenue, they will be able to reverse the situation. I hope that there will be an opportunity soon to do that in such a way that we will be funding children, not schools, and that schools will be answerable to parents and children. We would then have real accountability.
    8.14 pm
    Mr. Don Foster: I congratulate the Chairman and members of the Select Committee on their excellent report, which primarily concerns state funding. The House may he interested to know that a predecessor of mine as Member of Parliament for Bath, Mr. A. J. Roebuck, was the first Member of Parliament to suggest, in 1884, state
    540
    funding of education. It took him 18 months to persuade the House to agree, but it did so eventually, and provided a sum of money somewhat smaller than that spent on maintaining the royal carriages.
    I suppose one could argue that from small acorns great oak trees grow. However, if Mr. Roebuck were able to return to the House today, I suspect that he would be very disappointed in state education. The great oak tree is beginning to lose a number of its branches through neglect and the increasing onslaught of Conservative policies.
    The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir P. Beresford) hit the nail on the head when he spoke about competition. Many Opposition Members fear that Conservative preoccupation with competition is creating much of the strife within the education service and believe that the co-operation and partnership that has been such an important feature since the Education Act 1944 must be re-established.
    The strife is such that many people wonder why the Secretary of State for Education kept his job in the mini-reshuffle while the Chancellor of the Exchequer lost his. Bearing in mind the fact that I defeated Mr. Christopher Patten in the general election, I explain it by paraphrasing Oscar Wilde's Lady Bracknell—to lose one Patten may be unfortunate, but to lose two looks like carelessness—[Interruption.] I am glad that Conservative Members liked that.
    The Chairman of the Select Committee touched on another matter of concern to many of usthe need for much clearer information on which to base such debates. I am sure that that view is held by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. It is possible to interpret the report's figures in many different ways. They have been used by Conservative Members to argue that expenditure per pupil has increased since 1979 by more than 40 per cent. Equally, the same figures can be interpreted—taking into account not ordinary levels of inflation but educational levels—as meaning that expenditure has increased by only 21 per cent.
    Furthermore, if one accepts that most costs are fixed or fairly fixed and do not vary significantly with a decline in pupil numbers, one can claim that, although expenditure per pupil has increased, additional expenditure since 1979 is, in real terms, only 2 per cent. higher. A more detailed inspection of those figures shows that the real-terms expenditure per pupil on secondary education has declined by 2 per cent. If we look at the funding in respect of further or higher education students, we can demonstrate a decline of 22 per cent. per student over that period.
    I am making the point not in order to start a debate between both sides of the House as to who is right and who is wrong, but merely to agree with the Chairman of the Select Committee that it is important to provide accurate statistics, and accurate interpretations of those statistics, with which we can all agree.
    Dr. Robert Spink: While the hon. Gentleman is talking about statistics, will he acknowledge not only that spending per pupil has risen by 45 per cent. since 1979, but that books and equipment are very important? Spending on books and equipment since 1979 has risen by 31 per cent. Both are real-terms increases and should be welcomed.
    Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman has made my point for me. It is possible for all of us to select from the mass of

    541
    statistics in the way that he has. However, he has not contradicted the figures that I quoted—for example, that there has been a decline of some 22 per cent. in the expenditure on higher or further education students. We could spend a lifetime bandying statistics across the Chamber, but that would be of no great benefit to anyone.
    What is more important is that we look at some of the specific areas of spending highlighted by the report. Much play is made in the report about expenditure on grant-maintained schools, one of the major planks of Government education policy. Very clearly stated in the report is the disparity between capital expenditure on grant-maintained schools and that on local education authority-maintained schools.
    What the report did not make reference to—because the information did not come to light until recently, but was in respect of the years considered by the report—was the double funding of many grant-maintained schools. That meant that many grant-maintained schools were not only getting increased money because of the greater devolution by the LEA to individual schools, but already getting an increased element in their assisted maintenance grant.
    Approximately 32 grant-maintained schools have received sums in excess of £100,000 per annum more than they would reasonably expect to receive because of that double funding. That, and double funding at lower levels, has meant that some 32 local education authorities have lost sums of money to those grant-maintained schools in excess of £250,000 each. In each of those local education authorities, there are many schools in desperate need of that money being spent on them and, more importantly, on their pupils.
    Accountability has been mentioned. The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), mentioned the difficulty of determining accountability for the different parts of the education budget. To be fair, the Department's response refers to its understanding of the Committee's frustration with the multi-layered nature of accountability.
    I agree with the Committee that there is a need for a separate inquiry into the matter. It may surprise the Minister that I also agree with him about the need to devolve more and more responsibility to individual schools. However, I would go further and say "within a local democratically accountable strategic planning framework". But we agree that there is a need to devolve more and more power to given schools.
    It is vital that we look carefully at the accountability of those responsible for making decisions within individual schools. I do not believe that that accountability can rely on governors' meetings—which can be, and often are, held in private—and on the annual governors' report that is very often presented to an empty school hall.
    I hope that the Minister will say whether he would be willing to find ways of opening up the accountability of the governing body. Will he consider asking the Office of Standards in Education to look at the governors' annual reports in addition to their four-yearly inspections of the schools?
    There are many other matters that we could address in this debate, but I shall not because many other hon. Members wish to speak.
    542
    It is not clear from the breakdown of the figures presented in the report precisely how the different tranches of money have been split up. We do not know what sums have been set aside for the implementation of the national curriculum in our schools. One thing is certain: a number of reports and studies have been undertaken to look at the true costs. Coopers and Lybrand has carried out detailed studies in this regard, and the figures that it has come up with demonstrate that sums well in excess of what is currently available will be needed for the overcrowded and over-prescriptive national curriculum to be successfully followed in both primary and secondary schools.
    Has the Minister studied the figure that Coopers and Lybrand has produced? Does he agree with those figures? If not, what alternative figures is he prepared to make available to us?
    Reference has been made to the absence in the budget of any significant sums for infant and nursery education. Many hon. Members—particularly Opposition Members —are concerned that there seems to be no real willingness by the Government to provide the significant boost to high-quality early-years education that is desperately needed.
    Many hon. Members and people outside will be aware of the recent studies that have demonstrated the benefits of nursery education, not only to the individual child but to the nation as a whole. Those studies have also demonstrated that there is a financial benefit to the nation. A recent study in the United States, which was carried out over a 30-year period, showed that, for every £1 invested in nursery education, the nation benefits to the tune of £7. It makes economic as well as educational sense to invest in infant and nursery education.
    May of us are concerned that not enough funds are currently being made available for spending on special educational needs. I should be interested to know if the Department has carried out any detailed costings of the money that would be necessary to carry out the recommendation in the report "Within Reach", which the Minister so roundly welcomed when it was published.
    Repair and maintenance is another important area that is seriously underfunded. Across schools, further education and higher education, it is now estimated that some £4 billion will need to be spent to bring our institutions into a reasonable state of repair.
    Let us consider areas in which money is wasted. They were referred to by the hon. Member for Croydon, Central. I ask the Minister to look again at the expenditure that the Department and the Government have wasted on the appallingly crude and inadequate standard attainment test. This year alone, some £35 million has been wasted.
    The years 1992–93 have not been a happy time for the education service and, sadly, the evidence suggests that better times are not around the corner.
    8.29 pm
    Mr. David Lidington: As a newly appointed member of the Select Committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution. I must declare that, as the husband of a primary school teacher, my household income is affected to some extent by the Government's expenditure plans.
    In their document on spending plans, the Government have set their own test of the effectiveness of their expenditure programme. To use the jargon, they have said

    543
    that they wish to be judged on outputs as much as on inputs. That is a healthy sign. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) criticised what he called the language of finance, accountancy and efficiency. [Interruption.] He certainly talked about accountancy. I can answer that criticism by saying that good accountancy and good book-keeping are necessary to ensure that the large, but finite, sums of taxpayers' money spent on education are properly used to provide education of the highest standard for children in every part of the country.
    In their document, the Government say that their paramount objective is to raise the standards of achievement across the curriculum. Over the past few years, that has meant a number of radical reforms, the most important of which was the introduction of the national curriculum and testing. They were enacted in the Education Reform Act 1988, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). I shall come to that later.
    I welcome some of the other developments in the Government's policies. There is sufficient evidence, in terms of international comparisons of pupil achievement, to give everybody who is reasonably open minded cause for concern—I put it no stronger—about whether children in the United Kingdom could be achieving higher standards at school than they have on average in past decades. In a world economy that is becoming more competitive, Ministers are right to keep under permanent review the education system in this country and to be always vigilant and alert for new ways of ensuring that that system is better suited to the challenges that face our country.
    With that in mind, I welcome the Government's approach to teacher training which stresses school-based rather than college-based training. I welcome also the Government's insistence over the years on more information being made freely available to parents and the general public about the performance of schools. That involves HMI reports, school prospectuses and examination results. It is interesting that, on other occasions, Opposition Members are proud of their support for the principle of freedom of information, yet, whenever that principle has been tested in education policy, they have been, in their voices and votes, in favour of secrecy and against openness.
    I have the honour to represent a constituency in Buckinghamshire. Since my election, I have made a point of visiting as many schools as possible within my constituency. It is a diverse area. I have visited nearly 40 schools. I have been to village schools with one teaching head and a part-time teacher, large primary schools in an urban environment with a large ethnic minority intake, and grammar schools and upper schools taking many hundreds of pupils from within and outside the county. I have found dedicated teachers who enjoy the confidence and support of their governors and of the parents of the children in their charge.
    There might be cross-party agreement on the fact that one does not seek militants, revolutionaries or bolsheviks in Buckinghamshire. [Interruption.] I will disappoint the hon. Member for Devonport by saying that one had to search hard and long to find a notice from the National Union of Teachers in any of the common rooms that I visited.
    From talking to the heads and staff in those schools, I found a yearning for a constructive partnership with the
    544
    Government to ensure that the national curriculum and the system of testing work. That yearning has been coupled with a growing sense of frustration at the cumbersome and bureaucratic way in which the curriculum and, in particular, the system of testing have been implemented in practice.
    I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends are aware, from the representations that have been made to them, of the fact that those concerns are not confined to their political opponents. They are felt widely, not just among moderate and responsible members of the teaching profession, but amongst governors and parents who have been life-long supporters, and often members, of the Conservative party. It is important that, through the Dearing review and the Government's response to it, we get the balance right for next year.
    The Government have a duty to insist that certain key skills—a core of basic knowledge—are taught consistently to a high standard in every school in the country. They have a duty to introduce a system of rigorous testing that ensures that measures of achievement can be made. I have found few teachers in Buckinghamshire who object to that as a matter of principle. However, that must be set alongside the fact that, in a thriving school, which attracts the loyalty and support of parents, and one in which the local community feel a sense of pride and identification —the Government wish to see that, and it is evident throughout my community—there must be room for the spontaneity of the enthusiastic teacher to explore other areas of learning that may not always require to be tested. Those two important principles must be balanced. I believe that the Dearing review and the Government's response to it will ensure that that balance is struck appropriately.
    We need a diverse curriculum but it must not be so prescriptive as to turn into an education straitjacket. For example, even in Aylesbury there are first schools in which the teachers are struggling with children from family backgrounds of material poverty, where there may not be many books or where there may be instability. Those teachers have to work hard to teach the basic skills of reading, writing and numeracy which are essential if those children are to take advantage of the education opportunities available in the country later on.
    I know that teachers in such schools will want to include elements of history, geography and other subjects in their teaching. However, they may fear that too prescriptive an approach to those other subjects might make it more difficult for them to give adequate attention to the basic tasks and set the children in those schools at a disadvantage compared with other schools in neighbouring districts where there is perhaps greater parental support for the traditional academic route.
    There is an opportunity for my right hon. and hon. Friends in the next year to build upon the tremendous willingness that I find within the teaching profession and amongst governors and parents to forge a constructive partnership such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton).
    I find no wish to return to the old days of the secret garden when information was kept within the confines of the classroom but a ready acceptance of the duty that the schools and the teaching profession have to the wider community. There is also a belief that practical and sensible reforms of the national curriculum and testing are necessary to make the system work as the Government

    545
    wish it to work and in a way that would be in the interests of pupils not only in my constituency but across the nation.
    8.40 pm
    Ms Mildred Gordon: The report of the Select Committee on Education observed that the Government's plans for capital spending on schools appear to favour grant-maintained schools over local education authority schools. The Minister freely admitted that that was indeed the case, reflecting the Government's commitment to the success of grant-maintained schools. It makes me wonder about the Government's commitment to the success of local education authority schools—to the continuing success of the those which are working well and to the improvement of those which have problems.
    For 1992–93, the difference in capital expenditure breaks down nationally into an average of between £110 and £116 per pupil per annum in the grant-maintained sector compared with £88 per pupil in the local education authority sector. It will fall to £75 per pupil in the LEA sector in 1993–94, to £71 in 1994–95 and to £66 in 1995–96, which is a serious decrease in funding. There is deliberate discrimination in capital funding, which ignores the pressures on local education authorities to replace and renew major elements of post-war education buildings which are predominant in many authorities.
    In Tower Hamlets, emergency repairs are necessary to some of the prefabricated and system built units. The delay in the repairs has exacerbated longer-term maintenance problems. The estimated backlog of repairs is more than £2 billion nationally. In 1992–93, London authorities received only 35 per cent. of the £86 million that was identified as needed for the basic building work.
    The decline in the school environment has a considerable impact on pupils' learning. I know that from personal experience, as I have taught in prefabricated huts which are freezing in winter and boiling in summer. Such conditions are not conducive to getting the best work from teachers or pupils. We hoped to do away with such temporary buildings, but the present capital funding regime means that they will remain until they rot.
    The Secretary of State claimed that local education authorities have access to capital receipts as a way of increasing scope for capital expenditure, but there has been a steady decline in local authority receipts which are deemed to derive from educational assets. They have decreased from £285 million in 1988–89 to a forecast of only £60 million in 1992–93.
    That is primarily due to the downturn in the property market, the residue of surplus assets being less straightforward in terms of disposal because of planning consents, location, lack of money and mortgage problems, and, above all, the threat of transfer to grant-maintained status when local education authorities want to reorganise and rationalise their schools. They are left with schools with a limited number of pupils and wasted space, and they cannot carry out plans which have been wored out in advance for the benefit of the whole education service—schools which are planned to close then opt out, and the plans are thrown into chaos.
    546
    At the same time, the Government restrict spending by capping controls which are forcing down LEA expen-diture. They are limiting the use of capital expenditure which is funded from revenue. As a result, the scope for enhancing future credit approvals has been substantially limited, so the argument that LEAs have free access to capital receipts is false—that access is severely restricted and declining.
    Mention has been made of the double funding for grant-maintained schools. An answer to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) revealed that more than half of the 492 grant-maintained schools are being double-funded through their annual maintenance grant for activities such as advisory and library services which were previously provided by the LEAs.
    The higher level of grant which grant-maintained schools receive to cover the costs of services formerly provided by the LEAs has been maintained. The LEAs still have to provide those services, and the duplication is costing them nearly £2 million in London and, I believe, nearly £14 million across the country.
    The Government recently released two consultation documents on the common funding formula, in which they state that they intend to continue to allocate additional money for grant-maintained schools' extra responsibilities. The funding agency will be a quango and centrally controlled by the Government. It will increasingly transfer funds from the local authority sector to the grant-maintained sector, which will put the squeeze on local education authority schools.
    Schools that need funds for various reasons will be tempted, bribed and pressured to become grant-maintained, and the local education authority will be starved of funds. They will nevertheless have to maintain services for children with special needs and fund welfare officers and educational psychologists out of the continually decreasing funds. The services are bound to suffer, to the disbenefit of all children.
    In many areas, classrooms in local authority schools now have more pupils than before. I believe that there are advertisements in New Zealand and Australian newspapers for instructors. Hard-pressed schools have found a loophole—if they employ untrained instructors, they can pay them less than teachers. We have all heard the Prime Minister's advocacy of mum's army. Increasingly, unqualified people will be teaching our children in order to spin out the money. Experienced teachers are being given the push; they are being pressured and made to feel that it is time that they took early retirement because older teachers cost more and they are being replaced by new teachers.
    It seems strange to me that although a recent school inspectors' report said that in the past few years the crop of students who have become teachers are of an extremely high standard, we shall now have licensed teachers—we used to call such people unlicensed teachers—in our schools, and "instructors" from New Zealand and Australia. I have nothing against New Zealand or Australia, but I have something against the idea of unqualified people teaching our children.
    Sir Paul Beresford: Is the hon. Lady aware that the school system, certainly in New Zealand, and I believe in Australia, too, has taken into the primary schools non-university qualified but trained teachers, along the

    547
    lines that are now being suggested here? It might be relevant to mention that those two countries have a higher standard of literacy than this country, despite having the same sort of difficulties involving non-English speakers, especially from the Pacific.
    Ms Gordon: The hon. Gentleman may be correct. I do not know about the standard of literacy in New Zealand. If the standard there is higher, I should say that that must be despite the fact that there are unqualified teachers in the schools, not because of it. What is the pupil-teacher ratio? Are the unqualified teachers assisting qualifed teachers? We need to know the whole picture.
    The Government's doctrinaire approach to education clearly plans to set the clock back to before 1945, when we had a two-tier system of education. There were elitist selective schools and a much lower standard of education, with a lower proportion of highly qualified teachers, less money and worse school buildings for the average child. The funding agency and the move towards grant-maintained schools take the system in that direction again towards an elitist education for the minority and low standards of education for the majority.
    To that end, the Government are wasting a great deal of badly needed money. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how much it cost to pay external examiners to mark the tests that the teachers would not use—those tests that the teachers so clearly proved were badly designed and ill timed. How much money was spent on the publicity campaign to denigrate teachers and governors, and to try to convince parents that they were wrong? The campaign failed. That money was badly needed for books, buildings and other education purposes, yet the Government used it to bolster their doctrinaire approach and to try to push their policies forward.
    Yesterday, with other members of the Select Committee, I visited a city tech. Of the £12 million that had been spent to refurbish the school building, 20 per cent. came from business, but 80 per cent. of it was taxpayers' money. There were 170 computers for 400 children, and as for the pupil-teacher ratio, I saw one class of 13, but most classes consisted of two or three or seven children at the most. That was great. It would be wonderful if we could have those ratios throughout the country, hut when resources are limited, there must be some quality and some fairness in sharing.
    The Government's policies, especially their funding policies, are designed to limit quality and to reduce fairness, to provide a good education and wonderful provision for the elite and very little for the rest.
    8.53 pm
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To someone who does not serve on the Select Committee, the one fact that emerges most clearly from the two documents—perhaps not surprisingly, as over the past four years the Government have increased expenditure on behalf of the taxpayer by no less than an annualised rate of £100 billion a year—is the enormous amount of money being spent on education by central and local government. The spending of the Department for Education, which has already increased by 5·8 per cent. since last year—more than the rate of inflation—is planned to increase by a further 11 per cent. over the next two years. Local education authority expenditure has risen from £13·2 billion to £17·6
    548
    billion—an increase of 30 per cent.—over the past four years. Those are very large increases, given the general state of the economy and inflation.
    I agree with the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), that the way in which the figures are presented needs to be improved significantly, if there is to be real accountability for parents, especially in individual local authorities. For instance, it is not right that we have to rely on standard spending assessments across the board and cannot break education spending down between the various local authorities. In particular, we cannot break down within education heads the sums that ought to be spent by individual education authorities. Of course, it is unacceptable that it takes eight months for local education authorities' outturn figures for current spending to emerge so that parents can use them as a performance indicator.
    Sir Paul Beresford: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties is that many authorities, such as Lambeth, Southwark and Haringey, are years behind with their outturn figures anyway, in spite of the efforts of the Audit Commission?
    Mr. Coombs: My hon. Friend anticipates me slightly. I shall have something to say about Lambeth later.
    The average taxpayer, and indeed the average parent, does not want to know exactly how much has been spent on education; rather, he or she wants to know how effectively it has been spent and the kind of results that are being achieved in our schools. There is no doubt that expenditure at local and central Government level has risen significantly in real terms over the past five years— although there may have been a slight reduction in 1992–93—while pupil numbers have not risen significantly. Pupil numbers have risen by perhaps 5 per cent., whereas the real financial increase has been closer to 20 per cent.
    Pupil-teacher ratios have significantly improved. Early education has been mentioned in the debate, and over the past 10 years it is in early and primary education that the most significant improvements have been made, from 27:1 to 21:1. The latest social trends survey reveals that significant improvements have been made over the medium term—for example, in the number of under-fives who have had both playgroup and nursery education. The number of children being taught in large classes has fallen significantly in secondary schools, from 30 per cent. in 1977 to 24 per cent. now, and even more significantly in primary schools.
    Mr. Don Foster: I should hate the hon. Gentleman to mislead the House. I think that it was the Under-Secretary of State for Schools who told us at Education questions recently that the number of pupils in large classes, in primary schools had risen—albeit by a comparatively small proportion. Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that only 24 per cent. of children in this country are in nursery schools or nursery classes, and that that is the lowest percentage in any EC country except for Portugal?
    Mr. Coombs: It is also fair to point out that, over 10 years, there have been significant improvements, and that 90 per cent. of young people under the age of five now have the opportunity to attend either a playgroup or a nursery. That is a record figure. Similarly, teachers' salaries are better than they have ever been. An average classroom teacher now earns £20,600 a year. We spend a

    549
    greater proportion of our gross domestic product on public education than Germany and Japan, which produce much better results.
    Labour Members are in no position to lecture us on the resources given to education. When Labour was last in government—thank God, that is a long time ago—expenditure on education dropped by about £1·1 billion in real terms and fell as a proportion of GDP. Moreover, instead of rocketing as it has under the Conservatives, the number of people in higher education fell.
    Mr. Jamieson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government can make that claim because Labour authorities have spent more on education than Tory authorities? Nursery places are much more likely to be available under Labour authorities than under Tory authorities.
    Mr. Coombs: The point that ought to be made concerns the return that the charge payers are getting on that money. That additional expenditure is in direct proportion to Labour authorities' propensity to waste rather than their propensity to achieve higher educational standards. If one examines the increased expenditure and absolute levels of expenditure of authorities across the country, it is difficult to see any correlation between the level of expenditure—per pupil or not—and the kind of educational results that are being achieved.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby talked about working against the polarisation that he saw in many education matters. My view is that parents want the school that their children attend to be more accountable to them and that, whether that happens by local management of schools, with a greater proportion of the local authority's budget going to individual schools, or via the grant-maintained route, the kind of system whereby local parents have more control of their own schools is likely to continue.
    I recall the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—I know that he will intervene, although I am not necessarily saying that he was supporting grant-maintained schools —saying on 6 May 1992:
    "We would be very keen to see the benefits of grant-maintained status"—
    in terms of greater ability to control the expenditure at local expenditure—
    "being passed to all schools … Maybe what we should do is have all schools opt out instantly."
    Whether they opt out or whether they actually get a greater control of their own expenditure, they will wish to have more devolved power, more local control and more local responsibility. The hon. Gentleman looks as though he is itching—
    Mr. Don Foster: Let me set the record straight. I thought that I had explained my position. I do indeed believe that more power and responsibility should be devolved to individual schools, but those schools should remain within a strategic planning framework that is local and democratically accountable. I thought that I had made that clear.
    Mr. Coombs: The fairly non-controversial point that I seek to make is that, in a context in which more power and responsibility are being devolved to schools, local education authorities will have to rethink their role in a
    550
    very fundamental sense; indeed, many authorities, including Labour-controlled authorities, are doing that. They may not have education committees; they may devolve power through social services. The authorities will retain certain functions, such as special education, psychology, school attendance, transfers, transport and so on, but if they are to adapt to the new philosophy whereby the Government are steering rather than rowing, they will have to get used to a partnership with schools based on a new maturity—whether the schools are grant maintained or locally managed. If they do not, they will suffer the kind of fate that the National Association of Head Teachers talked about in connection with Lambeth, when it described it as a
    "classic example of an authority that may wither and die because of its own incompetence"
    and its inability to face the future.
    The standards of schools are what counts to parents, and there have been significant improvements in standards over the past few years. Since 1979, the number of people getting one or more A-level has increased quite dramatically—from 15 to 22 per cent., an increase of about 50 per cent. The number of people getting five GCSEs has also increased significantly.
    According to a national institute study recently acquired by the Library, we do not compare as well as we should with our competitors, Germany, France and Japan. In Britain, 27 per cent. of 16-year-olds reach the equivalent of GCSE grades A to C in mathematics, the national language and one science, compared with 62 per cent. in Germany, 66 per cent. in France and 50 per cent. in Japan. Such a record applies to mathematics for 13-year-olds.
    Mr. Derek Enright: Those statistics are interesting, useful and fairly well known. However, we do not have standardisation across the countries, which is important; otherwise, we may draw the wrong conclusions and concentrate on the wrong areas. We should concentrate on science—that is absolutely clear—but we need standardisation and a proper comparison.
    Mr. Coombs: The Select Committee will embark on precisely that. It will be worth while. Those are some of the arguments that it makes in its report. That is the difficulty of comparability. Nevertheless, the statistics cannot just be ignored. They come back to the culture that exists in many schools. Many teachers are not guilty of those problems, but, too often, they regard testing as discrimination and believe that it encourages a climate of failure.
    In the words of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), too many people regard measurement and reporting as unjustified criticism and too many regard league tables as divisive. I do not thing that they are. Most parents want to know how their children are doing compared with other children, and not just the absolute standards, which may or may not be rigorous.
    So far as the tests are concerned, it is interesting that the Office for Standards in Education talked about the quality of teaching and learning going up significantly. The Institute of Directors also shared that view, and—
    Ms Gordon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Coombs: Let me finish the sentence.
    Although we wish to see Ron Dearing streamlining the national curriculum and making the assessment procedures much more simplified than they presently are, the

    551
    one thing that would damage education more than anything would be if we went on to pick and mix testing, whereby tests were associated with the children who took those tests, rather than set a rigorous test across the country that all children had to take and that would produce precisely the uniform standards that the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) mentioned.
    Ms Gordon: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that parents like to see how their children perform in league tables compared with other children. Does he not feel that our first concern should be for the well-being, education and development of children? Does he not know that those comparisons can severely damage those children who do not appear in the top 25 per cent. of the tables, whichever way they are counted or published? Has he not heard of the terrible damage that the 11-plus examination did to the confidence and development of 75 per cent. of the children in this country?
    Mr. Coombs: I believe, as do the vast majority of parents, that that is the greatest myth in education at the present time. Children are more naturally competitive than the hon. Lady gives them credit for, and I do not believe that they will be damaged in any way if we let parents know how their children are doing in comparison with other children.
    One of the problems that we have with reports from many schools is that they do not give parents any idea of how their children are doing in an absolute sense, and certainly not how they are doing in a relative sense. As evidence, I have a report here—I will not mention, from whom it comes, except to say that it is from a child aged 10 in a midlands school. It is the year report, July 1993. On science, it says:
    "In the investigations carried out, she has shown that she can complete a task, observe accurately and record the results in a variety of ways."
    On history, it says:
    "She is beginning to develop the ability to sequence events over a long period of time, to look at evidence and draw conclusions about the past."
    On geography, it says:
    She has continued to build upon skills already experienced and develop those, including physical, human and environmental geography."
    That is the only information that that child's parents will receive on that child in that year and I do not believe that such a report is sufficiently rigorous. If the Government wish to see the kind of improvements in accountability between schools and parents that we all wish to see, they will have to issue advice on reporting which makes such reports more specific and, I hope, encourages greater competition between children than is evident at present.
    If we are to improve standards in schools and maintain that improvement where it occurs, it is vital that schools do not focus on the lowest common denominator but become beacons of excellence for the children whom they serve.
    9.10 pm
    Ms Estelle Morris: Not being a member of the Select Committee, I too welcome this opportunity to discuss education expenditure on the Floor of the House, and I congratulate the members of the Select Committee on giving us the opportunity.
    I shall concentrate on a narrow subject that does not receive the attention it deserves, but which is of growing
    552
    importance in raising standards in schools today. I in no way condone or condemn education policy during the past two decades, but there can be no doubt that there has been a revolution in our schools. People who suddenly find themselves going back to school, not having been there since they were pupils 20 or 30 years ago, barely recognise what they see.
    During the past 20 or 30 years, there has been a revolution in the breadth of subjects studied, in the aspirations of parents from all social and economic walks of life for their children to succeed and to have career opportunities that they did not have, and in the aspirations for girls as well as for boys.
    There has also been a revolution in the relationships in education today. The relationship between teachers and pupils, between parents and teachers and, most significant of all, between the school and its community is not what it was 20 or 30 years ago.
    I approve of most of that revolution, but I am critical of some of it. It can be summed up in a phrase that I like but which, in itself, does not say a lot—the entitlement curriculum. In education, we have started to consider the curriculum that children are entitled to receive and say that that is the entitlement curriculum.
    But we must move on to consider the entitlement curriculum in terms not so much of what is being taught as of how that teaching takes place. It is that difference on which I wish to concentrate. The case that I want to make is that we have put far too little expenditure into support staff in schools in order for the entitlement curriculum and the teaching of it to be as successful and effective as it might be.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Ms Morris: I am conscious of the time, and I do not want to deny hon. Members the opportunity to speak. I shall happily talk to the hon. Gentleman after the debate.
    One great change is that we cannot go back to chalk and talk. Schools now use technology and computers. Children watch television outside the classroom and teachers must make the way that they teach as effective as the messages that children receive from various media outside school. There was the day when a poster of a dinosaur in a classroom was meant to motivate children to learn about prehistory. [Laughter.] It was not I who smiled at the mention of dinosaurs and looked at the Minister. Now that children watch films such as "Jurassic Park" and see dinosaurs alive in the streets, the poster in the classroom is a most ineffective means of getting the message across. That is another revolution that has taken place.
    According to the report that we are discussing, £40 million has been spent by the Schools Examinations and Assessment Council, the National Curriculum Council and other research institutions. I welcome that, but I bet that that money has been spent mainly on researching what should be taught. I bet that it has not been spent on helping teachers in schools to teach the national curriculum and I bet that it has not been spent on helping those teachers to come to terms with the revolution in content and methodology that they are being asked to implement. I maintain that insufficient funds are given for staffing in schools to reflect the changes that they are being asked to implement.

    553
    A Coopers and Lybrand report some time ago found that only 50 per cent. of a teacher's working week was spent in contact with the child. I worry greatly about that, because I still believe that the sign of a most effective school is that conversations between teachers and pupils are of a high order and of great frequency. It worries me that 50 per cent. of teachers' time takes them away from talking to and working with pupils in the classroom. A teacher now is a typist, a printer, a laboratory assistant, a designer of work sheets and booklets, a form-filler, a ticker of boxes and a sender of returns to faculty heads, to head teachers, to education authorities and to the Ministers at the Department for Education.
    In terms of the effectiveness of expenditure on education, we are spending an awful lot of money on training our teachers to do jobs that they should not be doing. We boast—and I welcome it—that, over the 80-year period covered in the report, there has been a 70 per cent. increase in graduates. Can we justify spending millions of pounds on increasing the number of people who leave education with degrees and then putting them into a workplace where we expect 30 or 40 or 50 per cent. of their working week to be taken up with photocopying, printing, filling in forms and conducting other basic administrative tasks?
    I contacted two schools in my constituency for which I have a high regard to find out what sort of support staff they have. In a primary school, 29 secretarial hours a week are allocated for all the local management of schools, for keeping accounts, for secretarial duties to the head, for answering the telephone and for working for the teachers in an administrative capacity. In a secondary school with almost 1,000 pupils, there are three staff members to do all those tasks.
    The reality is that in schools today teachers do not even expect administrative support for those tasks. They naturally think that their job includes a whole range of administrative and bureaucratic tasks that are needed to support them in their jobs. I also worry that the environment in which we ask teachers to carry out those tasks is not a professional one that is conducive to good teaching. In secondary schools, no one but the most senior staff, and in primary schools no one but the head teachers, has office accommodation.
    Other staff have nowhere to keep their books or to spread out their papers. They have no classroom of their own that they can use as a base from which to be effective teachers. The normal sight in schools today at the change of lessons is of teachers scurrying across the playground with their arms full of books, equipment, videos and even tape recorders which they move from one classroom to another. Our education system does not give them the stability of a classroom of their own.
    Money is wasted because teachers do not use the skills that we have enabled them to develop during their teacher training. There is a fall in teacher morale. Teachers go into teaching to teach pupils and not to be bureaucrats and administrators. They are constantly frustrated by the pressures to draw them out of the classroom and away from teaching.
    Most worrying of all is the fact that we have deprofessionalised teachers. That does nothing for teacher morale, it does nothing for the way in which other people
    554
    perceive teachers and it does nothing to make teachers more effective. I ask the Minister to consider any other professional body, whether politicians like ourselves, doctors in their surgeries, people in the legal profession or civil servants. The Minister should consider the support services that we give them to enable them to do their jobs. He should then consider the support services that we give teachers to enable them to do their jobs. Not one of us could claim that we could be effective Members of Parliament if we had the level of support with which teachers are expected to manage in schools. We had such a debate on our profession in the House almost a year ago this week.
    When we draw up expenditure plans, we concentrate far too much on developing policies on the curriculum at a distance from the classroom and on producing reports. We talk far too much about policies at middle and senior management level, and we concentrate far too little time and far too few resources on what teachers need to do the job as effectively as possible in the classroom. My criterion is that teachers should be left in the classroom to teach and to work with pupils for as much as possible of the working week and for as much of the child's time as is commensurate with good administration, good in-service training and a good professional regard to teachers working, meeting and talking with other teachers.
    The whole range of tasks with which the Government have landed teachers in terms of increased administration has served only to make wider the division between the fact that we train teachers to teach and put them in the classroom and the fact that we then take away the time in which they should be teachers and fail to give them the support that they need to be more effective teachers. Perhaps, in future reports, the Select Committee may draw that point to the Government's attention and may seek assurances that we shall begin to address that point seriously in financial terms.
    9.22 pm
    Mr. David Porter: We spend much time inside and outside Parliament discussing changes in our society. One thing that does not change is the argument about money. We have heard Opposition Members tonight talk about the great golden age that must once have existed when every school, every local authority, every special interest group and every body in the country had all the money that it required. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) peddled that line in his speech today. It was the speech to which he treated the Education Bill Committee a number of times and at length. There was no golden age, and I do not not suppose that there ever will be.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) and other hon. Friends have said, it is not how much money is spent but how the money is spent that matters in the debate. In some schools, the cart has come before the horse. Many schools have long had fund-raising as part of their budget requirement. They are geared up to raise money effectively throughout the year. A number of schools raise money and appeal at an emotive level for parents to support their children's education. Having raised the money, they then decide how to spend it. That may be the wrong way round.
    I confess that from time to time I join in the general clamour to spend more money. Here I make common

    555
    cause with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) and others in the cry for nursery education. It is self-evident that, if we made a little investment now, the gains in educational value and in social terms later would be significant. I add my voice to that.
    The main burden of what I want to say is about spending and investment across the age range, and how we assess its value. In education, as with everything else these days, we are happy only when we are surrounded by jargon, acronyms, euphemisms and buzz words. One that I welcome with open arms is the phrase "added value". In education that is an all-purpose, all-embracing, all-things-to-all-people term. I suspect that, even in the fulness of time, it may not replace that strange creature of our times, the level playing field.
    In the light of the testing problems, boycotts and league table disagreements that we have had, it is obvious that raw examination data to lever up standards is not enough on its own. There has to be a context of wider home, school and community influences. We must also add the ability, experience and performance of teachers, and the stability, motivation and morale of the teaching service. So the assessment and appraisal of the profession by the profession becomes even more urgent both for its own sake, and as an ingredient in the "added value" as a tool in professional development.
    It is clear that the basic and constituent part of any "added value" has to be children, and what has been added to them and what potential they have developed. No apology is needed when we conclude that testing and monitoring their progress is self-evidently quintessential. I have heard no teacher, no union and no hon. Member say that they are against testing itself. Even testing at stages before the final testing at the age of 16 is no longer an issue. But the damage done by the boycott has been considerable. The damage has been to the continuous monitoring of children.
    Having won concessions on league table publications and also achieved the Dearing review, some teachers had the taste of blood and of flexing their muscles, which they liked. As a former teacher, I understand that feeling. But hon. Members must look beyond that. We showed the papers and we raised the question, "What was all the fuss about?" People asked how easy the tests were. People said, "Look at the way that standards have declined in our country that we can present such papers. How can teachers argue that they are overworked?"
    Of course, we did not win the argument with the parents, who tend to believe teachers and head teachers in the way that patients believe doctors rather than politicians. Many schools set their own key stage 3 English papers last month. Many of those papers were virtually identical to the Government's papers in style, structure and content. That proves my point about teachers tasting blood. Exam results, tests, monitoring—call them what we like—must be better defined. We are trying to show the progress that children make in time through each key stage.
    Key stage 1—the summer birthday children who have completed less than six full terms—must be borne in mind. Key stages 2 and 3—the different transfer ages of children at two and three-tier schools, high and middle—must also play a part. Special educational needs, socio-economic and demographic make-up of the area and problems of urban
    556
    and rural deprivation all must be taken into account when processing the raw data from schools. Other things such as extra-curricular activity must be added.
    But it is wrong to presuppose that most parents cannot make a judgment of sorts about their children, their schools and their teachers. To make that supposition is the equivalent of talking down to children. Research is going on apace into the "value added" concept, but I will not weary the House with it. The Library has provided me with an excellent summary of that research, with studies, papers and learned opinions from all over the country. That is one area that the Select Committee could look at in future.
    Having said that, let me add that there is a danger of over-intellectualising the debate with indices, indicators, snapshot determinators, residual deviation scores, expertise which becomes self-perpetuating and science which becomes deliberately blinding. In education, nothing is agreed for ever. Periodically, we rediscover the wheel, chalk, and the closed classroom door. We also rediscover bringing parents and business people back into schools. A lot of it goes round in circles, but when children leave our schools and go into the world, they find that the world has not gone round in circles at quite the same speed.
    The children will have to make their own way in their future life without the adjusted results of whatever value the education system has added to them. All I am saying is that we should keep the matter in perspective. The survival, prosperity and well-being of our children in school will depend on their ability to compete with their peers from other nations which are more determined to succeed than we are. That is the bottom line. If we strip away the self-interest and expertise, that is the only thing that matters.
    9.30 pm
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: I join other hon. Members on both sides of the House who have welcomed the fact that the debate is taking place. It is a step forward. The Secretary of State, whom I welcome back to the Chamber, missed some good speeches by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that he will take the opportunity to read them in detail in Hansard.
    The debate has been wide-ranging. I begin by mentioning a few facts from the report. The first was mentioned by the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton). He talked about the difficulties that the Select Committee experienced in defining lines of accountability. That is a real problem, and one which should give cause for anxiety to both Opposition and Conservative Members. I hope that we all agree that in future greater attention should be paid to accountability. If we cannot have accountability, the House is failing in its job.
    We need accountability on two scores. First, there needs to be financial accountability. Secondly, there should be full accountability of decision-making because in education it is so much in the public interest.
    I have noticed that no one has mentioned that the report says that in real terms education spending fell between 1989–90 and 1990–91. That fall is significant. We shall look with interest to see what happens in future years and the extent to which the Secretary of State is able to defend the essential spending within his Department against the Treasury cuts which I am afraid loom over us all.

    557
    The other fact which has come out of the debate is that not only the level of spending but the nature of that spending and the priorities that the Government choose to emphasise are important. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) made an interesting speech. He was the only hon. Member present from a Tory shire county. He reminded us of the salutary fact of our position in the international league tables.
    Only a few weeks ago, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research published its league tables. They showed that the number of French and German 16-year-olds who gain the equivalent of GCSE grades A to C in essential subjects is double the number in Britain. After 14 years of Conservative government, the Government would be wrong to be complacent about the direction in which standards are going.
    The problems that we face in education are widespread. Many hon. Members concentrated on the Government's priorities. I wish to say a word about them too, even though time is short. The Government have made it clear that one of their main themes and priorities is the centralisation of all decision-making in education in the hands of the Secretary of State. In the past few years, we have seen an increasing and unhealthy concentration of power in Whitehall. We shall soon consider the final stages of yet another Education Bill designed to give the Secretary of State more powers. That is a regrettable move.
    The concentration of power is wrong in principle and also clearly wrong in practice. It has become evident that those schools which have become grant-maintained—or Government-maintained, as Ministers now like to describe them—are finding it extremely difficult to deal with a central Department in all decision making. It was significant that in the middle of last month, 88 per cent. of all grant-maintained schools had not yet received their final budget for the current year. That could not have happened under the local authority system. That shows that the Secretary of State cannot even run 500 schools, let alone the 24,500 that he seeks to run.
    Returning to the specifics the report mentions the position of grant-maintained schools with regard to funding. Sometimes Ministers are quite honest and tell us openly that they intend to favour grant-maintained schools. Sometimes they say that there are bribes and sometimes they say that the extra money is simply there to reflect the extra administrative burdens facing grant-maintained schools. The report shows clearly that, with regard to capital, the Government have made a straightforward political decision to favour the schools that suit their particular political ideology.
    However, there are other issues involved in terms of ongoing expenditure. The point was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon). Recently, we have seen that many grant-maintained schools are receiving double funding. The problem is not simple because schools which have become grant-maintained in the first instance receive the highest level of double funding. I understand that grant-maintained schools in one authority are funded on eight different formulae. That must be a recipe for chaos.
    One of the difficulties is that there is no proper accountability for grant-maintained funding. The Audit
    558
    Commission's writ does not run that far. It is important that the Select Committee should consider that point in future because it is an area of significant expenditure.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: On the specific point of double funding, I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that Tory-controlled Calderdale council has decided, as a result of the implications of grant-maintained funding and the way that is sucking money from the local education authority, to spearhead a national campaign to try to persuade the Government that the present formula is simply pumping money into grant-maintained schools at the expense of other schools.
    Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that many people outside this place, including Conservative councillors, are appalled at the priorities that the Government have given to grant-maintained schools because they understand the practical problems and what is happening on the ground. At the moment, the Government are creating a hierarchy of funding according to the political correctness of a school as defined by the Secretary of State.
    I want to refer to another area of funding which has not been touched upon today, but which is extremely important. That is the amount of money which the Government are spending on propaganda. The Government have recently spent more than £500,000 on producing booklets and glossy folders in an attempt to persuade schools to opt out. Indeed, the Government wasted £17,500 recently on a revised booklet which will be out of date before many people receive it because of the new Education Bill.
    The publicity budget of the Department for Education has risen dramatically in recent years. In 1979–80, the publicity budget was £103,800 which was just over one tenth of a million pounds. The publicity figure last year was more than £8.8 million. That shows the scale of the increase in the budget. There has been a staggering increase of 8,455 per cent.
    The Government are now spending more than £370 per school simply on publicity and just to tell the country what the Government believe should be happening. Such a sense of priority is wholly wrong; it shows that Ministers are not in touch with the reality of the problems.
    I would have liked to raise many problems. I would have liked to have referred to the Government's failure to stand by their promises on section 11 funding to provide additional help for some of the schools that need it most. I would have liked to comment on the fact that the Government have cut the budget for drug education, which could do so much to help young people and keep them away from the appalling tragedy that could befall them.
    One of my main criticisms, which I want to mention despite the shortage of time, is of the way in which the government deal with education expenditure as it relates to provision for the under-fives. The junior Minister who is to reply to the debate this evening has made his position clear. When I asked him at Question Time recently whether he agreed that nursery education provided the best start in education and should be available to all three and four-year-olds, he refused point blank to agree.
    The Secretary of State has kept very quiet on this matter. His predecessors had commitments to nursery provision. Surely Ministers can see that, if we spent more

    559
    on pre-school education and nursery education, we would be identifying problems at an earlier stage, helping children to settle better at school, helping them to perform better throughout their educational career, giving them a better chance of finding work later, and, indeed, ensuring that there was less chance that they would end up engaged in criminal activity.
    The Government seem incapable of viewing education expenditure as an investment in our future. Unless the Government can change their attitude; unless they can see that if they fail to spend money at certain crucial stages they will have to spend even more later on many of the problems that will arise, I do not believe that we will make real progress.
    I thought that the contributions from the hon. Members for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) and for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), talking of partnership, saying that there should not be confrontation in education, echoed very clearly things that hon. Members on this side of the House have said on many occasions.
    During the last 12 months the attitude of Ministers, who seem to have adopted a confrontational approach whenever possible, has been extremely damaging to education. If other Conservative Members were vocal in the way that those two hon. Gentleman were tonight, we could make more progress in education. I am sure that members of the Select Committee from all sides of the House have an important contribution to make.
    9.42 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): This is an important and, regrettably in many ways, a rare opportunity for the House to consider this vital part of Government activities, education, in a thoughtful way. I congratulate the Chairman of the Education Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), on initiating this debate, and all those who have taken part, even though over the past year some of us have become fairly familiar with each other's arguments. It may well be that the odd remark that I make will have been heard before. Nevertheless, the arguments are of such quality that repetition will not necessarily damage them.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby asked some important and fundamental questions arising from his Committee's report and reflecting my Department's response to it. I will deal with them as quickly as I can, but try to do justice to them.
    My hon. Friend—and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs)—asked why we could not use the sub-blocks, or control totals, of expenditure on which our provision for local education authorities is based for planning purposes. The difficulty is that these control totals do not represent a planning breakdown of education standard spending; they are derived exclusively for the rather technical purpose of calculating standard spending assessments.
    They do not represent an indicative breakdown of how education should be deployed. They are not read or regarded as such by local education authorities. Therefore, I do not think that it would be right to attempt to compare outturn data with them. Although there might be a temptation to make that connection, I believe that it would be wrong to do so. I am certainly not persuaded that this would be the right way to use that information.
    560
    The Committee Chairman and other hon. Members made quite a point about the accountability argument. I believe that in many ways accountability—someone used the expression multi-layered; it is not a very elegant term, but it will do for this purpose—exists in a number of different forms in education expenditure. It certainly exists in a global sense, because the Secretary of State is responsible, through the normal procedures of the House, for establishing the correct and appropriate level of expenditure overall, and for the distribution of that expenditure.
    As for accountability, local education authorities, and, increasingly, grant-maintained schools are accountable in their own way and through their different procedures to their own electorates. That is as it should be. We cannot expect—and I would be surprised if hon. Members on either side of the House asked for it—the Government to accept accountability or responsibility for the details of how local education authorities spend their money in their own areas.
    In almost every regard, local education authorities are given a lot of discretion in how they spend money on education, and they are accountable for it to their own electorates. Equally, grant-maintained schools are accountable to parents and local communities through their audits, annual reports and elected governors, and that is as it should be.
    The accountability systems and mechanisms are strong and robust. It may be that it is not as easy as everybody would like it to be to draw direct lines of connection between the global figure and that established by local education authorities. One must make the point in passing that many local education authorities do not produce the returns of information as quickly as one would like, either to the Secretary of State or to their own electorate.
    My hon. Friends the Members for Crosby and for Wyre Forest asked why we do not receive information on education as quickly or comprehensively as we would like. We continue to strive to make that information available. We have strengthened the procedures and reminded local authorities of the need for accurate and timely returns, and we continually chase latecomers for information.
    The House may not believe it, but for the first time ever, we received a full return in respect of the 1990–91 financial year, and in respect of the 1991–92 financial year we received returns from all but five authorities by March. However, even by March, five authorities still had not returned their figures.
    In the Department we do our best to gather, collate and disseminate the information that the Select Committee and hon. Members want so much, but we rely completely on local education authorities to provide us with the basic information. If they cannot or will not, due to either inefficiency or recalcitrance, there is not much that the Department can do. We will continue to strive to improve, but we hope that the House will understand that we continue to rely very much on local education authorities.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Minister acknowledge that the reason for the delay in setting grant-maintained school budgets was not the tardiness of local authorities in the majority of cases?
    Mr. Forth: I have discussed this with grant-maintained school heads and others, and if they want their budgets to be based on the most up-to-date information, inevitably

    561
    there will be some delay in establishing the final figures. They can have the figures much earlier if they want them to be based on previous year's information, but from the soundings that I have taken, it seems that they are content with the pace so far. We have improved on last year and we will seek to improve next year, but the truth is that, if we respond to their requests for basing their budgets on the most up-to-date information, the outcome will be as it has been. I believe that the balance is right, and the grant-maintained community accept that.
    I welcome the comments that the Chairman of the Select Committee made about the national curriculum, and in particular the work being carried out by Sir Ron Dearing at the invitation and request of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in reviewing the curriculum and the testing regime. My hon. Friend said that he had no reservations about the opportunities that Sir Ron has provided for people to contribute to his review and to the conclusions that he will draw from it. We welcome and admire the way in which Sir Ron Dearing has gone about the important and responsible tasks that the Secretary of State has set him.
    I emphasise—because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the point in an intervention—that the fact that Sir Ron Dearing will soon take up his position as chairman of the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority means that he will have a continuing role. He will be in a position to continue his review of the curriculum and testing regime on an on-going basis in precisely the way that the chairman of the Select Committee requested. We can take reassurance from that.
    We are looking forward to Sir Ron's report, which will be available soon. The Secretary of State will then make his own judgment of what Sir Ron says, and my right hon. Friend will come forward with his response as quickly as may be. At that point everybody will be able to assess for themselves the way forward suggested by Sir Ron, and my right hon. Friend will then be in a position to bring forward his own proposals.
    A number of hon. Members, not least the chairman of the Select Committee, raised the point to which the House returns from time to time, namely, the concerns expressed about capital allocations to grant-maintained schools. I shall, as I have done on previous occasions to the Select Committee and elsewhere, quote from two letters. The first was sent by the Prime Minister in August 1991 to a gentleman named Mr. Doug McAvoy, in which my right hon. Friend wrote:
    "We have made no secret of the fact that grant-maintained schools get preferential treatment in allocating grants to capital expenditure. We look favourably at grant-maintained schools in order to encourage the growth of the sector and I am delighted to see that numbers are continuing to grow rapidly."
    The former Secretary of State wrote in a letter to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in May 1991:
    "On capital, I made clear at the time when allocations were announced for grant-maintained schools in January that my intention was to ensure that schools becoming grant-maintained were set up on a sound basis. In 1991–92 the sector as a whole has received relatively rather higher capital allocations than the LEA sector as a whole. I make no apology for that."
    We have said time and again, without apology, that grant-maintained schools will be given the capital allocations that the Secretary of State deems necessary and
    562
    desirable for those schools to operate on a sound basis. In doing so, we must make our assessment of the very rapid rate of growth of the grant-maintained sector in making capital available to it.
    In that context, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), as usual for Opposition Members, could not quite decide whether he wanted to deride the small number of schools that had become grant-maintained or whether he was fearful of the large number that were becoming grant-maintained. When I bring him up to date and tell him that nearly 1,000 schools have voted yes to become grant-maintained, I leave him to decide whether he is afraid of that as a rate of progress or whether he finds it a derisorily small number. I leave him to explain his position on that.
    A number of important points were raised during the debate. For example, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) referred to my Department's budget for publicity. We have an obligation under the citizens charter to provide the maximum information to parents throughout the country. We have an obligation to tell parents about the availability of the grant-maintained school option. We shall continue to discharge in full our responsibilities to parents and taxpayers for the moneys that we spend on informing them and keeping them up to date on the rapidly changing environment.
    This has been a useful debate. Some important questions have been asked. I have done my best, in the short time that has been available to me, to answer them. I welcome this and future opportunities to debate those matters and clarify them further.
    9.55 pm
    Mr. Edward O'Hara: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, and to the Minister for arranging the debate in such a way that a member of the Select Committee has the privilege of replying to it, as is perhaps appropriate, albeit briefly.
    In reviewing the Government's estimates for expenditure on education, I have the same problem as the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), the Chairman of the Select Committee, in finding my way through the statistics. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) that we do our best to find our way through them because it is important that we have a full picture of how the Government are investing in our nation's education system. I invite the House to see the picture that I see, which is one of incompetence, waste and a failure to invest in the nation's schools. In short, it is a failure properly to address the educational needs of the nation's children.
    The Government may defend themselves by pointing to increased expenditure in certain areas, but in many cases that is misdirected. For example, there is the obscene luxury of Sanctuary house, which is like a set for a Hollywood epic—a disaster movie in the context of the debate: "The Towering Fiasco" perhaps—
    Mr. Jamieson: "Jurassic Park".
    Mr. O'Hara: Yes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) also said earlier, "Jurassic Park" is an appropriate title for a Government who think the way to the future is backwards.
    Department of Education accommodation costs are especially difficult to work out; they are opaque. However,

    563
    it appears that there has been a 75 per cent. increase between 1987–88 and 1992–93. The costs of Sanctuary house appear to be double those of its predecessor, Elizabeth house. However, it is staff costs that have risen most dramatically, by some 68 per cent. I note that current expenditure plans allow for a further increase of 67 new staff, on top of an increase of 200 between 1989–90 and 1992–93. The precise number is difficult to work out when we take account of Ofsted and the staff who have transferred to the Department of National Heritage.
    It is clear that central administration is the one area that is sacrosanct. Perhaps that is why it has taken refuge in Sanctuary house. All those extra millions are not available for allocation to schools, but there is no hint of performance indicators to justify the mushrooming of central expenditure, despite the Government's predilection for indicators in every other area of the education service.
    I expected to hear the justification—and the Minister has just given it—that the extra staff are needed for important Government reforms such as the national curriculum and the increase in grant-maintained schools. If the Secretary of State listens carefully, he will hear a hollow laugh throughout the country.
    On the national curriculum, I invite him to visit any school in the country to see for himself the accumulated outpourings of documentation and other literature, much of it piled up in cupboards or even filling whole rooms. All of it is expensively produced, much of it is redundant and much of it is unread because teachers cannot keep up with it.
    There is so much sheer waste, but no expense is spared on it. The Secretary of State had the opportunity to repent and not publish the redundant key stage 3 tests, but he went ahead and wasted a further £35 million on that. All that outpouring of literature is expensive not only in terms of money but in the damage that it does to morale, motivation and good will across the whole area of education.
    What about the increased numbers of grant-maintained schools? Perhaps there is a justification for increased central administration costs as those schools become the direct responsibility of the DFE. We cannot know, because we do not know the performance indicators, but we can do some calculations—as my hon. Friends have done. The Government estimate, probably optimistically, that by 1995–96 there will be 2·25 million pupils in grant-maintained, schools and 5·2 million under LEA administration, yet it is projected that GM schools will have more than £250 million spent on their capital programmes compared with £342·5 million for LEA schools.
    That is scandalously disproportionate. It is all about bribing schools, often against their better judgment, to follow the Government down an ideological yellow brick road, away from the imputed disadvantages of LEA administration and towards direct control from the centre, albeit by an agency. It will be remote control with no local knowledge and no local accountability—those essential elements of LEA administration. It has nothing to do with investing in the education of the majority of the nation's children.
    I describe that as misdirected expenditure. Meanwhile, the picture of massive, widespread dilapidation of the nation's schools will continue to worsen. Figures are not available, but the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) gave
    564
    an estimate of £4 billion. Certainly the shortfall can be counted in billions of pounds. Then again, the education of the majority of the nation's children does not figure highly in Government priorities—few of its members use state schools.
    Expenditure on the assisted places scheme is set to rise inexorably, to provide for increased take-up, revised forecasts of parental contributions and fee increases at participating schools—no belt-tightening there. The scheme has become a lifeboat for the independent sector, funded from the hard-pressed budgets of state schools. It is argued that it provides a ladder of opportunity for bright children of impecunious parents.
    It being Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, and the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates).
    MADAM SPEAKER, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates), put the deferred Questions on Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, 1993–94 (Class XIII, Vote 4 and Class VII, Vote 8).

    Class XIII, Vote 4
    Resolved,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £1,505,632,000, and including a Supplementary sum of £810,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Department of Social Security on administration, for agency payments, and for certain other services including grants to local authorities and voluntary organisations.

    Class VII, Vote 8
    Resolved,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £15,520,183,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on revenue support grant, on residual payments of rate support grants, on payment of non-domestic rates to receiving authorities in England, on a grant providing support to certain receiving authorities affected by changes in the calculations underlying revenue support grant as a result of population change, on a grant providing transitional support for certain local authorities, on a grant to compensate 75 per cent. of the expenditure incurred by them on preparation work for the council tax, on payments to specified bodies and the Commission for Local Administration in England, on payments for Valuation Office Agency rating and valuation services, on payments to meet the expenses of valuation tribunals, and on payments in respect of expenditure by the Local Government Commission.
    MADAM SPEAKER then, pursuant to paragraph ( 5 ) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates), put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the remaining Estimates appointed for consideration this day (Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, 1993–94 (Class X, Votes I, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6).

    Class X, Vote 1
    Resolved,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £362,633,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Department for Education on the assisted places scheme, voluntary and special schools, City Technology Colleges, grant maintained schools, music and ballet schools, direct grant schools, youth services, grants for miscellaneous international and other educational services, administrative costs of the Student Loans Company, research, information, publicity and central government grants to local authorities.

    Class X, Vote 2
    Resolved,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £3,399,269,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Department for Education on payments to the Higher Education Funding Council (England) and the Further Education Funding Council, other payments for or in connection with higher and further education, and payment of certain licence fees to the Home Office.

    Class X, Vote 3
    Resolved,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £1,769,824,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Department for Education on student awards and fees; provision of loans to students; reimbursement of fees for qualifying European Community students; compensation payments to redundant teachers and staff of certain institutions; and payments to the Further Education Funding Council.

    Class X, Vote 4
    Resolved,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £44,369,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Department for Education on administration.

    Class X, Vote 5
    Resolved,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £546,513,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Department for Education (Teachers' Pensions Agency) on superannuation allowances and gratuities, etc in respect of teachers, and the widows, widowers, children and dependants of deceased teachers.

    Class X, Vote 6
    Resolved,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £38,607,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for administration and programme expenditure by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools.

    FINANCE (NO. 2) BILL
    Ordered,
    That, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions, more than one stage of the Finance (No. 2) Bill may be taken at any sitting of the House.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

    Broadcasting Act 1990
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
    10.1 pm
    Mr. Peter Mandelson: I am grateful for this opportunity to initiate this Adjournment debate on the operation of the Broadcasting Act 1990.
    I am pleased that the bongs have sounded as usual tonight for ITN's much-admired "News at Ten", and long may they continue to do so. The early-day motion that I tabled supporting the continuation of "News at Ten" has attracted the signatures of more than 90 hon. Members. That is an understatement of the strong feelings that exist on both sides of the House.
    ITV chiefs should bear that in mind, as well as the Select Committee report, before reaching a final decision on the future of "News at Ten". They would be unwise to ignore Parliament's views, because I believe that the country wants "News at Ten" saved for the future. Parliament has a wider responsibility, however, to consider developments in ITV as a whole and to engage Ministers in examining the working of the Broadcasting Act 1990, notwithstanding the short period of its operation.
    As a former television producer, I want to speak up tonight for ITV's millions of viewers and for its employees, who are dedicated to maintaining its standards of public service broadcasting. Unquestionably, we still have one of the best broadcasting systems in the world. When ITV was introduced, some thought that the BBC's standards would be impaired. The opposite occurred. British television has been greatly enhanced by regionally based ITV.
    The reason for disturbing the ITV system with the 1990 Act was not that its programmes needed improving or that its management needed shaking up—although both might have been true in certain respects. The reason was the application of mistaken dogma to ITV at a time when it was flourishing and rightly regarded as a pillar of public service broadcasting. However, the Government and the then Prime Minister thought that ITV could be improved if the old way of doing things were discarded and if its franchises were merely sold to the highest bidders, who would then have to recoup the price that they had paid irrespective of the resulting quality of service.
    What Mrs. Thatcher wanted was to take an industry that was already in the private sector and to privatise its values and ethos even further. She was only partly restrained in doing so by her then broadcasting Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). Making a colossally incompetent Bill into a temporarily less destructive Act will be his epitaph, or at least one of them.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman managed to inject into the Act a bit of the old world of public service broadcasting to mitigate the new system of pure financial return. However, this legislative cocktail did not strike the right balance, and now the commercial pressures created by the Act are starting to come into sharp conflict with ITV's public service commitment. That conflict between market forces and public interest lies behind the attempt to axe "News at Ten". It is also reflected in a host of similar, albeit less prominent, scheduling decisions throughout the ITV companies.

    567
    Hon. Members have drawn attention, for example, to worrying developments in Granada Television and other ITV companies, whose cuts in programme-making capacity, it is feared, will affect the companies' ability to fulfil the conditions of their licences. Undoubtedly there is mounting pressure on a range of programmes—not just news but all factual programming, documentaries, education, regional arts, minority entertainment and many others, which are popular but which may not maximise audience share and advertising revenue, and therefore help ITV to compete with its rivals.
    As yet, ITV is far from collapsing. This year, £515 million is being spent on the programme schedules. In most parts of the country, viewers are still seeing the programmes that they are used to on ITV. Nevertheless, there is a growing recognition of a threat to ITV, and a real danger of a downward spiral of programme quality, brought on by the commercial burdens on ITV.
    When the highest-bid ITV auction was carried out in 1991, the present Prime Minister passed immediate judgment on it. He said:
    "I don't think it has been an optimum success."
    When asked whether the system should be abandoned, he added:
    "We will have to wait and see."
    I doubt whether his confidence has grown since then.
    After an inauspicious start, three developments have taken place to frustrate the intention of the Broadcasting Act to protect public service broadcasting on ITV. First, the ridiculous auction has resulted in franchises costing between £2,000 and £43 million apiece, producing an income for the Treasury, and a huge fixed cost for the companies, of £231.6 million per annum. Advertising revenue is available to cover these purchase costs, although it also has to cover programme making.
    Secondly, the recession has been deeper and longer than anyone expected, and that has drained ITV of anticipated income. Thirdly, and most important for the long term, the competition to ITV from satellite, cable and Channel 4 has grown faster than many predicted. The satellite and cable systems now reach more than 3 million homes and have sources of income, such as subscription television, that are denied to ITV. Those systems, along with Channel 4, are eroding ITV's market share, thereby threatening to reduce its advertising revenue year on year.
    Further rapid technology changes will greatly accelerate the spread of this competition. In 1989, when the Act was being considered, digital technology seemed to be at least a decade away, yet BSkyB is planning to use digital technology in Britain in two years' time. That will bring films almost on demand. Pay-as-you-view television will be here in profusion. In 1989, high-definition television on a commercial basis was seen as the technology of the 21st century. It could now be the technology of the mid-1990s.
    This is the crux of the issue. As ITV loses revenue due to technology-driven and unregulated competition and rivalry from Channel 4, the ITV companies will be forced to cut costs. Because of their high fixed costs, chiefly the franchise bids, the axe will fall on programme budgets. That will weaken the programme schedule, depressing audience ratings and revenue still further, creating the danger of a descending spiral of programme quality.
    What should Ministers be doing to respond to that threat? First, the Government must recognise that the problem exists. The Secretary of State for National
    568
    Heritage—I am glad that he has joined us for the debate —told me last month that his job is merely to listen to the debate. That is not encouraging. It is necessary for him to think again and carry out a thorough review of the Broadcasting Act, which should take place in tandem with a review of the BBC's charter and the subsequent legislation.
    The review needs to embrace a number of aspects of the operation of the Act. First, it needs to examine the possibility of reducing the cash burdens on ITV created by the franchise auction. At the moment, that is planned for 1999. Consideration should be given to bringing that forward by two or three years. Next, the review should look at the balance of regulation between ITV and the satellite and cable systems in order to put competition on a fairer basis. BSkyB has almost no public service obligations placed on it, whereas ITV has a requirement, for example, to carry 51 per cent. British or European originated production.
    The review also needs to look carefully at Channel 4. Paradoxically, Channel 4's success has been a worry for ITV ever since the Broadcasting Act separated it from the ITV system. Channel 4 has taken full advantage of its licence conditions, which are looser in some respects than ITV's, and its flexible remit to provide a service that is able to compete advantageously with channel three. The problems posed by that for ITV need to be examined by Ministers. I am not inviting the Government to consider privatising Channel 4 because of its success or to eye the money it makes to ease the Treasury's current problems. Perhaps the Minister will reassure us on those matters.
    Last but not least, there is the issue of ITV's business structure. At the beginning of next year, under the Boradcasting Act, it will be permissible for large ITV companies to merge with smaller ones, but not with each other. Foreign companies of any size will be able to take over British companies, large and small. We are all rightly concerned at the impact that mergers can have on the regional identity of our television stations. Most Members of Parliament, including myself, are instinctively hostile to them. When Yorkshire Television tried to swallow up Tyne Tees during their merger last year, I campaigned to ensure that the interests of the viewers in my constituency and throughout the north-east were not sacrificed precisely because of that concern for regional identity and production.
    As a result of the way in which the industry is structured and the way in which the Broadcasting Act operates, financial reality is driving the major ITV companies towards consideration of mergers. In the face of overseas competition, which operates without restraint on merger and acquisition, the pressure to reduce costs and overheads through coming together is now becoming inexorable. I regret that, but at present it is a commercial fact. The risk is that, in the absence of a level playing field, we may end up with the bizarre situation in which foreign-based companies have a significant advantage over home-based ones. At the very least, it now merits serious scrutiny by the Government.
    Any changes must, however, preserve the regional licences, production and local identity of ITV. Yorkshire Television's crude attempt to absorb Tyne Tees shows the fragility of local identity and control and the immense dangers of giving excessive latitude to ITV companies. However, the prompt intervention of the Independent Television Commission in the north-east—we have seen

    569
    the ITC acting again over ITN's "News at Ten"—proved how firm regulation can protect the interests of regional viewers. In this as in other matters, a strong role for the ITC to protect the public and regional interest needs to be upheld. Such interest, the maintenance of programme standards and the whole ethos of public broadcasting must underlie any review of the Broadcasting Act 1990.
    The crisis in ITV is not yet on us, but it is not far off. The Act, born in prejudice, must now fit new realities as well as maintain the traditional standards of British broadcasting. I hope that the Minister will state how the Government intend to proceed. I am sure that he shares my concern and my commitment to the strengthening of public licence broadcasting on ITV. That would certainly reflect the reputation and record of the Department of National Heritage to date. I hope that he will respond vigorously and imaginatively.
    10.16 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. lain Sproat): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) on his good fortune in securing the debate. I also congratulate him on the thoughtful way in which he presented his comments. As he will discover, I do not agree with all that he said, but it is nevertheless excellent that such sharp and well informed comments should be directed at the Broadcasting Act 1990 and, indeed, at all Acts, from time to time. I am sure that nothing but good can flow from it.
    As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the subject is extremely topical. It is also a very large subject, as the Broadcasting Act 1990 is one of the longest passed by the previous Parliament. It has 10 parts, 204 sections and 22 schedules. The hon. Gentleman has, fairly enough, concentrated on a few issues and I begin by setting them in context.
    The Act was a significant move towards deregulating what had hitherto been a highly regulated industry. There were good reasons for it: it was in line with the Government's general policy of trying to remove unnecessary shackles in the operation of commercial enterprises. Moreover, conditions were changing. In the past, it had been thought necessary to regulate broadcasting fairly closely, but, with the possibility of many more services, a new framework had to be created to take account of those changes.
    By the late 1980s, it was clear that more services could become available through satellite and cable television and through the BBC releasing some radio frequencies so that more independent radio stations could be opened. The old framework, the cosy duopoly of the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority, could not cope with the likely multiplicity of services; nor could it accommodate the move towards a global market for broadcasting services. Services may now be transmitted to one country by an organisation based in another country, using a satellite owned in a third country for reception in a fourth country, or, indeed, on another continent.
    The aims of the Broadcasting Acts were to create diversity, choice and competition in the provision of broadcast services. It set out to create a new pattern for broadcasting, opening the way for many more services. It
    570
    created two new regulatory bodies, the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority, to licence broadcasting services.
    The Act has enabled a huge range of services to be licensed. At one end of the scale there are the terrestrial television services available throughout the United Kingdom, the new national independent radio services and the satellite services. At the other end of the scale are the local delivery services to bring television and radio services to 1,000 or more homes through a cable or microwave system, and the Radio Authority's restricted licences, which allow local events to be covered by a temporary radio service in a limited area.
    The Act also establishes different levels of regulation for different types of service. For programmes it sets out standards of taste, of decency, of accuracy and of due impartiality for all services licensed by the ITC and the Radio Authority. Most services are regulated more lightly than would have been possible in the past.
    Only Channel 4, and S4C in Wales, are required to broadcast programmes as public services of information, education and entertainment. Channel 4 has to ensure that it broadcasts programmes likely to appeal to tastes and interests not catered for on ITV and has to encourage innovation and experiment in the form and content of programmes. S4C has to ensure that a substantial proportion of its programmes are in Welsh.
    Channel 3—ITV—is no longer required to provide programmes as public services, although the Act places some public service obligations on Channel 3 licensees. Those include providing programmes calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests, regional programmes, religious programmes, programmes intended for children, and news and current affairs.
    I shall now make some specific points, the first of which concerns the competitive cash bidding for ITV licences. Not all licences under the Act are awarded by competitive bidding. Licences awarded in that way are those that are potentially the most valuable—the licences for Channel 3, Channel 5 and the new national independent radio services. As the licences constitute permission to use a public asset—the frequencies—for commercial purposes, it seems right that the Treasury and the taxpayers should receive their share. That was the purpose of the bids.
    For ITV there was a quality threshold, too, and some applicants fell at that hurdle. Not all the successful applicants had been the highest bidders. Whatever the criticisms, the process was open and the criteria for applications were known. That seems preferable to the awards behind closed doors that were a feature of the earlier arrangements. The same processes will not happen again. ITV licensees will be able to renew their licences after six years, but the ITC can withdraw licences if promises are not kept.
    With regard to the ownership of ITV companies, there is a balance to be struck between conflicting objectives. There are economies of scale to be achieved if fewer but larger organisations provide a service, but there are also benefits in competition. Those benefits are obtained by allowing a number of organisations to compete in providing a service and by preventing concentrations in the ownership of the media in any area.
    During the passage of the Broadcasting Act, the Government were persuaded to provide for a period of stability when the new ITV licences came into force. That was the background to the so-called moratorium, which is

    571
    due to expire at the end of the year. It does not prevent all takeovers, but it means that any takeovers or mergers have to be approved by the ITC.
    The Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) Order 1991, made under the Act, prevented Channel 3 licensees from acquiring two licences in contiguous areas as part of the initial award of licences. It did not prevent subsequent mergers. However, the order designates nine areas with the largest advertising revenues, and the licensee for one large area cannot hold the licence in another large area. That licensee can, however, own a licence in a smaller area, a 20 per cent. interest in another large licensee, and a 5 per cent. interest in the holders of other regional licences.
    Concern has been expressed, both by the hon. Member for Hartlepool tonight and by other hon. Members on other occasions, about takeovers from organisations based in other EC countries. Any organisation taking over an ITV company will be hound by its licence conditions, including those requiring local programmes and local programme production.
    There is a debate between the licensees as to whether it would be desirable for those ownership restrictions to be relaxed further or whether the moratorium should be extended. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—here with us tonight—met representatives of all the ITV licensees on 14 June so that they could put their views to him face to face. It was a very helpful meeting, and my right hon. Friend is now reflecting on what was said to him on that occasion. I am not able this evening to say what the outcome of those reflections will be.
    The hon. Member for Hartlepool, mindful of the interests of his constituents, has been concerned—and he properly expressed that concern this evening—about the merger of Tyne Tees and Yorkshire Television. This merger was allowed by the ITC under the provisions of the Act. I understand that, earlier this year, the commission held a series of meetings with representatives of Yorkshire and Tyne Tees and is now satisfied with the new arrangements for the structure of the companies, with two organisations operating under a hold company.
    The hon. Gentleman was concerned about the regional programming in the Tyne Tees area and the continuation of programme production there. The commission clearly shares his anxieties. As he knows, the main provisions on regional programming and production are set out in the licences that the commission has issued. It is for the commission to monitor compliance with those licences and there is every indication that it intends to take those duties extremely seriously.
    Under the terms of the Act, the commission will in future include in its annual report to Parliament an assessment of the extent to which the holders of ITV licences have failed to comply with the conditions included in their licences. The first of those reports should be available to the House next summer. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about job losses in the Tyne Tees area—that concern is entirely right and proper—but in the longer term inefficient concerns will not survive. The restructuring of broadcasting is creating new opportunities, as well as job losses. There has been an increase in independent production companies and facilities companies.
    Let me now deal with the question with which the hon. Gentleman began his speech—ITN and "News at Ten". ITN has been nominated by the ITC as the news provider
    572
    for Channel 3 under the terms of the Act. Both sides of the House were agreed that it was important that Channel 3 schedules should include high-quality programmes of national and international news, which could compete effectively with the news services provided by the BBC.
    In the past, ITN was wholly owned by all the ITV companies. The Broadcasting Act requires that ownership should be more varied. No one can have more than a 20 per cent. interest in the nominated news provider, and the holders of regional ITV licences taken together should have less than a 50 per cent. interest. Obviously, time has to be allowed for changes in the ownership of ITN, and those requirements do not come into effect until the end of 1994.
    Earlier this year, ITN was taken over by a new consortium, which included a number of ITV licence holders and also Reuters. One of the major partners in the consortium was Carlton Communications and the chairman of Carlton Communications is Michael Green, who is also the chairman of Carlton Television, holding the weekday Channel 3 licence and now the chairman of ITN.
    I understand that, when the bid was made, it was considered by the Office of Fair Trading. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade subsequently concluded that there was need for a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. There are, of course, many other providers of broadcast news services, including the BBC, Sky News and CNN for those who receive cable services, as well as the independent radio services.
    I do not intend to comment at any length on the view that Mr. Green should stand down as chairman of ITN just because he is a declared supporter of and donor to the Conservative party. The Act requires news programmes to be presented with due accuracy and impartiality. It also requires due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy. We can expect the commission to monitor compliance with those requirements.
    During the past two weeks, considerable concern has been expressed in the House and elsewhere about the timing of the main evening news bulletin on ITV. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote to the chairman of the Independent Television Commission expressing his concern about the proposed changes in the timing and stressing the importance of ITV providing a high-quality news service, and providing effective competition with the BBC in peak hours. The Leader of the Opposition also wrote.
    The National Heritage Select Committee, which by chance was examining witnesses from the ITV companies last week, produced, with commendable speed, a report with its views on the proposals for changing the scheduling of the main news bulletin. In the face of that barrage, it is hardly surprising that the ITV companies are planning to discuss the issue at their annual meeting with the ITC on 14 July.
    The main responsibility for monitoring the implementation of the provisions of the Broadcasting Act which governs ITV rests with the Independent Television Commission. Those provisions came into effect only at the beginning of this year.
    The Act establishes a new relationship between the commission and, the ITV companies. Until this year, the commission was the broadcaster, providing a public

    573
    service of information, education and entertainment, with programmes supplied by the ITV companies under contract. Now the ITC is a regulator and the ITV companies operate under licences which it has issued.
    It is understandable that it will take some time for that relationship to settle down. In the past few months, there has been some jockeying for position and some flexing of muscles on both sides, but the commission seems determined to be an effective watchdog.
    574
    We shall keep the working of the Act under review, but it is far too early to consider major amendments. Amending the Act will not alter the changes in the global market—
    The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Murder Cases
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will ensure that, in murder cases where hon. Members have raised the conviction with members of the Government, transcripts or notes of the trial are retained longer than the five year norm provided that the hon. Member is still seeking a review of the case, regardless of whether it has gone to appeal.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  If an hon. Member seeks a review of a murder case, he, or others, may purchase any transcript required within the five-year period. On request, the Department will supply details of the contractor responsible for keeping the particular record.

  Applications for leave to appeal are required to be lodged within 28 days and reasons to justify any extension of time are required. If there has been an application for leave to appeal, transcript relevant to the grounds of appeal will have been obtained and will be retained indefinitely in appeals against a murder conviction. The Royal Commission on criminal justice made no recommendation to extend the five-year period for the keeping of a verbatim record and I see no case to do so.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what arrangements are made for the storage of transcripts or notes of the trials in murder cases which have gone to appeal.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The verbatim record is kept for five years after it was taken, regardless of whether there is an appeal. Transcripts are not automatically produced for cost reasons, but may be purchased if required within the five-year period.

  If there is an appeal against a murder conviction, any transcripts purchased by the Court of Appeal and the documents provided by the Crown court to the Court of Appeal are retained indefinitely by arrangement with the Public Record Office.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy, in circumstances in which the Home Office has requested from an hon. Member representing the interests of a convicted murderer a statement concerning that case, to provide the hon. Member on request with a transcript of the relevant portions of the trial including the summings up by counsel for the defence, the prosecution and the trial judge.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Verbatim records of murder trials are retained for five years. If a transcript is required by an hon. Member, the Home Office, or another organisation or person, it must be purchased within the five-year period. The contractor responsible for keeping the records will be 204
  required to meet any such request. It would not be appropriate for my Department to meet the costs of such transcription.

  A verbatim record of the evidence and a trial judge's summing up is always taken, but prosecution and defence closing speeches are not matters of evidence or law which a jury are required to have regard to. A record of these may not be available as there is no requirement to record them.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the rank of the officer or officers of the City of London police who on or about 1 April 1992 prepared letters purporting to have been written, respectively by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and Mr. D. W. Freeman in connection with a case under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office; what disciplinary proceedings have been taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  These are matters for the Commissioner of Police for the City of London.

  Police (Assaults)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers in each police force in the United Kingdom have had to retire from their jobs as a result of injuries caused by assault in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not held centrally for police forces in England and Wales. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that this is also the case for Scotland. If individual forces were able to provide the information requested, it could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  I understand from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that his Department holds information about retirements from the Royal Ulster Constabulary from which the information requested could be extracted in respect of former RUC police officers. If my hon. Friend writes to him, he will provide the information.

  Police (Civilian Staff)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he expects the recommendation in his White Paper that civilian staff employed for police purposes should be employed by the chief constable to work in practice.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is too early to say how the detailed arrangements for the employment of civilian staff in the police service will be managed. Civilian staff have an increasingly important part to play in the provision of a good quality police service. It therefore seems appropriate, and in the interests of all those working in the police service, that the civilian staff should be directly employed by the chief constable.

  Sunday Trading
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish his plans to reform Sunday trading law in England and Wales.

  Mr. Howard
  We intend to lay before Parliament next week and publish on 13 July a draft Sunday trading Bill together with a covering text describing the options for reform.

  Family Reunification
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what ways United Kingdom legislation will have to be changed to implement the resolution on family reunification adopted by the Ministers responsible for immigration at their meeting in Copenhagen on 1 and 2 June; and what cost implications this will have.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There will be no need to amend primary legislation to implement the resolution on family reunification.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the international conventions and fundamental provisions in national legislation which the Ministers responsible for immigration indicated would be taken into account in their resolution on family reunification at their meeting in Copenhagen on 1 and 2 June; and which of these obligations are relevant to the implementation of this resolution in United Kingdom law.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is not possible to provide an exhaustive list of all the international conventions which the United Kingdom has ratified or the provisions in domestic legislation which might be relevant. However, the following are likely to be applicable:International Conventions

  (a) The United Nations Convention on Human Rights;

  (b) The European Convention on Human Rights;

  (c) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child;

  (d) The European Convention on the Adoption of Children;

  (e) The United Nations Convention on Refugees.

  2. Domestic legislation

  (a) The Immigration Act, 1971;

  (b) The Marriage Act, 1949;

  (c) The Children Act, 1989;

  (d) The Adoption Act, 1976, together with the equivalent Act and Order for Scotland and Northern Ireland;

  (e) The Family Law Reform Act, 1987.

  Dogs (Tail Docking)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures will be taken against those veterinary surgeons who continue to dock the tails of dogs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is a matter for the royal college to determine what controls to impose over veterinary surgeons.

  Drinking and Driving
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate for each year since 1967 the number of times a week people drive motor vehicles after consuming more than the legal limit for alcohol for drivers and the number of related deaths each year.
  206
  Mr. Maclean
  Such estimates are not available. However, the average weekly number of screening breath tests in England and Wales for the years 1968 to 1992 and the number of fatalities per year involving illegal alcohol levels are as follows:

  Average number of screening breath tests per week

  Annual number of fatalities in accidents involving illegal alcohol levels1

  1968

  980

  —

  1969

  1,130

  —

  1970

  1,400

  —

  1971

  1,860

  —

  1972

  2,310

  —

  1973

  2,540

  —

  1974

  2,380

  —

  1975

  2,580

  —

  1976

  2,580

  —

  1977

  2,520

  —

  1978

  2,730

  —

  1979

  3,150

  1,790

  1980

  3,460

  1,570

  1981

  3,400

  1,540

  1982

  3,980

  1,670

  1983

  4,630

  1,200

  1984

  4,000

  1,280

  1985

  4,810

  1,130

  1986

  5,830

  1,060

  1987

  7,690

  980

  1988

  8,520

  840

  1989

  10,400

  870

  1990

  11,480

  800

  1991

  10,810

  700

  1992

  10,210

  —

  1 Source: Department of Transport. Figures for years prior to 1979 not available. Figures for 1992 not yet available.

  Treason
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review United Kingdom legislation on treason.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government have no such plans.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the former Members of this House who have been appointed since 1988 by his Department to quasi autonomous non-governmental organisations; and if he will list in each case the title of the post, the salary, the duration of the appointment, and the party which the former hon. Member represented.

  Mr. Howard
  The following former Members have been appointed to Home Office non-departmental public bodies:

  David Bellotti

  Trustee of the Community Development Foundation

  Expenses only

  Appointed January 1992 for 3 years

  Liberal Democrat

  Right hon. Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, QC

  Chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

  Salary £31,350

  Appointed 1 March 1989 until 31 March 1995

  Conservative

  John Cartwright

  Member of the Police Complaints Authority

  Salary £38,020

  207

  Appointed for 3 years from October 1992

  SDP

  Sheila Faith

  Member of the Parole Board

  Fee Paid; £139 per attendance

  Appointed 1 June 1991 for 3 years

  Conservative

  Ben Ford

  Member of the Firearms Consultative Committee

  Expenses only

  Appointed 1989 for 2 years

  Labour

  Lord Kimball

  Chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee

  Expenses only

  Appointed for 5 years from 1989

  Conservative

  Anna McCurley

  Member of the Horserace Betting Levy Board

  Salary £11,640

  Appointed 1988 for 3 years extended until 1994

  Conservative

  Michael Meadowcroft

  Trustee of the Community Development Foundation

  Expenses only

  Appointed 1986, extended until 1994

  Liberal

  Norman Miscampbell, QC

  Member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

  Fee £246 per day

  Appointed 22 March 1993 until 31 March 1995

  Conservative

  Lord Wyatt of Weeford

  Chairman of the Horserace Totalisator-Board

  Salary £90,918

  Appointed 1976; reappointed 1993 for 2 years

  Labour

  Information in respect of the parole local review committees is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information in respect of the Fire Services Examination Board is not available.

  Prison Security Guards
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current standard hourly rate for prison security guards.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the prison service. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Jon Owen Jones, dated July 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent question about the current standard hourly rate for prison security guards.

  Subsequent to the introduction of Fresh Start in 1987 prison officers receive an annual salary paid monthly. They are conditioned to an average week of 39 hours net, any additional hours worked are compensated for by time off in lieu as they are a non overtime grade.

  Prison Officers have a seven point pay scale with a 10 and 15 year increment. The hourly rate ranges from £7.42 at the minimum to £9.25 at the 15 year point. These salaries are part of the annual pay negotiations between the Treasury and the Prison Officers Association and will be uplifted from 1 April 1993. Any increase will be within the Government pay restraints and be limited to between 0 to 1.5 per cent. increase.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the former Members of this House who have been appointed by his Department to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations; and if he will list in each case the title of the post, the salary, the duration of the appointment, and the party which the former hon. Member represented.

  Mr. David Davis
  No former Members of this House have been appointed by my right hon. Friend to the non-departmental public bodies for which he has had responsibility since the creation of his Department in April 1992.

TRANSPORT

  Airports
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are being taken to improve the services offered by major United Kingdom international airports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government believe that increasing the scope for airport operators to respond to commercial pressures offers the best route for improving the services offered at all airports. This underlies the Government's policy of encouraging increased private sector involvement in the ownership and management of local authority-owned airports.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passengers used(a) Gatwick airport and (b) Heathrow airport in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Norris
  The numbers of passengers at(a) Gatwick airport and (b) Heathrow airport are shown in the table.

  Terminal passengers at Heathrow and Gatwick 1979–92

  Year

  Gatwick (000)

  Heathrow (000)

  1979

  8,965

  27,979

  1980

  9,703

  27,484

  1981

  10,725

  26,411

  1982

  11,155

  26,406

  1983

  12,471

  26,767

  1984

  13,953

  29,164

  1985

  14,885

  31,310

  1986

  16,309

  31,310

  1987

  19,381

  34,743

  1988

  20,744

  37,510

  1989

  21,149

  39,587

  1990

  21,043

  42,635

  1991

  18,690

  40,245

  1992

  19,842

  44,964

  Private Aircraft
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people flying in private aeroplanes have been killed in aviation accidents in United Kingdom air space in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Norris
  The Civil Aviation Authority's safety data analysis unit advises me that the number of people flying
  209
  in private aeroplanes that have been killed in aviation accidents in United Kingdom airspace since 1987 are as follows:

  Year

  Number of Fatal Accidents

  Fatalities

  Passengers

  Crew

  1987

  24

  23

  24

  1988

  10

  6

  9

  1989

  19

  4

  19

  1990

  19

  13

  19

  1991

  17

  4

  18

  1992

  16

  10

  14

  Trust Ports
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total receipts from the privatisation of trust ports to date.

  Mr. Norris
  The total receipts to the Exchequer from the five ports privatised last year under the Ports Act 1991 was £169 million.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the timetable for privatisation of the next wave of trust ports.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 12 March,Official Report, column 769. The power that the Secretary of State has under the Ports Act 1991, to require the larger trust ports. with a turnover above a specified threshold, to privatise themselves, will become available after 24 July 1993. The Secretary of State expects to make an announcement as soon as he has completed his consideration on the way in which he should use his power of compulsion.

  All trust ports can use the Act at any time to take action to privatise themselves. Five have already done so, we hope more will follow.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those trust ports with whom he has discussed privatisation.

  Mr. Norris
  The Secretary of State has not yet decided which trust ports he will formally consult, under the terms of the Ports Act 1991, in respect of his power to require privatisation.

  Piracy
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) merchant ships and (b) British-owned merchant ships have been victims of piracy or other attacks in the last five years.

  Mr. Norris
  Shipowners, flag states and coastal states are encouraged to report incidents of piracy and armed robbery against vessels to the International Maritime Organisation. When we are advised of incidents involving British ships we report them to IMO. However, there is no requirement in international law to report attacks and masters and shipowners can he reluctant to do so. As a result, records are incomplete.

  Full information in the form requested is not available. The table, however, gives an indication of trends during the past five years on incidents of piracy affecting tankers.
  210

  Year

  All flags

  UK flags

  1988

  5

  0

  1989

  3

  0

  1990

  3

  0

  1991

  36

  2

  1992

  22

  0

  The Government are concerned about the under reporting of attacks. We have produced comprehensive advice in "Merchant Shipping Notice M1517" urging mariners to report any attack or attempted attack to the flag and coastal states concerned.

  South China Sea
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will hold talks with the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers about providing armed escorts for all British or commonwealth vessels passing through the South China sea.

  Mr. Norris
  We are willing to consider any representations from NUMAST and other shipping interests. We treat the problems in the South China sea very seriously indeed and hope that the matter can be solved through multilateral and bilateral co-operation. At the present time, we do not believe there is a need for armed escorts.

  A1, Northumbria
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport at how many points between Morpeth and the Scottish border the A 1 is currently reduced to one-way operation by temporary traffic lights; how many of these interruptions result from works which will result in improvement to dual carriageway status; and which of these interruptions will continue through the Scottish and English bank holiday weekends.

  Mr. Key
  The A1 is currently reduced to one-way operation by temporary traffic signals at the following five locations:

  Bockenfield, south of Felton;

  Brownieside, north of Alnwich;

  Detchant, north of Belford;

  Scremerston, south of Berwick; and

  Marshall Meadows, north of Berwick.

  Of these, the works at Brownieside and Marshall Meadows will result in improvement to dual carriageway status.

  Traffic signals will continue to operate at Bockenfield, Brownieside and Detchant for the Scottish bank holiday weekend. Arrangements have been made to remove all traffic signals for the English bank holiday weekend.

  Central Line
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what proposals he is considering in respect of an alternative public transport service between Epping and Ongar should London Transport close this part of the Central line; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the current situation in respect of the Central line service between Epping and Ongar.

  Mr. Freeman
  On 5 May 1993, London Underground Ltd. published notice of its intention to seek closure of the
  211
  Central line between Epping and Ongar. Due to the Secretary of State's quasi-judicial role in the closure proceedings, it would not be appropriate for me to make any comments on the subject at this stage.

  Buses, Dorset
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passenger miles were travelled by bus in Dorset in each year since 1988–89.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 7 July 1993]: The Department does not collect information on passenger mileage from operators. National estimates are imputed from the passenger journey information collected in a survey and national estimates of average journey cost. The survey samples are selected to be representative at the national level and could not be used to produce county information.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Severe Hardship Payments
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the administration costs of the severe hardship payments.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Alan Simpson, dated 7 July 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what are the administration costs of the severe hardship payments.

  For the financial year 1992–93 the administration costs of the Severe Hardship Claims Unit in Glasgow were £676,714.

  Associated administration costs arise within the Benefits Agency District Offices. Those costs cannot be separately identified for the year 1992–93. However they are estimated at £1.5 million.

  I hope that you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Fraud, Blackpool
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about social security fraud in Blackpool.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of benefit fraud is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Harold Elletson, dated 7 July 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security requesting him to make a statement about social security fraud in Blackpool.
  212
  The investigation of potentially fraudulent claims was reorganised in January 1991 when Fraud Sectors were formed.

  The Blackpool Sector covers an area on the Fylde coast North to Fleetwood/Knott End, South to Lytham St. Annes and East to the outskirts of Preston.

  There are currently a total of 13.5 full time members of staff devoted to the investigation of suspect claims although three of these posts are clerical support rather than investigators.

  In the year ending 31 March 1993 Blackpool sector conducted 2,158 investigations. Of this total, 914 cases resulted in a weekly benefit saving and a further 304 cases produced an instrument of payment saving. In addition, an overpayment was detected in a further 304 cases. The total gross savings exceeded £2.5 million. Seven people were prosecuted in the same period and all were found guilty.

  In addition to the Sector fraud staff who have carried out the activities as detailed above, there has been an input from a mobile team who are based at Area level and who can be called on to assist Sector staff at times of staff shortage, high intake of work or to conduct pro-active investigations into larger scale fraudulent activities.

  In the past three months the Mobile Team has conducted a number of investigations, two of which were particularly successful.

  In the first exercise over 1,600 visits were made to check the addresses of people claiming benefits. It was confirmed that 267 people were not living at the quoted address. The full results of the savings are not yet known as the exercise is not yet completed but they are anticipated to be considerable.

  The second exercise involved the arrest by the Police of six people in connection with instrument of payment abuse. Over 100 people were interviewed by members of the Mobile Team and instrument of payment savings of £50,000 were recorded.

  I should stress that the vast majority of the Benefit Agency's customers are genuine and will never have any contact with any of our Investigators. The investigators exist to ensure that the honest customer's benefit goes to that customer.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total cost of child benefit in each year since 1979 with the figures adjusted for inflation.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Child benefit expenditure

  Cash (£ million)

  1992–93 prices (£ million)

  11978–79

  2,296

  6,479

  1979–80

  2,787

  6,762

  1980–81

  2,944

  6,036

  1981–82

  3,372

  6,305

  1982–83

  3,660

  6,389

  1983–84

  3,988

  6,653

  1984–85

  4,276

  6,793

  1985–86

  4,468

  6,727

  1986–87

  4,513

  6,579

  1987–88

  4,598

  6,357

  1988–89

  4,515

  5,821

  1989–90

  4,537

  5,489

  1990–91

  4,591

  5,133

  1991–92

  5,189

  5,423

  1992–93

  5,767

  5,767

  1 Figures include cost of Child Tax Allowance.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide statistics similar to table A3, page 63, of the "Households Below Average Income
  213
  Statistical Analysis" 1979, 1990–91, to include the top 40 per cent., 30 per cent., 20 per cent. and 10 per cent. of income distribution for 1979, 1988–89 and 1990–91, for income before housing costs and income after housing costs.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the tables.

  Share of total income (per cent.) (including self-employed)

  1979

  1988–89

  1990–91

  Income before housing costs

  Top 40 per cent.

  58

  63

  64

  Top 30 per cent.

  47

  52

  53

  Top 20 per cent.

  35

  40

  41

  Top 10 per cent.

  21

  25

  26

  Percentage change 1979 to 1990–91 in real income by decile group.

  Decile Group Median

  Including self-employed

  Decile 6

  Decile 7

  Decile 8

  Decile 9

  Decile 10

  Income before housing costs

  27

  31

  36

  43

  58

  Income after housing costs

  28

  33

  38

  45

  62

  Decile Group Median

  Excluding self-employed

  Decile 6

  Decile 7

  Decile 8

  Decile 9

  Decile 10

  Income before housing costs

  27

  30

  36

  43

  56

  Income after housing costs

  28

  33

  38

  44

  61

  Note:

  Figures relate to the United Kingdom and are based on income equivalised for the household size and composition.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will respond to the report by the Social Security Select Committee's third report on the delivery of disability living allowance and disability working allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  The Government's response—Cm 2282—is published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Crisis Loans
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest available information for the district covering Stockport and nationally on the number and applications for crisis loans dealt with by social fund officers because of re-alignment of unemployment benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Ms Ann Coffey, dated 7 July 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking
  214

  Share of total income (per cent.) (including self-employed)

  1979

  1988–89

  1990–91

  Income after housing costs

  Top 40 per cent.

  58

  64

  65

  Top 30 per cent.

  48

  53

  55

  Top 20 per cent.

  35

  41

  43

  Top 10 per cent.

  21

  26

  27

  Note:

  The figures in the tables are based on equivalised income for household size and composition.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide similar statistics to table A1, page 60, of "Households Below Average Income" 1979, 1990–91, to include decile 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 including the self-employed, before housing costs and after housing costs, and excluding self-employed before housing costs and after housing costs.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the tables.

  what is the latest available information for the district covering Stockport and nationally on the number of applications for crisis loans dealt with by Social Fund Officers because of re-alignment of unemployment benefit.

  I am unable to give the information you requested because the statistical information kept does not identify the individual benefits involved in such applications. I can, however, provide details of the number of crisis loans awarded to applicants whose benefit is paid in arrears. For the period 1 April 1993 to 30 May 1993 (latest available data) the figure for the Stockport District is 323. The national figure for the same period is 39,350.

  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Burma
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what deputations his Department has recently received from Burma; what trade matters were discussed; and what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards trade with Burma.

  Mr. Needham
  My Department has received no deputations from Burma recently. The Government's policy is to provide no specific encouragement to British firms to trade or invest in Burma in view of the current political and economic situation there. The United Kingdom does not sell arms to Burma and our aid programme, like that of other donors, has been suspended since 1988. British business visitors to Rangoon can of
  215
  course look to our embassy there for advice and support. Firms seek advice on trading with Burma are always made aware of the Government's policy.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the names of individuals who(a) are spouses of hon. Members, (b) are members of the House of Lords, (c) are spouses of members of the House of Lords and (d) have been party candidates for Parliament, indicating for which party, who have been appointed by his Department since 1988 to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations giving, in each case, the title of the post, any salary payable, and the duration of the appointment.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is responsible for a total of more than 800 public appointments. Of these:

  (a) James Roe (spouse of Marion Roe, Conservative MP for Broxbourne) has been appointed as a reserve member of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission at a salary of £8,490 per annum for the period 1 February 1993 to 31 January 1996.

  (b) Viscount Chelmsford has been appointed as a member of the Simpler Trade Procedures Board for the period 1 November 1992 to 31 October 1995. The post is unpaid.

  (c) Lady Jane Forbes (spouse of Lord Forbes, KBE) was re-appointed as a member of the Post Office Users Council for Scotland for the period 1 October 1991 to 30 September 1995 and as a member of the Scottish Advisory Committee on Telecommunications for the period 1 October 1991 to 30 September 1993. Both appointments are unpaid.

  We do not collect information on the political affiliations of those appointed or details of those who have been party candidates for Parliament.

  Beer
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the effects of the Beer Orders on the brewing industry and consumers.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  There have been considerable changes in the brewing industry since the implementation of the orders. However, it is difficult to separate the effects of the orders from other developments within the industry, some of which are part of long term trends beginning before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission review.

  We believe that it is too soon to make an assessment of the impact of the orders. The overriding need now is for a period of stability for both brewers and tenants/lessees. The Agriculture Select Committee's report on the effects of the Beer Orders on the brewing industry and consumers supported this view.

  Telecommunications Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of 'Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) of 30 June,Official Report, columns 511–12, what were the voting figures for each decision taken at the European Community's Telecommunications Council held on 16 June; and if he will make it his policy to include in future statements on Council meetings information on whether formal votes were taken and which member states voted in favour, against or abstained on particular measures.
  216
  Mr. McLoughlin
  No formal votes were taken at the European Community's Telecommunications Council held on 16 June. I regret that this was not made clear in my answer of 30 June, in accordance with the undertaking given to the hon. Member that statements to the House following meetings of the Council of Ministers will either include details of the record of the vote whenever a formal vote is taken, or report that no formal votes were taken.

  Civil Nuclear Sites
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the civil nuclear sites in the United Kingdom, together with the expiry dates of their current operational site licences.

  Mr. Eggar
  The table shows the civil nuclear sites in the United Kingdom, all of which are licensed by the Health and Safety Executive under the provisions of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, as amended.

  A nuclear site licence is issued without limit of time, but may at any time be revoked by the Health and Safety Executive or surrendered by the licensee with the executive's agreement. The licensee continues to be responsible for the site, and subject to direction by the Health and Safety Executive, until in the opinion of the executive there has ceased to be any danger from ionising radiations from anything on the site, or until a new nuclear site licence is issued to some other person.

  List of nuclear licensed sites

  Site

  Operator

  Berkeley Power Station

  Nuclear Electric plc

  Berkeley

  Gloucestershire GL13 9PA

  Bradwell Power Station

  Nuclear Electric plc

  Bradwell-on-Sea

  Southminster

  Essex CM 10 7HP

  Dungeness Power Station

  Nuclear Electric plc

  Romney Marsh

  Kent TN29 9PP

  Hartlepool Power Station

  Nuclear Electric plc

  Tees Road

  Hartlepool

  Cleveland TS25 2BZ

  Heysham Power Station

  Nuclear Electric plc

  Heysham

  Morecambe

  Lancashire LA3 2XQ

  Hinkley Point Power Station

  Nuclear Electric plc

  Nr. Bridgwater

  Somerset TA5 IND

  Oldbury Power Station

  Nuclear Electric plc

  Oldbury-on-Severn

  Avon BR 12 1RQ

  Sizewell Power Station

  Nuclear Electric plc

  Leiston

  Suffolk 1P16 4UE

  Trawsfynydd Power Station

  Nuclear Electric plc

  Trawsfynydd

  Blaenau Ffestiniog

  Gwynedd LL41 4DJ

  Wylfa Power Station

  Nuclear Electric plc

  Camaes Bay

  Gwynedd LL67 0DH

  217

  Site

  Operator

  Capenhurst Works

  British Nuclear Fuels plc

  Capenhurst

  Chester CH1 6ER

  Capenhurst Works

  Urenco (Capenhurst) Ltd.

  Capenhurst

  Chester CHI 6ER

  Drigg Storage Site

  British Nuclear Fuels plc

  Drigg

  Cumbria

  Sellafield Works

  British Nuclear Fuels plc

  Seascale

  Cumbria CA20 1PG

  Springfields Works

  British Nuclear Fuels plc

  Salwick

  Nr. Preston

  Lancashire PR4 0XJ

  Amersham International

  Amersham International plc

  White Lion Road

  Amersham

  Buckinghamshire HP7 9LL

  Radiation Sources (Harwell)

  Amersham International plc

  Isotope Production Unit

  Didcot

  OxonOXll 0RA

  Forrest Farm

  Amersham International plc

  Whitchurch

  Cardiff CF4 7J2

  AEA Technology

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  Harwell Laboratory

  Didcot

  Oxfordshire OX 11 0RA

  AEA Technology

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  Winfrith Technology Centre

  Dorchester

  Dorset DT2 8DH

  AEA Technology

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  Springfields Works

  Salwick

  Nr. Preston

  Lancashire

  AEA Technology

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  Windscale

  Cumbria

  TRIGA Reactor

  ICI Chemicals and Polymers Ltd.

  Billingham

  Cleveland ST23 2JB

  Rolls-Royce

  Rolls-Royce

  Raynesway

  POBox31

  Derbyshire DE2 8BJ

  Manchester University

  Manchester University

  Research Reactor

  Risley

  Warrington

  Cheshire WA3 6AT

  University of London Reactor

  Imperial College

  Imperial College Field Station

  Silwood Park

  Ascot

  Berkshire SL5 7PY

  218

  Site

  Operator

  Barrow Shipyard

  Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd.

  PO Box 6

  Barrow in Furness

  Lancashire LA 14 1AF

  Devonport Royal Dockyard

  Devonport Management Ltd.

  Devonport

  Plymouth PL1 4SR

  2.SCOTLAND

  Hunterston Power Station

  Scottish Nuclear Ltd.

  West Kilbride

  Ayrshire KA23 9QT

  Torness Power Station

  Scottish Nuclear Ltd.

  Dunbar

  East Lothian EH42 1QZ

  Chapelcross Works

  British Nuclear Fuels plc

  Annan

  Dumfries and Galloway DG12 6RF

  Scottish Universities

  University of Glasgow

  Research Reactor

  East Kilbride

  Nr. Glasgow G75 0QU

  Rosyth Royal Dockyard

  Babcock Thorn Ltd.

  Rosyth

  Fife KY11 2YD

  AEA Technology

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  Dounreay

  Thurso

  Caithness KW14 7TZ

  THORP
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the residues specification issued to overseas customers for THORP, to which reference is made at page six of the report of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee appended to the chairman of that Committee's reply of 10 October 1992 to the letter of 11 March 1992 from the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for the companies concerned.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade to whom each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department is responsible: whether the public bodies or their members in each case are subject to(a) surcharge, (b) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (c) scrutiny by the Audit Commission or National Audit Office, (d) the statutory provisions for open government which apply to local authorities, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charters; and whether the chairpersons and members of the boards of each of these bodies are required to declare an interest.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 6 July 1993]: All the executive NDPBs sponsored by the Department are accountable to DTI Ministers for their use of public funds and we are accountable to Parliament. The specific answers to the questions are:

  219

  (a) No.

  (b) No.

  (c) Yes, where the body receives grant or grant-in-aid.

  (d) No.

  (e) Yes, where appropriate.

  (f) The citizens charter applies to all NDPBs which provide a public service.

  The chairmen and members of the boards are expected to declare an interest where relevant.

  Science Base Funding
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to increase the science base funding for industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Davis
  I have been asked to reply.

  As explained in the White Paper on science, engineering and technology, "Realising our Potential", the Government intend that decisions on priorities for support of the science and engineering base should be much more clearly related to meeting the country's needs and enhancing its wealth creating capacity. To this end: it is establishing a technology foresight capability; it is creating two new research councils to cover biotechnology and biological sciences, and engineering and physical sciences; it has provided all research councils with a mission statement which recognises the importance of research undertaken to meet the needs of users; and it is taking measures to improve the links between the councils and cognate Government Departments. Moreover, the LINK scheme will continue to be an important vehicle for the research councils collaboration with industry, and the Office of Science and Technology will now take lead responsibility for the scheme, with the LINK steering group reporting jointly to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the President of the Board of Trade.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Burma
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the involvement of United Nations, the United Nations Development Programme, UNICEF, the World Health Organisation, the UNDCP and the Food and Agriculture Organisation in Burma.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Nations Under-Secretary for Humanitarian Affairs is involved in talks with the Burmese authorities about the return of the Rohingya refugees from Bangladesh'. The involvement of UN agencies in Burma is as follows.UNDP: Since the 1992 Governing Council, all UNDP assistance in Burma has been targeted specifically at grassroots level. Projects are approved on a case-by-case basis by the UNDP Administrator, and funding is only being released on a strictly limited basis.
  UNICEF: The programme in Burma concentrates on mother and child health care, basic education and access to safe drinking water.
  220
  WHO: The programme has been reduced since July 1992 in response to UNDP's directive to limit activities. It now concentrates on nursing training and AIDS.
  UNDCP: A number of projects both in Burma and in the border areas of neighbouring states are funded to encourage the reduction of drug trafficking, and of demand, supply and abuse of drugs. Specific activities include the replacement of opium based economic activity by income substitution programmes, and demand reduction through community based education and training.
  FAO: Activities in Burma are largely rural based agricultural projects, including research and training. Many are UNDP funded and fall within the restrictions placed on the UNDP programme.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what accountability there is for United Nations activity and that of related organisations for their work in Burma; and if he will place reports on this subject by such organisations in the Library.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Nations and related organisations operating in Burma are accountable, through their headquarters management, to their governing bodies. Members of these bodies, including the United Kingdom, monitor closely the activities of these organisations.

  There are no relevant reports which could be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what checks there have been to ensure that international aid to Burma has not been used for military purposes.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have no evidence that international aid is being diverted for military purposes. The mandates of the United Nations, its funds and programmes and the specialised agencies in the economic and social fields preclude any assistance for military purposes. In the case of Burma, the work of the United Nations system is being scrutinised with special care to ensure that none of its assistance is diverted to military uses. The international financial institutions do not grant loans for military purposes, and carry out the normal financial and audit checks on the use of their funds.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxation
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the amounts remitted as a result of(a) hardship, (b) equity and (c) miscellaneous and the amounts written off as a result of (d) insolvency, (e) composition settlements and (f) taxpayer gone abroad or untraceable, for each of capital gains tax, schedule D tax, corporation tax, pay-as-you-earn and national insurance for each year since 1979 as cash figures and as a percentage of each tax collected.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  The amounts of corporation tax remitted or written off as irrecoverable for the reasons outlined are as follows:
  221

  Amounts £ thousands

  Year

  Hardship remitted

  Percentage of total CT paid

  Equity remitted

  Percentage of total CT paid

  Miscellaneous remitted

  Percentage of total CT paid

  Insolvency remitted

  Percentage of total CT paid

  Composition settlements remitted

  Percentage of total CT paid

  Taxpayer gone abroad/away remitted

  Percentage of total CT paid

  1979

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1981

  0

  0.00

  435

  0.01

  237

  0.01

  19,781

  0.68

  0

  0.00

  235

  0.01

  1982

  0

  0.00

  249

  0.01

  200

  0.01

  33,061

  0.86

  7

  0.00

  879

  0.02

  1983

  0

  0.00

  274

  0.01

  268

  0.01

  39,395

  0.97

  30

  0.00

  945

  0.02

  1984

  0

  0.00

  145

  0.00

  352

  0.01

  57,553

  1.22

  1

  0.00

  0

  0.00

  1985

  0

  0.00

  225

  0.00

  236

  0.00

  74,802

  1.26

  6

  0.00

  73

  0.00

  1986

  0

  0.00

  374

  0.00

  995

  0.01

  88.962

  1.09

  71

  0.00

  963

  0.01

  1987

  5

  0.00

  498

  0.01

  817

  0.01

  91,441

  0.91

  15

  0.00

  54

  0.00

  1988

  0

  0.00

  349

  0.00

  2,360

  0.02

  222,725

  1.90

  2

  0.00

  161

  0.00

  1989

  0

  0.00

  478

  0.00

  1,011

  0.01

  149,791

  1.04

  6

  0.00

  82

  0.00

  1990

  0

  0.00

  389

  0.00

  1,981

  0.01

  182,249

  1.15

  35

  0.00

  71

  0.00

  1991

  0

  0.00

  455

  0.00

  2,065

  0.01

  317,864

  2.07

  529

  0.00

  16

  0.00

  1992

  0

  0.00

  307

  0.00

  2,450

  0.02

  539,126

  4.61

  300

  0.00

  50

  0.00

  Amounts £ thousands

  Year

  Hardship remitted

  Percentage of total CGT paid

  Equity remitted

  Percentage of total CGT paid

  Miscellaneous remitted

  Percentage of total CGT paid

  Insolvency remitted

  Percentage of total CGT paid

  Composition settlements remitted

  Percentage of total CGT paid

  Taxpayer gone abroad/away remitted

  Percentage of total CGT paid

  1979

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1981

  20

  0.00

  83

  0.02

  337

  0.07

  950

  0.21

  97

  0.02

  1,247

  0.27

  1982

  61

  0.01

  69

  0.01

  346

  0.06

  2,160

  0.35

  414

  0.07

  1,818

  0.29

  1983

  39

  0.01

  74

  0.01

  494

  0.08

  2,459

  0.39

  8

  0.00

  3,422

  0.54

  1984

  34

  0.00

  34

  0.00

  519

  0.07

  2,075

  0.29

  9

  0.00

  3,327

  0.47

  1985

  8

  0.00

  181

  0.02

  822

  0.10

  1,702

  0.21

  18

  0.00

  4,831

  0.60

  1986

  19

  0.00

  68

  0.01

  722

  0.07

  1,869

  0.19

  21

  0.00

  7,365

  0.73

  1987

  38

  0.00

  169

  0.02

  1,386

  0.12

  2,714

  0.24

  16

  0.00

  4,497

  0.40

  1988

  30

  0.00

  58

  0.00

  1,778

  0.11

  5,510

  0.35

  61

  0.00

  5,244

  0.33

  1989

  32

  0.00

  114

  0.00

  1,698

  0.07

  3,948

  0.17

  166

  0.01

  4,898

  0.21

  1990

  5

  0.00

  70

  0.00

  2,308

  0.12

  3,821

  0.21

  132

  0.01

  5,740

  0.31

  1991

  34

  0.00

  149

  0.01

  3,980

  0.21

  13,929

  0.75

  116

  0.01

  11,513

  0.62

  1992

  36

  0.00

  119

  0.01

  7,322

  0.62

  37,195

  3.16

  84

  0.01

  13,080

  1.10

  Amounts £ thousands

  Year

  Hardship remitted

  Percentage of total CGT paid

  Equity remitted

  Percentage of total CGT paid

  Miscellaneous remitted

  Percentage of total CGT paid

  Insolvency remitted

  Percentage of total CGT paid

  Composition settlements remitted

  Percentage of total CGT paid

  Taxpayer gone abroad/away remitted

  Percentage of total CGT paid

  1979

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1981

  1,575

  0.03

  1,804

  0.03

  6,447

  0.12

  10,618

  0.19

  211

  0.00

  22,924

  0.42

  1982

  1,868

  0.03

  2,008

  0.03

  8,052

  0.13

  16,029

  0.26

  110

  0.00

  26,791

  0.43

  1983

  2,331

  0.04

  1,827

  0.03

  10,146

  0.16

  18,676

  0.29

  30

  0.00

  38,083

  0.59

  1984

  1,943

  0.03

  1,960

  0.03

  13,418

  0.20

  30,010

  0.44

  87

  0.00

  46,160

  0.67

  1985

  1,374

  0.02

  2,375

  0.03

  11,454

  0.15

  35,567

  0.47

  26

  0.00

  40,974

  0.54

  1986

  1,681

  0.02

  2,853

  0.03

  16,589

  0.18

  51,325

  0.54

  36

  0.00

  53,686

  0.57

  1987

  1,851

  0.03

  3,183

  0.05

  21,253

  0.30

  55,260

  0.79

  79

  0.00

  54,028

  0.77

  1988

  1,933

  0.02

  4,370

  0.05

  58,292

  0.73

  109,841

  1.37

  142

  0.00

  79,753

  1.00

  1989

  1,468

  0.02

  4,560

  0.05

  60,755

  0.65

  101,482

  1.09

  212

  0.00

  75,160

  0.80

  1990

  1,606

  0.02

  5,302

  0.05

  52,834

  0.50

  98,746

  0.93

  474

  0.00

  98,740

  0.93

  1991

  2,896

  0.02

  6,294

  0.05

  94,986

  0.81

  166,935

  1.42

  423

  0.00

  117,025

  1.00

  1992

  4,605

  0.04

  6,395

  0.05

  179,892

  1.39

  361,372

  2.80

  303

  0.00

  156,484

  1.21

  Amounts £ thousands

  Year

  Hardship remitted

  Percentage of total PAYE paid

  Equity remitted

  Percentage of total PAYE paid

  Miscellaneous remitted

  Percentage of total PAYE paid

  Insolvency remitted

  Percentage of total PAYE paid

  Composition settlements remitted

  Percentage of total PAYE paid

  Taxpayer gone abroad/away

  Percentage of total PAYE paid

  1979

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1981

  5

  0.00

  0

  0.00

  343

  0.00

  10,885

  0.05

  0

  0.00

  208

  0.00

  222
  The amounts of capital gains tax remitted or written off as irrecoverable for the reasons outlined are as follows:

  The amounts of Schedule D tax remitted or written off as irrecoverable for the reasons outlined are as follows:

  The amounts of PAYE remitted or written off as irrecoverable for the reasons outlined are as follows:
  223

  Year

  Hardship remitted

  Percentage of total PAYE paid

  Equity remitted

  Percentage of total PAYE paid

  Miscellaneous remitted

  Percentage of total PAYE paid

  Insolvency remitted

  Percentage of total PAYE paid

  Composition settlements remitted

  Percentage of total PAYE paid

  Taxpayer gone abroad/away

  Percentage of total PAYE paid

  1982

  3

  0.00

  2

  0.00

  487

  0.00

  14,495

  0.06

  53

  0.00

  245

  0.00

  1983

  1

  0.00

  5

  0.00

  508

  0.00

  21,637

  0.08

  20

  0.00

  457

  0.00

  1984

  3

  0.00

  4

  0.00

  652

  0.00

  32,180

  0.11

  0

  0.00

  487

  0.00

  1985

  0

  0.00

  50

  0.00

  907

  0.00

  45,222

  0.14

  9

  0.00

  511

  0.00

  1986

  1

  0.00

  13

  0.00

  1,124

  0.00

  59,164

  0.17

  21

  0.00

  594

  0.00

  1987

  1

  0.00

  7

  0.00

  1,367

  0.00

  90,439

  0.24

  13

  0.00

  739

  0.00

  1988

  0

  0.00

  24

  0.00

  2,979

  0.01

  126,434

  0.32

  56

  0.00

  1,201

  0.00

  1989

  0

  0.00

  69

  0.00

  2,715

  0.01

  118,962

  0.28

  77

  0.00

  1,083

  0.00

  1990

  11

  0.00

  64

  0.00

  2,955

  0.01

  102,775

  0.21

  52

  0.00

  1,302

  0.00

  1991

  0

  0.00

  95

  0.00

  4,973

  0.01

  128,570

  0.25

  109

  0.00

  1,511

  0.00

  1992

  2

  0.00

  49

  0.00

  10,167

  0.02

  368,325

  0.69

  67

  0.00

  2,566

  0.00

  Amounts £ thousands

  Year

  Hardship remitted

  Percentage of total NIC paid

  Equity remitted

  Percentage of total NIC paid

  Miscellaneous remitted

  Percentage of total NIC paid

  Insolvency remitted

  Percentage of total NIC paid

  Composition settlements remitted

  Percentage of total NIC paid

  Taxpayer gone abroad/away remitted

  Percentage of total NIC paid

  1979

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1981

  3

  0.00

  1

  0.00

  227

  0.00

  752

  0.00

  0

  0.00

  175

  0.00

  1982

  3

  0.00

  2

  0.00

  410

  0.00

  623

  0.00

  6

  0.00

  217

  0.00

  1983

  1

  0.00

  2

  0.00

  441

  0.00

  668

  0.00

  18

  0.00

  425

  0.00

  1984

  4

  0.00

  5

  0.00

  599

  0.00

  892

  0.00

  0

  0.00

  472

  0.00

  1985

  1

  0.00

  27

  0.00

  781

  0.00

  864

  0.00

  6

  0.00

  534

  0.00

  1986

  1

  0.00

  11

  0.00

  1,033

  0.00

  2,623

  0.01

  28

  0.00

  681

  0.00

  1987

  1

  0.00

  6

  0.00

  1,662

  0.01

  6,114

  0.03

  11

  0.00

  720

  0.00

  1988

  0

  0.00

  15

  0.00

  2,942

  0.01

  11,914

  0.04

  55

  0.00

  968

  0.00

  1989

  0

  0.00

  58

  0.00

  2,829

  0.01

  11,048

  0.04

  109

  0.00

  1,083

  0.00

  1990

  0

  0.00

  30

  0.00

  2,971

  0.01

  13,284

  0.04

  54

  0.00

  971

  0.00

  1991

  0

  0.00

  348

  0.00

  4,258

  0.01

  15,847

  0.05

  184

  0.00

  1,007

  0.00

  1992

  0

  0.00

  40

  0.00

  7,205

  0.02

  23,821

  0.07

  59

  0.00

  1,445

  0.00

  Life Insurance Companies
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about expenses disclosure as it applies to direct sales forces and tied agents of life insurance companies.

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of such representations in the context of the consultation exercise on the Office of Fair Trading report on the marketing and sale of investment-linked insurance products.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will establish an advisory group of British manufacturers to make recommendations as to how best to modify the taxation system so as to encourage British manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Treasury Ministers meet regularly with key individuals and representative bodies in manufacturing industry, and will continue to do so in the period leading up to the Budget in November. Ministers also consider each year a large number of detailed written representations for changes to the tax system as it affects industry. I am not convinced that a further advisory group is needed to supplement these existing channels of communication.
  224
  The amounts of NIC classes 1–1A remitted or written off as irrecoverable for the reasons outlined are as follows:

  Uncollected Tax
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the amount currently owed in uncollected tax by individuals against whom the Inland Revenue is taking legal proceedings or has proceedings outstanding; and if he will disaggregate that estimate into the amount owed by(a) those currently residing in the United Kingdom and (b) those currently residing abroad in (i) other EC countries, (ii) OECD countries other than the EC and (iii) all other countries.

  Mr. Dorreil
  The information required is not available in the form requested.

  Taxes Act 1988
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the yield to the Exchequer for 1993–94, if subsections (4) to (9) of section 65 of the Taxes Act 1988 were repealed.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that the information to answer this question is not available.

  Tax Residents
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the additional revenue to the Exchequer for 1993–94, if, in determining whether an individual is tax resident in the United Kingdom, a day spent in the United Kingdom is deemed to include any day in which the person spends more than three hours of that day in the United Kingdom.
  225
  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that the information to answer this question is not available.

  Available Accommodation Rule
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of taxpayers who will cease to be liable for United Kingdom tax in 1994–95 following the abolition of the available accommodation rule.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Several hundred.

  Tax Returns
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what circumstances he requires(a) non-domiciled and (b) non-resident people working in the United Kingdom to complete tax returns.

  Mr. Dorrell
  An individual would be required to complete a tax return in circumstances where there is a liability to United Kingdom tax.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer from how many people who are non-domiciled and resident or ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom the Inland Revenue collected tax returns for the latest year available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that the information to answer this question is not available.

  Chargeable Gains
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the yield to the Exchequer for 1993–94 if section 62(1) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 did not apply to assets which qualified either for business property relief within section 104 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 or for agricultural property relief within section 116 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 at the time of the person's death.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Assuming that the normal business reliefs against capital gains tax such as holdover relief and retirement relief would be made available on death, the estimated yield from introducing a capital gains charge on death in respect of assets which qualify for business property or agricultural property relief under the inheritance tax provisions in 1993–94 is negligible.

  Worldwide Income
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the yield in 1992–93 or the latest year available of taxing non-domiciled resident of ordinarily resident people on worldwide income and capital gains.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that the information to answer this question is not available.

  Securities and Investments Board
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on the number of public interest members of the Securities and Investments Board; and if he will make a statement.
  226
  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 7 July 1993]: The Chairman of SIB mentioned in his review that he wished to rebalance the composition of the SIB board. My right hon. and learned Friend has accepted these proposals.

ENVIRONMENT

  Home Improvements
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what details he has as to the number of each type of grant given for home improvement in each of the last 10 years; and if he will give the cash total of each grant, in each case on a constant value cash basis.

  Sir George Young
  The values of payments and the numbers of dwellings involved for each type of grant for home improvement over the period 1982 to 1992 are shown in the tables.

  Tables 1 and 2 cover, respectively, numbers of dwellings on which grants were paid to private owners and tenants under the Housing Act 1985 for the whole period, and numbers of grants paid under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 for 1990 onwards.

  Tables 3 and 4 give the respective total values of grants paid, and tables 5 and 6 show them expressed on a constant value basis at 1982 prices.

  Table 1

  Grants paid to private owners and tenants under Housing Act 19851 2

  England

  Number of dwellings

  Conversion and improvement

  Intermediate and special

  Repairs

  All

  1982

  54,732

  20,600

  28,696

  104,028

  1983

  79,529

  27,236

  113,061

  219,826

  1984

  83,958

  29,003

  116,146

  229,107

  1985

  52,989

  29,012

  54,411

  136,412

  1986

  46,994

  24,629

  41,705

  113,328

  1987

  49,383

  19,661

  39,864

  108,908

  1988

  48,213

  17,107

  39,983

  105,303

  1989

  48,711

  14,027

  35,479

  98,217

  1990

  51,031

  12,688

  25,361

  89,080

  1991

  15,477

  4,233

  6,510

  26,220

  1992

  2,460

  646

  745

  3,851

  1 The system of grants to private owners and tenants under the Housing Act 1985 ended at the end of June 1990. Although no more grants were approved after that date, payments will continue for grants approved earlier.

  2 Includes grants paid to housing associations under private owner legislation and grants to tenants in both private and public sectors.

  Table 2

  Grants paid to private owners and tenants under the Local Government and Housing Act 19891

  England

  Number of Grants

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Renovation Grants

  Mandatory

  259

  14,986

  29,588

  Discretionary

  255

  3,206

  5,157

  Disabled Facilities Grants

  Mandatory

  360

  10,790

  16,261

  Discretionary

  13

  180

  287

  HMO2 Grants

  Mandatory

  5

  361

  757

  Discretionary

  —

  22

  58

  227

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Common Parts Grants

  Mandatory

  4

  51

  122

  Discretionary

  —

  17

  27

  Minor Works Assistance3

  Mandatory

  6,667

  29,042

  28,969

  All

  Mandatory

  628

  26,188

  46,728

  Discretionary

  6,935

  32,467

  34,498

  1 The new system of grants under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 came into operation from July 1990 in England and Wales, apart from Minor Works Assistance (April 1990).

  2 HMO stands for Houses in Multiple Occupation.

  3 Grants for Minor Works Assistance are discretionary.

  Table 3

  Grants paid to private owners and tenants under Housing Act 19851 2

  England

  £ thousands

  Conversion and improvement

  Intermediate and special

  Repairs

  All

  1982

  185,867

  42,108

  54,184

  282,159

  1983

  318,712

  65,453

  271,325

  655,490

  1984

  413,840

  83,619

  341,924

  839,383

  1985

  271,996

  86,751

  166,352

  525,099

  1986

  208,771

  72,368

  113,783

  394,921

  1987

  199,977

  54,482

  107,554

  362,013

  1988

  190,908

  46,658

  109,508

  347,074

  1989

  188,092

  39,683

  100,881

  328,656

  1990

  202,655

  34,628

  74,545

  311,828

  1991

  91,083

  14,701

  21,004

  126,788

  1992

  15,700

  2,529

  2,473

  20,702

  1 The system of grants to private owners and tenants under the Housing Act 1985 ended at the end of June 1990. Although no more grants were approved after that date, payments will continue for grants approved earlier.

  2 Includes grants paid to housing associations under private owner legislation and grants to tenants in both private and public sectors.

  Table 4

  Grants paid to private owners and tenants under the Local Government and Housing Act 19891

  England

  £ thousands

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Renovation Grants

  Mandatory

  1,144

  124,766

  289,562

  Discretionary

  309

  12,536

  20,829

  Disabled Facilities Grants

  Mandatory

  656

  31,911

  58,342

  Discretionary

  37

  624

  1,182

  HMO2 Grants

  Mandatory

  29

  2,093

  5,805

  Discretionary

  —

  123

  598

  Common Parts Grants

  Mandatory

  16

  390

  694

  Discretionary

  —

  121

  151

  Minor Works Assistance3

  Discretionary

  3,541

  17,115

  18,422

  All

  Mandatory

  1,845

  159,160

  354,403

  Discretionary

  3,887

  30,519

  41,182

  1 The new systen of grants under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 came into operation from July 1990 in England

  228

  and Wales, apart from Minor Works Assistance (April 1990).

  2 HMO stands for Houses in Multiple Occupation.

  3 Grants for Minor Works Assistance are discretionary.

  Table 5

  Value of grants paid under Housing Act 1985, at constant 1982 prices1, 2, 3

  England

  £ thousands

  Conversion and improvement

  Intermediate and special

  Repairs

  All

  1982

  185,867

  42,108

  54,184

  282,159

  1983

  304,870

  62,610

  259,541

  627,022

  1984

  376,976

  76,170

  311,466

  764,613

  1985

  233,645

  74,519

  142,896

  451,060

  1986

  173,437

  60,120

  94,526

  328,082

  1987

  159,499

  43,454

  85,784

  288,736

  1988

  145,124

  35,468

  83,245

  263,838

  1989

  132,653

  27,987

  71,147

  231,786

  1990

  130,593

  22,315

  48,038

  200,945

  1991

  55,450

  8,950

  12,787

  77,187

  1992

  9,212

  1,484

  1,451

  12,147

  1 The system of grants to private owners and tenants under the Housing Act 1985 ended at the end of June 1990. Although no more grants were approved after that date, payments will continue for grants approved earlier.

  2 Includes grants paid to housing associations under private owner legislation and grants to tenants in both private and public sectors.

  3 Value of grants paid converted to constant prices using the Retail Prices Index.

  Table 6

  Value of grants paid under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, at constant 1982 prices1 2

  England

  £ thousands

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Renovation Grants

  Mandatory

  737

  75,956

  169,900

  Discretionary

  199

  7,632

  12,221

  Disabled Facilities Grants

  Mandatory

  423

  19,427

  34,232

  Discretionary

  24

  380

  694

  HMO3 Grants

  Mandatory

  19

  1,274

  3,406

  Discretionary

  —

  75

  351

  Common Parts Grants

  Mandatory

  10

  237

  407

  Discretionary

  —

  74

  89

  Minor Works Assistance4

  Discretionary

  2,282

  10,419

  10,809

  All

  Mandatory

  1,189

  96,895

  207,945

  Discretionary

  2,505

  18,580

  24,163

  1 The new system of grants under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 came into operation from July 1990 in England and Wales, apart from Minor Works Assistance (April 1990).

  2 Value of grants paid converted to constant prices using the Retail Prices Index.

  3 HMO stands for Houses in Multiple Occupation.

  4 Grants for Minor Works Assistance are discretionary.

  Urban Policy
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to recognise the requirement for long-term planning of urban regeneration.
  229
  Mr. Baldry
  The Government will continue to encourage and sustain long-term investment to improve the quality of life in our city areas, both through existing programmes and new initiatives. Urban development corporations will continue to attract private investment, which has so far totalled £12 billion. City challenge will continue to promote lasting regeneration and encourage partnership between central and local government, the private sector and local people. The Urban Regeneration Agency will draw together the present programmes of city grant, derelict land grant and English Estates to create a new unified approach to the regeneration of land in and around urban areas. All urban areas will benefit from substantial main programme spending.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when the index of urban deprivation will now be published;

  (2) if he will list each of his orginal and revised estimates of the date of the publication of the index of urban deprivation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have made no formal estimates of the date of publication of the results of our analysis of 1991 census data. The precise timing will depend on the outcome of continuing consultation with the local authority associations and other bodies, and on the finalisation of indicators.

  Name of body

  Post holder

  Position

  Annual salary (£)

  First appointed to board

  Present appointment

  From

  To

  Commission for the New Towns

  Lord Finsberg

  Deputy Chairman

  9,790

  1 September 1992

  1 September 1992

  31 August 1996

  Lord Bellwin

  Member

  6,310

  1 April 1985

  1 April 1993

  31 March 1995

  Countryside Commission

  Earl of Swinton

  Member

  5,050

  1 July 1987

  1 July 1990

  30 June 1993

  English Nature

  Earl of Cranbrook

  Chairman

  35,150

  5 November 1990

  5 November 1990

  31 March 1994

  Earl Peel

  Member

  6,310

  5 November 1990

  1 April 1993

  31 March 1996

  Joint Nature Conservation Committee

  Lord Selborne

  Chairman

  23,435

  4 September 1991

  4 September 1991:

  31 March 1994

  National Rivers Authority

  Lord Crickhowell

  Chairman

  52,945

  10 July 1989

  10 July 1989

  30 June 1994

  Lord Gregson

  Member

  8,090

  1 July 1991

  1 November 1992

  31 October 1995

  Rural Development Commission

  Lord Shuttleworth

  Chairman

  31,360

  1 May 1990

  1 May 1990

  30 April 1994

  Urban Development Corporation Leeds

  Baroness Lockwood

  Member

  5,030

  30 June 1988

  30 June 1991

  29 June 1994

  Urban Development Corporation London Docklands

  Lord Cocks

  Deputy Chairman

  23,175

  1 November 1988

  2 March 1992

  1 March 1995

  Urban Development Corporation

  Lord Dormand

  Deputy Chairman

  8,590

  22 June 1987

  22 June 1991

  21 June 1993

  Teesside

  Baroness Eccles

  Member

  5,030

  22 June 1987

  22 June 1991

  21 June 1993

  Sellafield (Radioactive Discharges)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the views of the Government of the Republic of Ireland on the pollution inspectorate's recommendations on the new authorisations for radioactive discharges from the Sellafield site in Cumbria.

  Mr. Yeo
  The views expressed by all respondents, including the Irish Government, were taken into account by the chief inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the radiological inspectorates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in their report on the public consultation on their proposed draft

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the former Members of this House who have been appointed since 1988 by his Department to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations; and if he will list in each case the title of the post, the salary, the duration of the appointment and the party which the former hon. Member represented.

  Mr. Gummer
  Such information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names of individuals who(a) are spouses of hon. Members, (b) are members of the House of Lords, (c) are spouses of members of the House of Lords and (d) have been party candidates for Parliament, indicating for which party, who have been appointed by his Department since 1988 to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations giving, in each case, the title of the post, any salary payable, and the duration of the appointment.

  Mr. Gummer
  The following members of the House of Lords are currently serving on the boards of executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department. The other information requested is not available.

  authorisations for British Nuclear Fuels' Sellafield site. The inspectorates' report has been carefully considered by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They intend to carry out a further round of public consultation which will include the Irish Government.

  Property Services Agency
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the value of the land and buildings in the ownership of the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Curry
  The value of freehold land and buildings on the PSA Services' departmental estate is estimated as £4 million.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the relative effectiveness of(a) dry storage of spent AGR fuel as waste in a store such as that proposed for Torness by Scottish Nuclear or (b) reprocessing of the spent fuel as low as reasonably advisable in implementing the principle on minimising exposure to radiation.

  Mr. Yeo
  Dry storage of spent nuclear fuel is not to be regarded as an alternative to reprocessing but rather as a measure which enables the owners of the spent fuel to defer any decision on whether to reprocess the fuel or to dispose of it directly. Unless a decision has been taken to dispose of it directly, the spent fuel in store is not to be regarded as a waste but as a resource from which uranium and plutonium can be extracted by reprocessing. It is for the owners of the spent fuel to determine whether they wish to implement dry storage and, if so, to satisfy the planning and regulatory authorities that their proposals are acceptable.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Environment Council on 28 and 29 June.

  Mr. Gummer
  I and my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside represented the United Kingdom at the Environment Council in Luxembourg on 28 and 29 June. The Council discussed a lengthy agenda and achieved positive results.

  The Council adopted a common position, by qualified majority—QMV—on a directive on the control of volatile organic compound—VOC—emissions resulting from the storage of petrol and its distribution from terminals to service stations—the so-called "stage I" directive. This will control VOC emissions which contribute to the formation of ozone at ground level. Ozone is the main constituent of photochemical smog and a damaging pollutant. The directive will introduce a closed system of petrol distribution under which petrol vapours are recovered and regenerated into a petroleum product instead of being vented into the air as at present. The agreed text meets the Government's concerns, including the need to protect small service stations in rural areas; to allow the continued use of existing vapour recovery units; and to allow the continued use of measuring dipsticks for existing road tankers.

  The Council agreed unanimously a directive on hazardous waste incineration which sets combusion conditions and emission limits for incineration plant and other plants using hazardous waste as a fuel. The directive is an important contribution to securing incineration as an environmentally acceptable waste disposal route. The Government secured a number of important changes to the text which are intended to achieve a proper balance of costs and benefits. These relate in particular to the scope of the directive, emissions limits and the discharge of waste water. The directive will come into force for new plant two years after its publication in the Official Journal of the Communities and for existing plant three and a half years thereafter.

  The Council discussed two measures on vehicle emissions. Ministers agreed by QM V the text of a
  232
  directive, amending directive 70/220/EEC, which will set new exhaust emission standards for light commercial vehicles below 3.5 tonnes maximum weight. The new directive will require the same catalyst technology introduced for cars in 1992 to be applied to light duty vans and trucks, and will result in a significant reduction in traffic pollution from these vehicles. The standards will come into effect in October for the approval of new types and will apply to all models sold from 1 October 1994. In the text, the Council also agreed that additional provisions should be applied in a further stage for introduction in 1996–97. Ministers also made substantial progress towards agreement on a further directive on standards for passenger car emissions. This would introduce new limits for implementation in 1996–97, and provide for further measures to be considered for the year 2000.

  The Council agreed unanimously that the Community and its member states intend to ratify the biodiversity convention by the end of the year. The decision to do so is dependent on achieving essential safeguards concerning the financial provisions of the convention and will be kept under review

  The Council discussed proposed minor revisions to the annexes to the wild birds directive, but was unable to reach agreement. The issue has been referred back to the Committee of Permanent Representatives—COREPER—for further discussion, with a view to early adoption in the future.

  The Commission presented to the Council new proposals for the implementation in the Community of the Montreal protocol on ozone depleting substances with references to HCFCs and methyl bromide, and for Community ratification of the relevant amendments to the Montreal protocol. The Government welcomed the Commission's presentation, but will wish to consider the proposals in detail, especially as regards methyl bromide. In discussion, however, we were able to support the proposed cap on HCFC supply at 2.5 per cent. and a phase-out by 2015.

  The Council held a full discussion of the problems caused by the German packaging ordinance for the paper and plastics recycling industries in other member states, based on an oral report by the Commission. The majority of member states agreed that early action was necessary on a Community-wide basis. They welcomed the intention of the incoming Belgian presidency to give high priority to the proposed packaging and packaging waste directive. The Commission will be bringing forward a revised draft to take account of amendments proposed by the European Parliament.

  Among other matters, the Council formally adopted the regulation establishing a voluntary Community scheme on eco-management and audit; noted the good progress which had been made on the Commission's proposal for a revision of controls on the wildlife trade —the CITES regulation—and invited COREPER to take the discussion forward; adopted conclusions on follow-up to UNCED and to the conference of European Ministers for the Environment held in Lucerne in April; heard a report from the presidency on progress over the last six months on a number of proposals relating to climate change; adopted conclusions welcoming follow-up action in accordance with the Commission's communication on a "Common Policy on Safe Seas"; heard a report from the Commission on its preparations for a possible Community strategy on coastal zones; and welcomed a presentation by

  233
  the Commission of new internal measures that it has introduced to improve the integration of environmental concerns into other Community policies.

  The Commissioner announced that the Commission had adopted criteria for the award of Community eco-labels for the first two product groups under the Community scheme—washing machines and dishwashers —and that the scheme was now in operation.

  Church Urban Fund
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Church Commissioners and the Church of England about the use of urban deprivation index to assess the appropriate level of grants from the church urban fund.

  Mr. Baldry
  Officials from the Department of the Environment met Church of England officials on 6 May and there have been subsequent contacts and correspondence. The Church of England has made helpful comments on our contractors' proposals for assessing urban conditions.

  THORP
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list his statutory responsibilities and functions under the Radioactive Substances Acts in respect of considering justification for operating a thermal oxide reprocessing plant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Under section 12A of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has power to direct the chief inspector to refuse an application for an authorisation to dispose of radioactive waste, or to direct him to grant such an authorisation subject to limitations or conditions, if any, as my right hon. Friend may specify in the direction. Under section 12B my right hon. Friend has power to require the chief inspector to refer an application to him so that he may determine it.

  The Act does not refer to the matters which my right hon. Friend is to take into account in considering whether, and if so how, to exercise these powers.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the period of consultation over the justification for operating THORP will formally begin; when it will end; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will go out to consultation when they have the further information and material referred to in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) on 28 June,Official Report, column 392. The consultation period is expected to last two months.

  Water Disconnections
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many domestic water disconnections took place in Severn-Trent during the last 12 months and in each of the previous five years.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information requested is given in the table, and relates to Severn Trent Water's supply area, and 234
  that of the former Severn Trent water authority. Information on disconnections prior to privatisation includes total disconnections, domestic and non-domestic.

  Number

  1987–88

  1932

  1988–89

  11,101

  1989–90

  985

  1990–91

  286

  1991–92

  1,284

  1992–93

  1,215

  1 Domestic and non-domestic.

  Sellafield (Radioactive Discharges)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his report will be published into the incident which involved the discharge of elevated levels of radioactivity from Sellafield on 12 February.

  Mr. Yeo
  The report is published today by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I have placed a copy of the report in the Library of the House.

  The report concludes, in particular, that the discharge occurred because a ventilation system from a cell area was unfiltered. Steps have been taken to guard against a recurrence. The radiation dose to the most exposed member of the public from the incident would not have exceeded one thousandth of the average radiation dose to such a person from natural radiation in a year in the United Kingdom. There was no contravention of the Sellafield nuclear site licence conditions or of the current authorised discharge limits for aerial discharges in connection with the incident.

  The regulating authorities are to audit Sellafield's facilities on the site to ensure that the possibility of a recurrence of similar incidents is minimised.

EDUCATION

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 6 November,Official Report, column 513, how many grant-maintained schools folders have now been produced for the distribution of booklets; and what was the cost of (a) the production and (b) the distribution.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A total of 210,000 folders have been produced to date, at a cost of £51,181, excluding the cost of the booklets they normally contain. The cost of distributing these folders forms part of a general charge to the Department and cannot be disaggregated.

  Young People
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total number of(a) 18-year-olds, (b) 17-year-olds and (c) 16-year-olds in January (i) 1991, (ii) 1992 and (iii) 1993; and if he will list for each year the number in full-time education in (1) school including maintained, independent and special schools and (2) further education, excluding those on youth training schemes in colleges.
  235
  Mr. Boswell
  The numbers of 18, 17 and 16-year-olds in England and the numbers in full-time education are shown in the table.

  (Academic years, thousands)

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Population aged

  18

  678.3

  636.7

  604.9

  17

  634.5

  602.2

  579.4

  16

  599.0

  577.3

  554.8

  Pupils in full-time education in school (excluding sixth form colleges)1 aged

  18

  14.8

  15.9

  16.5

  17

  130.1

  135.3

  138.7

  16

  185.6

  195.3

  195.6

  Students in full-time further education (including sixth form colleges but excluding those on youth training schemes in colleges)1 aged

  18

  67.2

  77.8

  89.2

  17

  136.2

  152.9

  174.2

  16

  161.7

  180.7

  193.1

  1 The figures for 1992–93 are provisional estimates based on partially processed returns from schools and colleges.

  Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement about the new general national vocational qualifications.

  Mr. Patten
  I have today announced that the three levels of GNVQ should in future be known by names rather than numbers:

  "Advanced" for Level 3,

  "Intermediate" for Level 2, and

  "Foundation" for Level 1.

  "Advanced" GNVQs—or "vocational A Levels" will help pupils, students, parents, teachers, higher education and employers to understand that these GNVQs require a level of achievement equivalent to two GCE A-Levels.

  Bradford City Technology College
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what total financial assistance has been given to Bradford city technology college, to date, by(a) the private sector and (b) the public sector; how much will be given to the college by each sector in each of the next three years; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the names of all persons, companies or other organisations in the private sector who, to date, have given financial assistance to Bradford city technology college to support its capital or revenue expenditure; and if he will list the names of all persons, companies or other organisations in the private sector who have indicated their intention to offer financial assistance to the college over the next three years.

  Mr. Forth
  The initial capital cost of establishing Bradford city technology college totalled £9.16 million of which the Department for Education contributed £7.33 million and sponsors £1.83 million. The major sponsors were: Dixons Group plc, Mr. H. Wong and Kodak plc.

  The directors of the college are committed under the terms of their funding agreement with the Secretary of State to provide a minimum of 20 per cent. of any further
  236
  capital expenditure. Revenue expenditure of CTCs is met from recurrent grant provided by the Secretary of State. As with other schools, individuals and organisations make voluntary contributions from time to time; these are matters for the directors of the college concerned.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Baltimar Zephyr
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) of 16 June,Official Report, columns 644–45, what information he has on whether the Indonesian Government have tried any crew members of the Baltimar Zephyr for mutiny.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are not aware that any crew members of the Baltimar Zephyr have been tried for mutiny.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent of mobilisation of Bosnian-Croat citizens in Bosnia-Herzegovina on 30 June; what action he plans in the event of fighting by these forces: if he will bring forward plans to impose economic and diplomatic sanctions against the Republic of Croatia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are aware of reports that all three parties in the conflict in Bosnia are taking further steps to mobilise their citizens. We are pressing all parties to stop fighting and to support the peace process. We are also pressing the Croatian Government to co-operate fully in this. Croatia was put on notice by the 8 June meeting of EC Foreign Ministers that restrictive measures would he initiated against it if the situation so required.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times representatives of Her Majesty's Government have met President Franjo Tudjman of Croatia since January 1991; and what was the purpose of each meeting.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Representatives of Her Majesty's Government have met President Tudjman and his staff on numerous occasions since January 1991, most recently on 30 May when Her Majesty's ambassador in Zagreb met the President. The main purpose of our representations on this and previous occasions has been to press President Tudjman to co-operate fully with the efforts of the international community to achieve lasting and equitable settlements to the conflict in Bosnia, based on the principles established by the London conference, and to urge restraint in trying to restore Croatian sovereignty in the Serb-occupied Krajinas.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times representatives of Her Majesty's Government have met President Izetbegovic of Bosnia-Herzegovina since January 1991; and what was the purpose of each meeting.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Representatives of Her Majesty's Government have met President Izetbegovic and his staff
  237
  on numerous occasions since January 1991, most recently on 14 June 1993 when he visited London for talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The main issues raised by President Izetbegovic were the arms embargo on the former Yugoslavia and the fighting in central Bosnia. My right hon. Friend set out British policies and encouraged President Izetbegovic to engage in negotiations to achieve a lasting and equitable settlement to the conflict in Bosnia, based on the principles of the London conference.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) of 14, April,Official Report, column 581, what assessment he has made of the relation between that answer, his answer to that hon. Member in the Official Report, column 580 and information contained in United Nations Security Council note verbale, dated 16 March 1993, Ref. S/24900/Add. 27; on what basis the assumption was made that aircraft crossing the borders of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia into Bosnia-Herzegovina were flown by Bosnian Serbs; and what subsequent information he has received about the incident.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information referred to in the written answer given on 14 April to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is contained in note verbale S/24900/Add. 30 of 26 March from the United Nations Secretary-General to the president of the Security Council. The aircraft observed at Gladovici on 13 March were seen to withdraw towards the Bosnian/Serbian border following the incident, but have not been definitively attributed to any party.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to urge the Security Council to defer decisions on actions in the former Yugoslavia until reliable evidence is available on which to make decisions.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In taking decisions on the former Yugoslavia, as on other areas of the world where there is a need to maintain international peace and security, Security Council members take account of the views of the United Nations Secretary-General as set out in his reports, as well as their own knowledge and assessment of a situation.

  Piracy
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will make representations to the Government of Indonesia for them to undertake to set up a full investigation of all acts of piracy and murder in Indonesian waters.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Her Majesty's embassy in Jakarta has on a number of occasions raised with the Indonesians the issue of attacks at sea. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised the subject during his visit there in April.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will hold talks with the Association of South-East Asian Nations about 238
  the establishment of multilateral agreements by their member states towards the prevention of piracy in the region.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There are no current plans for talks on piracy with ASEAN. The International Maritime organisation is the best forum in which to address this issue. The IMO has recently produced a report covering piracy in south-east Asia.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will hold talks with ASEAN about providing intelligence data relating to piracy and safety to merchant vessels travelling on the seas of that region.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The International Maritime Organisation is responsible for collating and disseminating information relating to attacks on shipping in the ASEAN region and elsewhere.

  Iran
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made, directly to the Government of Iran, or at the United Nations, concerning violation of women's human rights in Iran.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are concerned about all human rights abuses in Iran, including those against women. We regularly underline our concerns to the Iranians, both bilaterally and with our EC partners. The latest report of the United Nations Secretary-General's special representative on human rights in Iran includes information about the situation of women in Iran. We and our EC partners co-sponsored the resolution adopted by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on 10 March reflecting the special representative's concerns.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government of Iran have sought to impose restrictions on the dress of female United Kingdom diplomatic personnel in Iran; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Islamic dress code has to be observed in public by all women in Iran, including female foreign diplomats.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received in respect of Iranian attacks upon People's Mojahedin bases in Iraq; what his response has been; if he regards such attacks as being in contravention of Security Council resolution 598; what action Her Majesty's Government are taking on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received a number of representations about the air raids carried out by Iran on 25 May inside Iraq. The possible contravention of UN Security Council resolution 598 is a matter for the Security Council which is permanently seized of this issue. We have expressed our serious concern at these air raids to the Iranian authorities.

  Cyprus
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on extradition arrangements between the United Kingdom and Cyprus.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Until 1990, extradition between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Cyprus was possible under the Commonwealth scheme for the rendition of fugitive offenders. Since 1990, extradition arrangements with the Republic of Cyprus are under the Extradition Act 1989 and the European convention on extradition.

  Murders (Holidaymakers)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom citizens have been murdered on overseas holidays in each year since 1985; and if he will list the countries the murders occurred in.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The number of United Kingdom citizens murdered abroad since 1985, and reported to the FCO, is as follows:

  Numbers

  1985

  18

  1986

  26

  1987

  45

  1988

  55

  1989

  39

  1990

  50

  1991

  49

  1992

  51

  1993

  127

  1 First six months.

  Murders took place in 75 countries, as shown in the list. FCO records do not distinguish between holidaymakers, business people and residents abroad.

  Afghanistan

  Ireland

  Antigua

  Israel

  Argentina

  Italy

  Australia

  Jamaica

  Bahamas

  Jerusalem

  Belgium

  Kenya

  Belize

  Lebanon

  Bermuda

  Liberia

  Bolivia

  Malawi

  Brazil

  Malta

  British Virgin Islands

  Mexico

  Canada

  Morocco

  Canary Islands

  Mozambique

  Caymen Islands

  Netherlands

  Colombia

  New Zealand

  Cyprus

  Nigeria

  Czechoslovakia

  Pakistan

  Denmark

  Papua New Guinea

  Djibouti

  Peru

  Dominican Republic

  Philippines

  Egypt

  Portugal

  El Salvador

  Saudi Arabia

  France

  Somalia

  Gambia

  South Africa

  Germany

  Spain

  Ghana

  St. Lucia

  Greece

  St. Maarten (Netherland Antilles)

  Guatemala

  Guyana

  Sudan

  Honduras

  Swaziland

  India

  Sweden

  Indonesia

  Switzerland

  Iraq

  Tanzania

  240

  Thailand

  Venezuela

  Turkey

  Yugoslavia (Belgrade)

  Tunisia

  Zaire

  Togo

  Zimbabwe

  USA

  Uganda

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, further to his statement of 28 June,Official Report, column 657, what independent evidence he sought about the competence as saboteurs of the alleged conspirators against ex-President Bush before coming to his conclusion that the United States response was justified and proportionate.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United States have made it clear that they had evidence of Iraqi intelligence involvement in the attempt on the life of ex-President Bush in Kuwait. The United States briefed the Security Council about the evidence on 27 June.

  Belize
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to discuss future Central American and Caribbean issues with the new Prime Minister of Belize; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no such plans, but Her Majesty's high commissioner in Belmopan, who is in regular touch with the Belize authorities on a wide range of issues, called on the new Prime Minister shortly after the recent election.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Irish Language
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) which experts in Irish-medium education advised the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education on the appropriateness of the courses in subject application, education and professional studies in the BEd degree at St. Mary's college, Belfast and in the PGCE course at Queen's university, Belfast to the needs of teachers of Irish in Irish-medium primary and secondary schools in Northern Ireland and of his Department;

  (2) what action his Department intends to take in relation to the training of teachers of the Irish language;

  (3) if the written advice of the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education is available to the public;

  (4) what criteria were adopted by the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education in determining the appropriateness of courses in subject application, education and professional studies in the BEd degree at St. Mary's college, Belfast and in the PGCE course at the Queen's university of Belfast to the needs of teachers of Irish in Irish-medium primary and secondary schools in Northern Ireland;

  (5) who are the experts in (i) the teaching of Irish and (ii) modern language teaching methodology who advised the Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education on the appropriateness of the course in Celtic for the BEd degree

  241
  at St. Mary's college, Belfast to the needs of student teachers of Irish in Northern Ireland and of his Department;

  (6) what criteria were adopted by the Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education in determining whether the Celtic course in the BEd degree at St. Mary's college, Belfast is suitable for the needs of student teachers of Irish in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  As a precondition of approval by the Department of Education, courses of initial teacher training—ITT—in Northern Ireland are considered by the Council for the Accreditation of the Teacher Education —CATE—and required to meet certain defined Government criteria. The form and nature of these criteria are currently set out in the Department's circular 1989/40 "Initial Teacher Training Approval of Courses" which replaced circular 1985/20. Bachelor of education courses at St. Mary's college of education and post-graduate certificate of education courses at St. Mary's and Queen's university, with a main subject option of Celtic which student teachers of Irish undertake, were considered against Government criteria set out in circular 1985/20 and were approved as suitable courses of teacher training in December 1989. To help CATE in its work, all ITT institutions in Northern Ireland were visited and reported on by the Department's inspectorate. Circulars 1985/20 and 1989/40 are in the public domain, but the advice given by CATE to the Department in respect of courses at individual institutions is confidential. A review of ITT in Northern Ireland is currently under way. Developments emanating from this review are likely to affect the mode and content of all ITT courses; include an increase in school-based initial teacher training and a clearer definition of the competences which successful teachers would be expected to have as they progress through initial teacher training, induction and the more advanced stages of their careers. After a period of consultation, any changes resulting from the review will be announced later this year.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give details of the nature and scope of research into the teaching of Irish carried out by the staff of St. Mary's college and of the department and school of education of the Queen's university of Belfast since 1980.

  Mr. Ancram
  The emphasis in recent years has not been on research into the teaching of modern languages, including Irish, but on the provision of professional support and production of learning materials for use in the classroom. St. Mary's college of education, in conjunction with my Department and the education and library boards, has been actively involved in this area. One notable result has been the production of a graded reading scheme for children learning to read through the medium of Irish.

  At Queen's university, research into the teaching of Irish has been part of on-going research into the teaching of modern languages.

  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times inspectors from his Department have furnished him and his predecessors with reports on the teaching of Irish in higher education in the past 20 years; and what arrangements exist to make these reports available to the public.
  242
  Mr. Ancram
  There has been one substantive report on the teaching of Irish in St. Mary's college of education, which formed part of a general inspection of the college in 1987.

  This report was not a published document. It was supplied in confidence to the college authorities and to the Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.

  Structural Funds
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the consultative draft of the "Northern Ireland Structural Funds Plan 1994 to 1999" was issued for consultation; and when he will make it available to right hon. and hon. Members elected for Northern Ireland constituencies.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Department of Finance and Personnel circulated a consultation draft of the key sections of the "Northern Ireland Structural Funds Plan 1994 to 1999" to local interest groups on 25 June 1993. The closing date for the receipt of comments is 31 August. The interest generated in the draft plan has been much greater than anticipated with over 700 copies issued so far. Copies have already been issued to the Northern Ireland MEPs and main political party leaders, but I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's interest in the draft plan and would, of course, be pleased to send a copy to any of the Members elected for Northern Ireland constituencies if they request it.

  Water Main, Ballygowan
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he first received a complaint about a burst water main opposite 21–23 Saintfield road, Ballygowan; on what date the water main was repaired; why the water service was unable to repair the mains earlier; what is the estimated total loss of water in gallons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department of the Environment was notified on 21 June 1993 about a leaking hydrant opposite 21–23 Saintfield road, Ballygowan, and the repair was carried out on 1 July. During the period from 21 June to 1 July there were six burst mains, 25 burst service pipes and 16 leaking valves in the area requiring urgent repair as they were causing loss of water pressure and supply to consumers; the leaking hydrant was causing neither. It was not seen as a hazard to vehicular or pedestrian traffic and the other repairs were given priority. The estimated loss of water was 72,000 gallons.

  Homeless Young People
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what help is given to those young people from Northern Ireland who find themselves homeless in Britain and wish to return to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has a statutory duty to respond to those persons who are homeless in Northern Ireland. Young people who are homeless in Britain do not come within its responsibility until they arrive in Northern Ireland.

  Road Safety, Ballygowan
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about road safety on the main Belfast road, Ballygowan in the vicinity of the bus stop near Ballygowan Pharmacy, 15 The Square, Ballygowan; what consideration he has given to the provision of a pedestrian crossing at this location across the main Belfast road to unit 6; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  In the past six years, two requests have been received for the provision of a pedestrian crossing at this location. A survey will be carried out in September to determine whether a pedestrian crossing is needed.

  Young Migrants
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial support is given to housing associations in Northern Ireland who wish to work specifically in advice and support to young people wishing to migrate to other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Atkins
  None. In 1989–90, however, the Department of Health and Social Services grant aided the production of a leaflet "Second Thoughts—A Closer Look at Emigrating to London" which was jointly produced by a number of organisations, including one registered housing association. A copy of the leaflet will be placed in the Library.

  A further grant has been made available to produce an updated version of the leaflet, which is expected to be available in the autumn.

  Industrial Development Board
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what lists are held by the IDB of architects, quantity surveyors, mechanical and electrical contractors and structural engineers for engagement in design teams for capital projects or invitations to tender; and how such lists are compiled and reviewed.

  Mr. Atkins
  The IDB holds separate lists of architects; quantity surveyors; mechanical and electrical engineers; and civil and structural engineers. These lists are compiled on the basis of practice information supplied by applicant firms. The lists are not reviewed as it is the responsibility of applicant firms to update the practice information supplied to the IDB.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide a list of IDB construction contracts for the last four years indicating the total value of each contract, the names of firms in the respective design teams, the names of contractor firms and the names of those invited to tender.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is being compiled and will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement regarding the IDB's use of consultants in capital projects indicating whether they are appointed by rota, by free bid, by client preference or IDB preferences.

  Mr. Atkins
  The IDB assesses and selects professional practices for appointment as design consultants in capital 244
  projects. The assessment is based on the practice information submitted to it by firms seeking inclusion in IDB's select lists. Selection for particular projects is based on professional expertise, past performance, and the availability of resources to cope with the scale of design work within the project timescale. Account is taken also of any views stated by the IDB client company for whom the project is being built. There is no rota system, but the IDB does seek to spread work among consultants. Whenever possible, preference is given to local professional practices capable of undertaking the work.

  From 1 July 1993, the procurement of professional services will be governed by EC legislation as contained in the Public Services Contracts Regulations 1993.

  Emergency Provisions Act
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the exercise of the powers contained in section 57 of and schedule 5 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  During 1992, I received 24 applications from the Royal Ulster Constabulary for the appointment of persons to exercise the powers conferred by schedule 5 to the 1991 Act.

  The following statistics indicate the extent of the use of these powers during the 1992 calendar year.

  Number

  (a) number of applications for appointment

  124

  (b) number of appointments made

  123

  (c) number of notices to attend issued

  130

  (d) number of interviews conducted

  123

  (e) number of search warrants obtained

  10

  (f) number of persons charged with Schedule 5 offences

  11

  (g) number of persons convicted of Schedule 5 offences

  11

  (h) number of search warrants or orders obtained

  20

  (i) number of production orders obtained

  20

  (j) number of explanation orders obtained

  20

  1 Under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) act 1991.

  2 Under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.

  I am satisfied that the powers have been used to good effect and that they are extremely useful in the continuing efforts to disrupt and curtail terrorist fund raising and to bring offenders to justice.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progresss has been made towards implementation of the recommendations contained in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report of June 1989 on the bus services in Northern Ireland provided by Ulsterbus Ltd. and Citybus Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have today placed in the Library of the House, the third and final response to the report which has been prepared by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland in consultation with the bus companies and the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company. I am glad to confirm that good progress has been made on the implementation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's recommendations since this matter was last reported to the House in March 1991. The response now indicates that 42 of the 58 recommendations made by the
  245
  MMC have been implemented in full and that the remaining 16 recommendations have been accepted and their implementation is continuing.

  I am pleased to inform the House that research published recently by the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland has shown that there has been a significant improvement in services provided by the bus companies since the council carried out similar research in 1987. This reflects in some measure the steps taken by companies in response to the MMC recommendations and the oversight of their implementation by the Transport Holding Company and the Department. In February 1993, the companies fulfilled the commitment in the Northern Ireland citizens charter by publishing their bus passengers charter. I am confident that the companies will meet the targets it sets for standards and quality of service and that, over time, will strive to improve standards even further, achieve better value for money and, in consultation with their customers, provide greater choice and a better and more attractive service which the public are entitled to expect.

  Industrial Electricity
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the transitional relief to monthly billed industrial electricity consumers in Northern Ireland, announced by him on 25 March, is in place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Yes. Transitional relief in the form of rebates on electricity bills, will be paid to about 3,800 monthly billed industrial and commercial customers. This will enable the tariff increase for those customers, which took effect from 1 April 1993, to be reduced from an average of 15 per cent. to 9 per cent. The relief will be paid out of a trust fund of £12.9 million which has been established and funded out of the dividend of £16.5 million declared by NIE in respect of the year to 31 March 1993. A subsidiary company of Northern Ireland Electricity plc will act as trustee. These arrangements have been notified to and cleared by the European Commission.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to whom each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Northern Ireland Office is responsible; whether the public bodies or their members in each case are subject to(a) surcharge, (b) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (c) scrutiny by the Audit Commission or National Audit Office, (d) the statutory provisions for open government which apply to local authorities, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charters; and whether the chairpersons and members of the boards of each of these bodies are required to declare an interest.

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 6 July 1993]:Available information can be obtained from the following publications, copies of which are held in the Library.

  (i) "Public Bodies 1992" lists the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments and includes the audit arrangements for each executive non-departmental public body.

  The responsibilities of the Audit Commission or National Audit Office do not extend to the six
  246
  Northern Ireland Departments, which have their own similarly appointed body—the Northern Ireland Audit Office.

  (ii) The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints is responsible for undertaking the investigation of complaints against non-departmental public bodies. The Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Act 1969 and the "Statutes Revised (2nd edition) Cumulative Supplement" list the non-departmental public bodies subject to investigation by the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints.

  All public servants are subject to the citizens charter and non-departmental public bodies are therefore encouraged through their sponsor Departments to adopt charter principles.

  The other information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  School Drama Departments
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many school drama departments he has visited in his official capacity.

  Mr. Brooke
  Although invitations to school drama departments are more likely to go to Ministers in the Department for Education, I visited the Guildhall School of Music and Drama on 3 March.

  Theatre in Education
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many representations he has received regarding the future of theatre in education provision.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since the start of the current campaign on behalf of theatre in education, I have received more than 30 such representations.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultation he has had with(a) the Arts Council of Great Britain, (b) the regional arts boards, (c) the Department for Education and (d) local authority associations regarding the future of theatre in education provision.

  Mr. Brooke
  My Department has discussed theatre in education provision with the bodies listed in(a), (b), and (c), and additionally with the Welsh arts council.

  Regional Arts Boards
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which education officers working with regional arts boards he has met in his official capacity.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have met no regional arts board—RAB —education officers for formal discussions. During regional visits, I have met informally several RAB officers whose responsibilities include educational issues.

  Tourist Accommodation
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consideration has been given to a pan-European standard scheme for classifying and grading tourist accommodation; and if he will make a statement.
  247
  Mr. Sproat
  None. There is little industry support for such a proposal.

  Tourism
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) how many full and part-time civil servants are employed in his Department on monitoring the activities of the British Tourist Authority; and what will be the cost of the salaries in the current financial year;

  (2) how many full and part-time civil servants are employed in his Department monitoring the activities of the English tourist board; and what will be the cost of their salaries in the current financial year.

  Mr. Sproat
  There are 20 staff employed in my Department's tourism division, including two who work part-time. It is part of the division's role to ensure that the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board make effective and efficient use of the money voted to them by Parliament. The division's salary budget for 1993,–94 is £448,820.

HEALTH

  Nurses
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses were at work in the areas served by(a) the Trent regional health authority and (b) the Doncaster district health authority in the years 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  Figures for 1992 are not yet available.

  Nursing and midwifery staff (excluding agency) in Trent Regional Health Authority and Doncaster District Health Authority as at 30 September 1991: whole-time equivalents

  1991

  Number

  Trent Regional Health Authority

  37,950

  Doncaster District Health Authority

  2,630

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten whole-time equivalents.

  Trusts are included in the totals.

  Ophthalmology
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what were the average waiting times for in-patient and out-patient treatment for ophthalmology in each year since 1985 for each regional health authority and in England;

  (2) what was the year end waiting list for (a) in-patient and (b) out-patient treatment in ophthalmology for each regional health authority and in England in each year since 1985.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information available is shown in the table. Information about waiting times for ophthalmology treatment—in-patients and day cases—is not available prior to March 1988. Figures for March 1993 are not yet finalised, but provisional figures show that no one was waiting more than two years at 31 March 1993 in any region for hospital in-patient or day case treatment. Information on the number of people waiting for out-patient appointments is not available centrally.248

  Numbers waiting for Ophthalmology treatment—in-patients and day cases combined by Regional Health Authority for each year end since March 1988.

  Number waiting—by months waiting

  Region

  Total waiting

  0–11

  12–23

  24 plus

  March 1988

  Northern

  4,480

  3,884

  491

  105

  Yorkshire

  5,340

  4,538

  615

  187

  Trent

  4,903

  4,472

  343

  88

  East Anglian

  3,123

  2,616

  418

  89

  North West Thames

  4,746

  3,976

  582

  188

  North East Thames

  2,789

  2,350

  266

  173

  South East Thames

  5,016

  4,438

  487

  91

  South West Thames

  4,909

  3,362

  975

  572

  Wessex

  5,025

  4,216

  609

  200

  Oxford

  2,706

  2,537

  150

  19

  South Western

  5,436

  4,628

  714

  94

  West Midlands

  7,958

  6,533

  930

  495

  Mersey

  3,523

  3,057

  396

  70

  North Western

  8,741

  6,898

  1,529

  314

  SHAs

  2,413

  2,365

  42

  6

  England

  71,108

  59,870

  8,547

  2,691

  March 1989

  Northern

  4,881

  3,997

  600

  284

  Yorkshire

  5,936

  5,021

  749

  166

  Trent

  6,207

  5,547

  581

  79

  East Anglian

  3,872

  2,967

  756

  149

  North West Thames

  5,620

  4,637

  809

  174

  North East Thames

  3,428

  2,746

  358

  324

  South East Thames

  5,211

  4,559

  511

  141

  South West Thames

  5,335

  3,712

  1,041

  582

  Wessex

  5,084

  4,626

  367

  91

  Oxford

  2,978

  2,709

  231

  38

  South Western

  6,070

  5,254

  710

  106

  West Midlands

  8,829

  7,251

  1,188

  390

  Mersey

  4,335

  3,641

  621

  73

  North Western

  9,922

  8,130

  1,553

  239

  SHAs

  2,746

  2,534

  170

  42

  England

  80,454

  67,331

  10,245

  2,878

  March 1990

  Northern

  5,037

  4,340

  576

  121

  Yorkshire

  6,567

  5,767

  727

  73

  Trent

  7,396

  6,350

  921

  125

  East Anglian

  4,336

  3,677

  529

  130

  North West Thames

  5,088

  4,322

  654

  112

  North East Thames

  3,562

  3,299

  192

  71

  South East Thames

  6,268

  5,813

  328

  127

  South West Thames

  5,631

  3,587

  1,431

  613

  Wessex

  5,454

  5,111

  305

  38

  Oxford

  3,281

  2,859

  407

  15

  South Western

  6,854

  5,926

  836

  92

  West Midlands

  9,430

  7,838

  1,318

  274

  Mersey

  4,695

  4,412

  283

  0

  North Western

  11,953

  8,869

  2,493

  591

  SHAs

  2,904

  2,379

  434

  91

  England

  88,456

  74,549

  11,434

  2,473

  March 1991

  Northern

  5,412

  5,045

  325

  42

  Yorkshire

  7,997

  6,563

  1,236

  198

  Trent

  8,207

  7,011

  1,183

  13

  East Anglian

  5,323

  4,278

  908

  137

  North West Thames

  5,991

  4,935

  887

  169

  North East Thames

  3,900

  3,694

  179

  27

  South East Thames

  6,987

  6,309

  609

  69

  South West Thames

  4,360

  3,629

  603

  128

  Wessex

  5,639

  5,266

  336

  37

  Oxford

  4,289

  3,898

  367

  24

  South Western

  8,075

  7,202

  792

  81

  West Midlands

  9,495

  8,338

  996

  161

  Mersey

  4,875

  4,794

  81

  0

  North Western

  11,809

  9,150

  2,353

  306

  249

  Number waiting—by months waiting

  Region

  Total waiting

  0–11

  12–23

  24 plus

  SHAs

  2,851

  2,467

  239

  145

  England

  95,210

  82,579

  11,094

  1,537

  March 1992

  Northern

  6,260

  5,967

  293

  0

  Yorkshire

  8,798

  7,560

  1,238

  0

  Trent

  8,393

  7,456

  937

  0

  East Anglian

  5,137

  4,447

  690

  0

  North West Thames

  6,563

  5,534

  1,029

  0

  North East Thames

  5,245

  4,883

  360

  2

  South East Thames

  7,831

  7,129

  702

  0

  South West Thames

  4,787

  4,559

  228

  0

  Wessex

  5,712

  5,623

  89

  0

  Oxford

  3,705

  3,353

  352

  0

  South Western

  8,357

  8,233

  124

  0

  West Midlands

  10,107

  9,354

  746

  7

  Mersey

  6,380

  6,380

  0

  0

  North Western

  11,104

  9,747

  1,357

  0

  SHAs

  2,139

  1,918

  221

  0

  England

  100,518

  92,143

  8,366

  9

  EC Health Care
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on total health care per head of population expressed in purchasing power parities in each EC country.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service will be spending £647 for every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom in 1993–94. Figures for the European Community are not available on a comparable basis.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to publish the report of the task force on myalgic encephalomyelitis.

  Mr. Sackville
  A task force chaired by Dr. David Tyrrell has been established involving medical and scientific experts, representation from the myalgic encephalomeylitis voluntary organisations and an observer from the Department of Health. The task force will look at the existing literature and research with a view to disseminating the information to health care professionals. It will be for the task force to advise on whether its findings should be published.

  Abortions
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to issue guidance to health authorities on the appropriate provision for payment for abortions carried out in their area.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. It is the responsibility of individual health authorities to decide how best to provide and fund local health services.

  NHS Numbers
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total estimated cost of issuing new national health service numbers.
  250
  Mr. Sackville
  The costs of implementing the national health service number replacement programme are estimated at £22 million at today's prices, over the period 1992 to 1995.

  Out-patients Departments
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what surveys have been taken as to the number of people who have had to wait more than 30 minutes before seeing a doctor in an out-patients department during each of the last 12 months.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Performance against the patients charter, including the standard on 30 minutes waiting time in out-patient clinics, is monitored on a quarterly basis. A variety of methods can be used to obtain data, including surveys.

  Every purchasing authority is in the process of producing their first annual report on their providers' performance against all aspects of the patients charter.

  Information Management
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total estimated cost of the information management and technology strategy for the national health service.

  Mr. Sackville
  The major thrust of the information management and technology strategy for the national health service is that the implementation of computer systems is a local responsibility. Local managers take investment decisions in line with their business require-ments and are expected to obtain best value for money. Comprehensive details of estimated investments are not available centrally.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total estimated budget of the information management group of the national health service management executive for the financial year 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  The total budget for the information management group for 1993–94 is £51,408,132.

  NHS Administrative Registers
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make it her policy that no other Government Department or body will have access to information stored on national health service administrative registers;

  (2) what action the Government will take to ensure that information stored on national health service administra-tive registers will be used only for the purposes for which it is intended.

  Mr. Sackville
  Administrative registers are being developed in the national health service to enhance the care of patients and improve the management efficiency of the service. Any access to and use of information on the registers by other bodies will be strictly controlled for those purposes in accordance with agreements reached with the Data Protection Registrar.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total estimated cost of establishing the national health service administrative registers.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are five pilot projects in England to trial the establishment of local national health service
  251
  administrative registers. These sites are due to complete their work in late 1994 and the lessons learnt, including information on costs, will be the basis for decisions on national implementation.

  Drugs Expenditure
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of national health service spending in each year since 1979 has been spent on drugs.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is shown in the table.

  Year

  Total NHS drugs bill as a percentage of total NHS expenditure Per cent.

  1979–80

  10.2

  1980–81

  9.4

  1981–82

  9.6

  1982–83

  10.2

  1983–84

  10.7

  1984–85

  10.4

  1985–86

  10.5

  1986–87

  10.6

  1987–88

  10.7

  1988–89

  10.8

  1989–90

  11.2

  1990–91

  10.7

  1991–92

  10.9

  Note: 1992–93 expenditure figures are not yet available.

  Healthy Eating
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are being taken to promote healthier eating habits in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The nutrition task force, set up under the "Health of the Nation" White Paper, has this week issued, for public consultation, its outline programme for co-ordinated action to address the dietary targets in the strategy. The programme covers the areas of education and information; catering; the food chain; and, the role of the national health service and health professionals. Copies of the programme will be placed in the Library.

  Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Slimming Illnesses
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were admitted to hospitals in England and Wales suffering from the acute effects of anorexia and other slimming illnesses in the latest available year.

  Mr. Bowis
  The latest available figures for —England1989–90—show that there were 1,420 recorded finished consultant episodes with diagnoses of anorexia nervosa and a further 180 finished consultant episodes with the diagnosis of bulimia. Episodes involving the acute effects of these diseases are not separately identifiable. Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  252
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are being introduced to help people suffering from anorexia and other slimming-related illnesses; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Health Authorities are responsible for meeting the needs of people with eating disorders but the Department has advised on and drawn attention to the importance of such disorders in the "Mental Illness Key Area Handbook", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Hospital Services, Liverpool
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to discuss the future of hospital services in Liverpool with the relevant community health councils; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Liverpool Central and Southern community health council and Liverpool Eastern CHC have both responded to the consultation exercise carried out by Liverpool district health authority on proposals for the future development of health services in Liverpool.

  The responses have been referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who will consider them carefully in deciding on Liverpool DNA's proposals.

  Paediatric Services
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated by paediatric services, in each year since 1988 in the north western and Mersey regions, broken down by hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Bruce Martin, chairman of North Western regional health authority and Sir Donald Wilson, chairman of Mersey health authority, for details.

  Merseyside Hospitals
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will visit the Broadgreen, Alder Hey and Royal Liverpool University hospitals in the near future to discuss with the staff of those hospitals possible developments in the services they provide; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be meeting all the trust chairmen, in Mersey region, at Alder Hey hospital, as well as meeting district health authority and family health services authority chairmen.

  Provision of services at these hospitals are a matter for the trusts concerned together with their purchasing health authorities.

  Broadgreen Hospital, Liverpool
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received about the future financing of Broadgreen hospital, Liverpool; and if she will carry out a review of the present arrangements.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received a number of letters from the general public about the future of Broadgreen hospital over the past few months, but none specifically about future financing. I shall be meeting with local Members of Parliament to discuss the future of Broadgreen next week.
  253
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly be considering the proposals of Liverpool health authority for the future development of health services in Liverpool, which affect Broadgreen, and which have been referred to her for a decision.

  Dysentery
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of dysentery were reported in Nottingham during the last 12 months and in each of the previous five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Reported cases of dysentery in Nottingham 1987–1991

  Year

  Number

  1987

  8

  1988

  5

  1989

  148

  1990

  23

  1991

  38

  Note:

  The total number of reported cases in Nottingham for the last 12 months is 1101.

  1 Week ending 19 June 1992 to week ending 18 June 1993.

  There was a national increase in notifications of dysentry in 1991 and early 1992 with a subsequent fall in notifications in the second half of 1992. In addition to its usual role of surveillance and giving advice on the control of outbreaks of the disease, the Public Health Laboratory Service has established a working group of people with expertise in this area to determine whether any additional steps should be taken.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has approved the Human Fertilisation and Embryology authority's revised code of practice.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's revised code of practice was approved and laid before the Houses of Parliament today. Copies of the code of practice have been placed in the Vote Office.

  Nurses and Midwives
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish details of the numbers of NHS and midwifery staff by pay grades withn the groups of senior nursing and midwifery staff, educational staff, clinical nursing and midwifery staff, learners and other staff; if she will list the number of Project 2000 nursing students, in(a) 1989, (b) 1990, (c) 1991 and (d) 1992; and if she will give the percentage change between each year.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 23 June 1993]: The information for 1992 is not currently available. The information for 1989–91 will be placed in the Library.

  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.

SCOTLAND

  Kirkcudbright (Food Warnings)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list details of all incidents where the local population at Kirkcudbright have been advised not to drink water or eat shellfish, the time scale involved in each case and the reason given for the advice in each case, for the last five years.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Since 1988, Dumfries and Galloway regional council has not issued any advice to Kirkcudbright consumers not to drink water from the public supply. There are a number of private water supplies in the area; Stewartry district council monitor these routinely and from time to time have advised individual owners of poor quality private supplies to boil the water before drinking it pending improvements. Records of these cases are not held centrally.

  Advising the general public not to eat shellfish is a matter for the appropriate district council's environmental health department. Stewartry district council has done this once—June 1993, Dhoon bay—following notification to the council by the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department that paralytic shellfish poison toxin levels were above the agreed safety limit. The Department does not have records of similar advice being given for any other reasons.

  Waiting List Initiative
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will identify, for each health board, the amount of money that has been spent in the private sector through the waiting list initiative each year since 1990.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information is as follows:

  £000

  Health board

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Argyll and Clyde

  406

  54

  136

  Ayrshire and Arran

  376

  26

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  19

  22

  Forth Valley

  50

  37

  33

  Grampian

  47

  —

  —

  Greater Glasgow

  1,742

  165

  —

  Lothian

  206

  —

  154

  Scottish Tourist Board
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many full and part-time civil servants are employed in his Department on monitoring the activities of the Scottish tourist board; and what will be the cost of their salaries in the current financial year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Four full-time staff and one with part-time tourism responsibilities. Total salary costs are £107,660.

  Voluntary Organisations (Funding)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total funding to voluntary organisations in Scotland(a) through local authorities and (b) through the Scottish Office direct in the last full year for which figures are available.
  255
  Mr. Stewart
  The figures for grants paid to voluntary organisations in Scotland by local authorities are not available centrally. Direct grants paid to voluntary organisations by the Scottish Office in 1992–93 totalled £.25.7 million.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many designated sites of special scientific interest are in(a) Inverclyde district and (b) Renfrew district; and if he will list them.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 7 July 1993]; The information is set out in the table. Some of these sites also lie within other districts as indicated.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest

  Site

  Other districts containing part of site

  (a) Inverclyde District

  Dargavel Burn

  Refrew

  Dunrod Hill

  Erskine Langbank

  Renfrew

  Glen Moss

  Renfrew

  Shielhill Glen

  Knocknairs Hill

  (b) Renfrew District

  Barmufflock Dam

  Boylestone Quarry

  Castle Semple and Barr Lochs

  Clochodrick Stone

  Dargavel Burn

  Inverclyde

  Erskine Langbank

  Inverclyde

  Formakin

  Glen Moss

  Inverclyde

  Lock Libo

  Shovelboard

  Walkmill

  Glasgow and Eastwood

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many of the functions of the Scottish tourist board are to be relocated from Edinburgh to Inverness by 1 April 1995; and if he will list them;

  (2) what assessment he has carried out of the costs of relocating Scottish tourist board staff and functions to Inverness by 1 April 1995; how many staff will be involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 July 1993]: I expect the Scottish tourist board to establish a substantial office presence in Inverness, representative of the range of its functions. The numbers of staff involved and precise costs can be determined only once the STB has identified which jobs are to be transferred; I expect, however, overall expenditure to be kept within existing resources.

  Tourism
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the reduction in the number of area tourist boards envisaged as part of the tourism support arrangements announced on 29 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 July 1993]: I am asking the Scottish tourist board to consult local interests and to make recommendations. I anticipate that this will take a
  256
  period of some months. Thereafter, I shall consider its proposals carefully and make an announcement as soon as I can.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he intends to take to strengthen the composition of the Scottish tourism co-ordinating committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 July 1993]: I am consulting members of the group and shall make an announcement as soon as I can. My aim is to ensure that the group represents the interests of the tourist industry in all its facets.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how the board level appointments envisaged as part of the tourism support arrangements announced on 29 June will be made to represent geographic spread within Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 July 1993]: I intend to make cross-board appointments to the boards of the Scottish tourist board, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. The purpose of these appoint-ments is to ensure collaboration between the bodies rather than to represent geographic spread of membership.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the implications of local government reorganisation for the role of local authorities in tourism support arrangements following his review of Scottish tourism; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 July 1993]: The arrangements which I have announced will ensure that local authorities remain, both before and after local government reorganisation, major players in the develop-ment of Scotland's tourist industry.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the organisations and individuals who responded to the Scottish Office tourism review indicating which of them expressed a view on(a) the relocation of staff and functions from Edinburgh to Inverness and (b) the requirement for an annual strategic plan for Scottish tourism; what plans he has to publish a summary of the responses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 July 1993]: Responses were received from:

  Number

  Statutory agencies

  8

  Tourist industry representative organisations

  25

  Tourism businesses

  195

  Area Tourist Boards and representative organisations

  34

  Local authorities (plus COSLA)

  54

  Local Enterprise Companies

  17

  Other organisations and individuals

  88

  The need for a national strategy which set out clear objectives and operational arrangements for the industry was a theme which ran through many of the responses, although differing opinions were expressed as to how this might be achieved. The decision to relocate Scottish tourist board staff to Inverness was taken because the Government concluded that it was in the interests of tourism businesses in the highlands and islands that the Scottish tourist board should have representation there.
  257
  In accordance with normal practice, all responses to the review have been made available to the public. I have no plans to publish a summary.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Rehabilitation Centre, Preston
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the residential employment rehabilitation centre in Ingol, Preston.

  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 Mrs. Audrey Wise, dated 8 July 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 him about the future of the residential employment rehabilitation centre in Ingol, Preston. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  As you will know from previous correspondence, the decision to close the Employment Rehabilitation Centre at Ingol resulted from our plans to improve the quality and accessibility of employment assessment and rehabilitation for people with disabilities. The decision was taken only after we were satisfied that a network of agents was in place which could provide at least as good a service as that offered by Ingol.

  The centre was closed on 31 December 1992. Tenders were invited and the site has now been sold subject to contract. Until the sale is concluded, you will appreciate that it would not be right for me to comment on possible future uses.

  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.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many early leavers on youth training in each of the last five years in the London East area had completed(a) 10, (b) 20, (c) 30, (d) 40, (e) 50, (f) 60, (g) 70, (h) 80, (i) 90 and (j) 104 weeks of their course.

  Persons employed full/part-time and self-employedGreat Britain

  (thousands)

  Employment status in main job

  Spring 1990

  Spring 1991

  Spring 1992

  Winter 1992/93

  Employees

  Full-time1

  17,199

  16,758

  16,234

  15,983

  Part-time1

  5,055

  5,117

  5,159

  5,145

  Self-employed

  3,472

  3,318

  3,131

  3,046

  People with two jobs: one as self-employed and one as employee2

  308

  309

  281

  272

  1 The definition of full and part-time is based on respondents own assessment.

  2 Self-employed job may be either main or second job.

  Source: Labour Force Survey (not seasonally adjusted).
  258
  Miss Widdecombe
  Information is not available in the exact form requested. The following table gives a breakdown of early leavers by length of stay in weeks for the London East area for the last five years.

  Youth training—duration on scheme of early leavers1 East London training and enterprise council area April 1988 to March 1993

  Percentage

  Weeks

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  21992–93

  0–4

  14

  14

  17

  18

  16

  5–8

  12

  15

  11

  11

  14

  9–13

  11

  12

  10

  11

  11

  14–26

  19

  21

  19

  22

  18

  27–39

  13

  11

  14

  11

  12

  40–47

  7

  6

  6

  5

  7

  48–52

  4

  3

  3

  3

  3

  53–65

  8

  8

  7

  7

  6

  66–78

  5

  4

  4

  4

  5

  79–91

  4

  3

  5

  4

  4

  92–99

  3

  2

  3

  2

  3

  100–104

  4

  0

  4

  4

  4

  105+

  4

  4

  1

  2

  2

  DK/NA3

  0

  0

  4

  4

  0

  Source: YT Leavers Database.

  Notes:

  1 Early leavers are those whose actual completion date was earlier than anticipated at the time they started training. This group will include those starting employment and those who subsequently take up another youth training course or a full-time course elsewhere.

  2 1992–93 figures are provisional.

  3 DK/NA stands for not known or not answered. A very small proportion of returned leavers certificates are not fully completed. In this case a very few certificates did not have sufficient information to work out the length of stay in training.

  4 Less than 0.5 per cent.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for the last three years(a) the number of people in full-time employment, (b) the number of people in part-time employment, (c) the number of self-employed and (d) the number of people simultaneously employed and self-employed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The available information from the labour force survey is given in the table.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made by his advisory group for older workers on the issue of employment discrimination; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My advisory group is studying good practice with a view to issuing guidance to employers; I have issued a challenge to employers who discriminate on grounds of age to justify their policies; the group is seeking ways of raising public consciousness on this issue; the group has met twice and agreed a programme of work. It is actively advising me on the best ways to disseminate the message that age discrimination is harmful to the individual, to business and to the economy.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the names of individuals who(a) are spouses of hon. Members (b) are members of the House of Lords, (c) are spouses of members of the House of Lords and (d) have been party candidates for Parliament, indicating for which party, who have been appointed by his Department since 1988 to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations giving, in each case, the title of the post, any salary payable, arid the duration of the appointment.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Disallowed Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list by month for the last 12 months and by employment region in England the number of people disallowed unemployment benefit;

  (2) if he will list by month for the last 12 months and by employment region in Scotland the number of people disallowed unemployment benefit;

  (3) if he will list by month for the last 12 months and by employment region in Wales the number of people disallowed unemployment benefit.

  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. Martin Redmond, dated 8 July 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 Questions about the number of people disallowed unemployment benefit in each of the past 12 months in the employment regions in England, Scotland and Wales. This is something which falls within the responsibilities he has delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  Unfortunately, the information you asked for is not available in the format you have requested. The statistics relating to adjudication officers decisions are not collated on a monthly basis but are compiled quarterly. This information, which includes an analysis of the grounds for disallowance, is published in a document, the "Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions". Copies of this document are held in the
  260
  Library. The latest available information is for the quarter ending 31 December 1992. The report for the quarter and year ending 31 March 1993 will be published by the end of July.

  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will not be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many complaints he has received about telephone access to advice from the Health and Safety Executive using the single public inquiry point in Sheffield or via the HSE free leaflet line.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the six-month period from 1 January 1993 a total of 18 written complaints have been received. During this time, 55,338 telephone inquiries from members of the public were dealt with by the enquiry point. Most inquiries are addressed to the Health and Safety Executive area offices.

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the proportion of female part-time workers on adult rates in Great Britain in April 1992, whose hourly earnings, exclusive of overtime, fell below(a) £3.95, (b) £5.26 and (c) £5.52; and what is the nearest equivalent information held in respect of part-time male workers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested can be found in the table:

  Part-time employees on adult rates—pay unaffected by absence Proportion with hourly earnings excluding overtime below the following amounts:

  April 1992 (Per cent.)

  £3.95

  £5.26

  £5.52

  Women

  49.40

  75.90

  78.90

  Men

  49.20

  70.60

  72.60

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Youth Cohort Study
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the percentage of the first sweep of each cohort of the youth cohort study who were in (i) full-time education, (ii) a full-time job, (iii) on youth training or other scheme, (iv) unemployed or (v) other.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Youth cohort study, sweep 1, cohort 1 to cohort 6 Activities of 16 and 17 year-olds, England and Wales

  (Per cent.)

  Proportion of cohort in

  Cohort

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  Full-time education

  37

  39

  42

  50

  58

  66

  Full-time job

  29

  22

  23

  24

  18

  13

  Youth training scheme

  17

  28

  26

  22

  14

  11

  Unemployed

  15

  10

  8

  3

  7

  7

  Other

  2

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Notes:

  1. Cohorts 1 and 2 covered pupils in state schools only;

  261
  independent schools were included from cohort 3 onwards.

  2. Definition of unemployment does not follow ILO definitions as used in the Labour Force Survey. The unemployed exclude young people in full-time education.

  Source: Youth Cohort Study.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the percentage of those who hold (i) GCSE/GCE O-level A-C, (ii) other GCSE/GCE and (iii) no qualifications in each sweep of each cohort of the youth cohort study who were in(a) full-time education, (b) a full-time job, (c) on youth training or other scheme, (d) unemployed or (e) other.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As the information is contained in a considerable number of tables, I will write to the hon. Member.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of(a) 18-year-olds, (b) 17-year-olds and (c) 16-year-olds in January (i) 1991, (ii) 1992 and (iii) 1993 who were on youth training schemes.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information is collected when a trainee leaves youth training. As some trainees who were on schemes in January 1992 and January 1993 will not yet have left, reliable figures are not available. In January 1991, of those on youth training schemes in Great Britain 27 per cent. were aged 16, 46 per cent. were 17 and 27 per cent. were 18 or over.

  Redundancy
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimated total amount spent on redundancy pay since 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Primary responsibility for the payment of statutory redundancy payments lies with employers. Information is not available on the number or costs of payments made by employers.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may make payment from the national insurance fund to employees whose employer is unable to pay. The redundancy fund was merged with the national insurance fund in February 1991. The cost of payments for each available year is as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Cost

  1979–80

  19.3

  1980–81

  42.0

  1981–82

  53.0

  1982–83

  72.2

  1983–84

  69.0

  1984–85

  57.1

  1985–86

  54.6

  1986–87

  50.2

  1987–88

  34.9

  1988–89

  32.4

  1989–90

  25.7

  1990–91

  67.6

  1991–92

  131.8

WALES

  Accident and Emergency Hospital Units
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for the latest year, for each accident and emergency hospital unit in Wales,(a) the total number of patients admitted for treatment, (b) the number of patients admitted at night and (c) the number of nights that the unit was closed for admissions.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the number of patients admitted to a hospital bed as an in-patient following treatment at an accident and emergency department, the number admitted at night and the number of nights that each unit is closed for admissions is not available centrally.

  The available information relates to the number of out-patient attendances at accident and emergency departments and is given in the table:

  Total out-patient attendances at accident and emergency depart-ments 1991–92

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd

  36,957

  H M Stanley

  2,942

  Ysbyty Maelor

  52,039

  Flint Community

  4,119

  Holywell Community

  9,519

  Llangollen

  1,927

  Mold Community

  18,558

  Ruthin Community

  2,806

  Chirk Community

  2,458

  Colwyn Bay Community

  2,624

  Denbighshire Infirmary

  5,818

  West Wales General

  21,920

  Llandovery

  1,548

  Cardigan

  4,689

  Aberaeron

  542

  Bronglais

  14,497

  Tregaron

  231

  Prince Phillip

  37,005

  Nevill Hall

  41,702

  Blaenavon H C Unit

  3,802

  Monmouth

  2,053

  Tredegar

  3,904

  Blaina

  1,859

  Ebbw Vale

  1,857

  Royal Gwent

  65,410

  County, Griffithstown

  10

  Mt Pleasant, Chepstow

  4,178

  Pontypool

  8,068

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  24,530

  Llandudno General

  14,994

  Bryn Beryl

  1,835

  Dolgellau and Barmouth

  2,813

  Ffestiniog Memorial

  4,660

  Stanley Sailors

  6,186

  Tywyn and District War Memorial

  3,714

  Bronygarth

  2,358

  Prince Charles

  49,380

  Aberdare

  18,162

  Mountain Ash

  12,754

  Princess of Wales

  47,294

  Bridgend General

  676

  Maesteg

  1,518

  Llwynypia

  18,967

  Treherbert

  31

  Caerphilly District Miners

  14,625

  Aberbargoed

  3,130

  Redwood

  2,772

  East Glamorgan

  44,641

  Withybush

  27,278

  Tenby

  3,540

  263

  Total out-patient attendances at accident and emergency depart-ments 1991–92

  South Pembrokeshire

  6,444

  Llandrindod Wells

  7,577

  Llanidloes

  1,761

  Montgomery CI

  4,399

  Victoria Memorial

  4,161

  Bro Ddyfi Community

  4,280

  Breconshire War Memorial

  8,850

  Builth Cottage

  4,868

  Ystradgynlais

  2,962

  University Hospital of Wales

  394

  Cardiff Royal Infirmary

  90,037

  Barry Community

  8,127

  Whitchurch

  347

  Singleton

  30,510

  Morriston

  65,841

  Glydach War Memorial

  34

  Gorseinon

  317

  Neath General

  35,401

  Total

  935,120

  National Health Service (Incident Reports)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information his Department collects on the volume of untoward incident reports at national health service provider units in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office does not routinely collect information of this general nature.

  Economically Inactive People
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many and what percentage of(a) men between 16 and 65 years and (b) women between 16 and 60 years were recorded by the 1991 census in Wales as economically inactive;

  (2) how many people, and what percentage of adults aged between 16 years and the pensionable age, were recorded by the 1991 census in Wales as economically inactive.

  Mr. Redwood
  The numbers and percentages of(a) males, (b) females and (c) adults in Wales aged between 16 years and the pensionable age recorded by the 1991 census as economically inactive are given in the table. "Economically Inactive" includes housewives, students and others who are making an important contribution to community life.

  Notifications of food poisoning—(data are for weeks ending)

  1993

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  8 January to 29 January

  5 February to 26 February

  5 March to 2 April

  9 April to 30 April

  7 May to 28 May

  Clwyd

  31

  28

  29

  35

  89

  Dyfed

  31

  14

  33

  15

  61

  Gwent

  20

  19

  38

  28

  32

  Gwynedd

  3

  8

  8

  4

  17

  Mid Glamorgan

  50

  42

  37

  38

  66

  Powys

  8

  7

  14

  11

  11

  South Glamorgan

  102

  83

  98

  86

  155

  West Glamorgan

  34

  37

  29

  32

  65

  Wales

  279

  238

  286

  249

  496

  264

  Economically inactive

  Percentage of resident population aged 16 to 59/64 per cent.

  Males aged 16 to 64

  164,933

  18.8

  Females aged 16 to 59

  303,722

  37.5

  Persons aged 16 to 59/64

  468,655

  27.8

  Source: Aggregated from 1991 Local Base Statistics.

  Note: Information for age-groups 16 to 65 and 16 to 60 for men and women respectively are not available.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current value of the assets of the Forestry Commission in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The latest valuation of the Forestry Commission's assets in Wales, as at 31 March 1992, was £651.6 million.

  Hospital Infection Control
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of directly-managed hospital units and hospital trusts in Wales indicating whether or not they have established an infection control committee and an infection control team.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Welsh Office guidance issued in 1990 required all Welsh health authorities to establish infection control committees and infection control teams for all hospitals.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the cost to the NHS of hospital-acquired infection in Wales and the number of lost bed days from such infection.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has by county of the number of cases of food poisoning for each month of 1993 to date; and what were the figures in 1992 and 1991 for the comparable period.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is given in the table:
  265

  1992

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  10 January to31 January

  7 February to28 February

  6 March to3 April

  10 April to1 May

  8 May to 29 May

  Clwyd

  36

  35

  29

  14

  84

  Dyfed

  11

  38

  31

  51

  47

  Gwent

  25

  28

  42

  42

  29

  Gwynedd

  5

  4

  7

  5

  10

  Mid Glamorgan

  31

  22

  41

  30

  81

  Powys

  4

  4

  3

  3

  10

  South Glamorgan

  22

  10

  18

  37

  36

  West Glamorgan

  30

  28

  35

  30

  56

  Wales

  164

  169

  206

  212

  353

  1991

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  11 January to1 February

  8 February to1 March

  8 March to5 April

  12 April to3 May

  10 May to 31 May

  Clwyd

  29

  17

  42

  42

  78

  Dyfed

  12

  12

  34

  20

  43

  Gwent

  6

  10

  5

  7

  5

  Gwynedd

  4

  8

  12

  6

  5

  Mid Glamorgan

  27

  32

  23

  19

  18

  Powys

  7

  6

  2

  6

  8

  South Glamorgan

  19

  17

  46

  20

  23

  West Glamorgan

  44

  31

  25

  23

  42

  Wales

  148

  133

  189

  143

  222

  Notifications for 1993 are weekly figures combined to represent months. For prior years, similar groupings are presented to provide comparative data. Figures may have been corrected in the quarterly and annual updates.

  Source: Registrar General's Weekly Return (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys).

  Day Surgery
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidance his Department issues to(a) general practitioner fund-holders and (b) health authorities on the specifica-tions they should include in their contracts with providers of day unit surgery to reduce the special risks attendant upon day surgery.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office has not issued any guidance on this matter to commissioners of health care as, in general, service specifications for developments of this kind are for local agreement, drawing on examples of best practice and professional advice.

  Optical Appliances Vouchers
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total number of optical appliances vouchers redeemed in Wales in each year since 1986; and what was the total cost of the optical appliances voucher scheme in Wales in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is given in the table:

  Optical appliance vouchers redeemed1

  Total cost of the optical appliance voucher scheme(£000)2

  1986–87

  3107,000

  2,087

  1987–88

  180,380

  3,341

  1988–89

  158,000

  3,265

  1989–90

  152,710

  3,595

  1990–91

  176,350

  4,278

  266

  Optical appliance vouchers redeemed1

  Total cost of the optical appliance voucher scheme(£000)2

  1991–92

  205,260

  5,597

  1992–93

  4227,170

  —

  1 Number of vouchers paid for by Family Health Service Authorities during the financial year. Figures are based on a two per cent. sample.

  2 Accrued expenditure relating to payments to opticians for value of vouchers excluding replacement and repair costs under the voucher scheme.

  3 The voucher system came into operation on the 1 July 1986.

  4 Provisional.

  Chemist Shops
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the number of small chemist shops or pharmacies located in each local authority area in the counties of Gwynedd and Clwyd in(a) 1980, (b) 1985 and (c)

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of pharmacies in each of the counties in question as well as the number of pharmacies receiving essential small pharmacy scheme payments is given in the table. The information is not available at local authority area level.

  Number of pharmacies

  Total1

  Receiving essential small pharmacy scheme payments2

  Clwyd

  1980

  89

  n/a

  1985

  83

  8

  267

  Total1

  Receiving essential small pharmacy scheme payments2

  1992

  88

  5

  Gwynedd

  1980

  63

  n/a

  1985

  59

  9

  1992

  62

  4

  1 As at 31 December for 1980 and 1985 and at 31 March 1992.

  2 As at October 1985 and September 1992.

  n/a Not available.

  Rate per 1,000 population aged 65 and over

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Clwyd

  41.5

  42.2

  41.5

  40.6

  40.4

  36.8

  Dyfed

  28.6

  29.0

  30.9

  30.5

  30.4

  30.3

  Gwent

  19.5

  21.1

  19.9

  18.7

  18.2

  16.8

  Gwynedd

  36.5

  39.7

  41.1

  39.9

  39.3

  38.3

  Mid Glamorgan

  20.9

  22.4

  23.1

  23.3

  24.5

  22.7

  Powys

  30.3

  31.6

  31.6

  31.8

  32.9

  30.8

  South Glamorgan

  32.5

  33.9

  34.7

  34.7

  32.7

  31.3

  West Glamorgan

  20.4

  20.3

  19.1

  18.3

  16.7

  15.9

  Wales

  28.1

  29.3

  29.4

  28.9

  28.5

  27.0

  House Renovation Grants
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what statistics he has collected on the level of expenditure on house renovation grants by each Welsh district council in the present financial year; which authorities have confined themselves to grants aiding unfit houses only; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The forecast gross capital expenditure on house renovation grants in 1993–94 for each Welsh district council is given in the table. The authorities whose April forecast does not include expenditure on discretionary renovation grants are Delyn borough council, Islwyn borough council, Radnorshire district council and Lliw Valley borough council.

  Local authorities' April forecast of expenditure on renovation grants1993–941

  £000

  Alyn and Deeside

  2,784

  Colwyn

  3,136

  Delyn

  1,817

  Glyndwr

  1,494

  Rhuddlan

  1,894

  Wrexham Maelor

  3,503

  Carmarthen

  4,486

  Ceredigion

  5,767

  Dinefwr

  2,898

  Llanelli

  4,796

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  6,268

  South Pembrokeshire

  4,787

  Blaenau Gwent

  6,501

  Islwyn

  5,700

  Monmouth

  1,640

  Newport

  5,068

  Torfaen

  2,961

  Aberconwy

  2,099

  Arfon

  3,816

  Dwyfor

  2,979

  Meirionnydd

  1,613

  Ynys Mon

  5,163

  Cynon Valley

  6,947

  Pensioners
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of pensioners in each district authority area in Wales were in(a) sheltered housing and (b) residential care in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The proportions of persons aged 65 and over living in residential care homes in each year since 1987 are shown in the table. Data at district level are not readily available. Information on the numbers living in sheltered housing is not held centrally.

  £000

  Merthyr Tydfil

  4,285

  Ogwr

  6,742

  Rhondda

  9,163

  Rhymney

  6,103

  Taff Ely

  3,879

  Brecknock

  2,389

  Montgomeryshire

  4,773

  Radnorshire

  1,997

  Cardiff

  23,820

  Vale of Glamorgan

  4,681

  Port Talbot

  3,796

  Lliw Valley

  3,728

  Neath

  3,974

  Swansea

  9,848

  Total

  177,295

  1 Local authorities' April forecast of expenditure. Includes discretionary and mandatory renovation grants.

  GP and GDP Surgeries
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the dental surgeons practising under the national health service in each local authority area in the counties of Gwynedd and Clywd in(a) 1980, (b) 1985 and (c) in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the general practitioner surgeries located in each local authority area in the counties of Gwynedd and Clwyd in (a) 1980, (b) 1985 and (c)

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Lists of individual general dental surgeons and general practitioner surgeries are not maintained centrally. Each family health service authority maintains local directories of dentists and doctors.

  Welsh Language Projects
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the specific Welsh language projects which he has funded since 1987 under section 21 of the Education Act 1980; and what plans he has to fund further such projects.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A wide variety of activities has been funded under section 21 of the Education Act 1980 since April 1987. These activities range from long-term programmes extending over many years to the production of a single school book. While it is not possible to define these important activities as separate projects, the list sets out all the organisations which have been funded under this scheme.County councils

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Resource Centres

  Canolfan Astudiaethau Iaith, Bangor

  National Language Unit, Treforest

  UC Aberystwyth—Resources Centre

  Welsh Joint Education Committee

  Welsh Language Education Development Committee (PDAG)

  Theatre in education TIE companies

  Clwyd TIE

  Coracle

  Crwban

  Cyfri 3

  Fran Wen

  Gwent TIE

  Iolo Morgannwg

  Man a Man

  Powys TIE

  West Glamorgan TIE

  Other organisations

  Acen

  Agricultural Training Board

  BBC Educational Broadcasts

  Cardiff Institute of Higher Education

  Centre for Alternative Technology

  Clwyd Language Centre

  270

  Coleg Normal Bangor

  Consortium for Assessment and Testing in Schools (CATS) Cymru

  Council for Education in World Citizenship (CEWC)

  Cyngor y Dysgwyr (Welsh Learners Council)

  David Watson (Computer Project)

  Eisteddfod yr Urdd Taff Elai (Urdd Eisteddfod at Taff Ely)

  Gwent College of Higher Education

  Gwynedd Health Authority

  Keep Wales Tidy

  London Welsh School

  Media Education Centre (MEC)

  Microelectronics Unit (MEU) Cymru

  Mid Glamorgan Fire Service

  National Centre for Religious Education

  National Educational Resources Information Service (NERIS)

  National Language Centre, Nant Gwrtheyrn

  National Museum Schools Service

  National Scientific Association

  North East Wales Institute

  Pili Palas

  Pioneers

  Rhieni Dros Addysg Gymraeg (Parents for Welsh Medium Education)

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  School Broadcasting Council for Wales

  School Curriculum Development Council

  School Curriculum Industry Partnership

  South Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education

  Student Bursary Scheme

  Techniquest

  The Welsh Collegium

  Trinity College, Carmarthen

  UC Aberystwyth

  UC Bangor

  UC Cardiff

  UC London (Speech Therapy project)

  UC Swansea

  University of Glamorgan (formerly Polytechnic of Wales)

  University of Wales Registry

  University of Wales Welsh Language Teaching Centre

  Urdd Gobaith Cymru

  Wales Youth Work Partnership

  Welsh Books Council

  Welsh College of Music and Drama

  West Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education

  Women into Science and Engineering (WISE)

  Workers Education Association

  Zoological Society of Wales

  A circular inviting applications for funding next year will be issued shortly.

  Wales Tourist Board
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many full and part-time civil servants are employed in his Department on monitoring the activities of the Wales tourist board; and what will be the cost of their salaries in the current financial year.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Two staff are employed full time and four employed part-time in the Welsh Office on monitoring the activities of the Wales tourist board. Their total salary costs for these responsibilities amount to £76,767.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to ensure that there is secure accommodation for young offenders in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The provision of secure accom-modation is a local authority responsibility and no authority in Wales currently provides long-term secure accommodation. In order to facilitate the appropriate development of this provision, the Welsh Office undertook a review, the report of which was published in August 1991. The main recommendation of this report, the provision of an 18-place regional secure unit, has since been taken forward by a joint Welsh Office and local authority working party comprising representatives of all the South Wales county councils except South Glamorgan which opposes the development. The working party is currently awaiting a report from the consultants who have been appointed to take forward work on the design of the unit as well as a site option appraisal. I very much hope that the consultants' reports, which is expected imminently, can be endorsed quickly by the working party so that work on the new unit, which is intended will be in place in 1995, can commence as soon as possible. We have already announced that we are prepared to make available grant of up to £4,500,000 to meet the capital cost of the new unit.

  Radiographers
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what level of funding he proposes for post-qualification training for radiographers; what structural changes he proposes to permit such training to take place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None. Post-qualification training is a matter for the individual employers.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. 'Mans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals she has to strengthen the incentives for environmentally sensitive ares in the north-west.

  Mr. Jack
  A new environmentally sensitive area was launched in the Lake District in January this year. Covering some quarter of a million hectares, it is by far the largest ESA in England.
  272
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to give the public greater access to environmentally sensitive areas in East Anglia.

  Mr. Jack
  Our consultation document on the implementation of the EC agri-environment package was designed to demonstrate the possibilities for greater access to ESAs in East Anglia.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to promote more environmentally sensitive areas in Mid Essex.

  Mr. Jack
  We have looked at the possibility of introducing new environmentally sensitive areas in Essex and have issued proposals for such an area stretching from the River Stour in the north to Canvey Island in the south.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress she has made in identifying and protecting environmentally sensitive areas of the Essex coastline.

  Mr. Jack
  We have issued proposals for a new environmentally sensitive area covering parts of the Essex coast from the River Stour in the north to Canvey Island in the south.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received about the release of genetically modified organisms into the atmosphere in connection with research undertaken on behalf of her Department.

  Mr. Soames
  None, but all releases of genetically modified organisms for research purposes are subject to consent under the appropriate regulations to ensure safety to human health and the environment.

  Scotch Whisky
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will meet representatives of the Scotch whisky industry to discuss the prospects of the industry and the workers employed in it.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. Friend will be happy to meet representatives of the industry to discuss any relevant issues.

  Plant Breeders
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will consult British plant and seed producers about the proposed EC plant breeders rights and restrictions.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government continue to be in regular contact with organisations representing plant breeders, seed producers and growers on matters relating to the proposal.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals she has to define and police meat contents in food labelling.
  273
  Mr. Soames
  The composition and labelling of meat products are already controlled in some detail in regulations made under the Food Safety Act 1990. They are enforced by local authority trading standards officers.

  Lime Fertiliser
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food how many representations she or her predecessor has received over the last 18 months on the subject of introducing financial assistance to farmers who wish to fertilise land using lime; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  None. However, my officials have regular liaison meetings with the Agricultural Lime Producers Council, the latest of which was on 27 May 1993.

  Bananas
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the future of the EC regime for banana imports.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The new harmonised arrangements for the import of bananas into the Community came into force on 1 July.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food what is her assessment of the effect of the expansion of the common agricultural policy on European finances.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The implications for the Community budget of enlarging the European Community depends on the individual circumstances of the countries concerned. However, all the countries for which accession negotiations are currently in progress are expected to be net contributors to the Community budget.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has for the reform of common agricultural policy finances in light of proposals to increase the membership of the European Community.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Edinburgh European Council agreed the arrangements for financing the Community's expenditure, including expenditure on the CAP, until 1999. The enlargement of the Community is not expected to lead to any significant change in these arrangements.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals she has for reforming the common agricultural policy finances.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Edinburgh European Council agreed the arrangements for financing Community expenditure, including expenditure on the CAP, until 1999. Under this agreement the agricultural guideline will be retained in its existing form.

  Foxes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research has been undertaken into the methods of controlling foxes.
  274
  Mr. Soames
  The ministry is not currently undertaking any research on the control of foxes to prevent damage to agriculture.

  Research on foxes has been directed at methods of control to be used should an outbreak of rabies occur in the United Kingdom. This work has concentrated on developing a method of controlling foxes by poison baits whilst minimising the risks to other wildlife and to domestic animals.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action she is taking to reduce the balance of trade deficit in food and drink.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have introduced several initiatives to encourage the industry to produce and market the goods which customers want both at home and abroad.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of land farmers will be able to set aside under the new schemes in the United Kingdom under the EC.

  Mr. Jack
  Under the arable area payments scheme, the set-aside requirement is 15 per cent. for rotational set-aside and 18 per cent. for non-rotational. The Commission is expected to bring forward further proposals allowing farmers to set aside additional land on a voluntary basis.

  Food Hygiene
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations she has received on the subject of food hygiene.

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health takes the lead on the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970, as amended, and the hygiene of foodstuffs directive. This Department does, however, receive representations on food hygiene from time to time.

  Most recent representations include comments from a cash and carry company about the temperature control requirements and from a large retailer about the European Community's approach to food hygiene legislation.

  Dogs (Livestock Killing)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the estimated cost to farmers in England of the losses they have suffered as a result of livestock being killed by dogs for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Soames
  Such statistics are not collected by the Ministry. However, the National Farmers Union estimates that up to 10,000 livestock are killed or injured every year in England and Wales as a result of attacks by dogs.

DEFENCE

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much radioactive waste the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston has sent to the Atomic Energy Authority site at Dounreay; and what the waste consisted of.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston does not send waste to the Atomic Energy Authority site at Dounreay.

  Iraq
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 18 November 1992,Official Report, column 250–51, which countries provided Iraq with dual-use technology since 1981 which could have been used to manufacture artillery; and if he will provide details of the dual-use technology provided by the United Kingdom to Iraq since 1981.

  Mr. Aitken
  Details of all United Kingdom products licensed for export to Iraq for the years 1987 to 1990 were

  RAF station

  Primary Role

  Secondary Role(s)

  Boddington

  Communications centre

  None

  Bracknell

  Command and staff training

  RAF Presentation team

  Director defence studies

  Regional home defence liaison

  Brampton

  Headquarters RAF Support Command

  Royal Auxiliary Air Force Defence unit

  MOD Weapons standardisation team

  Cardington

  Cyrogenic and compressed gas supply

  None

  Carlisle

  Equipment supply depot

  None

  Chilmark

  Ammunition supply depot

  None

  Chivenor

  Advanced flying training

  Search and rescue unit

  Hawk aircraft defect investigation

  Cosford

  Ground training

  Voluntary gliding school

  Birmingham University air squadron

  Air Cadets Wing headquarters

  Cranwell

  Flying and ground training

  RAF College

  RAF College Band

  Headquarters University Air Squadrons

  Directorate of recruiting and selection

  Digby

  Signals unit

  Aerial erector school

  Finningley

  Flying training

  Yorkshire University Air Squadron

  Air experience flight

  Halton

  Ground training

  RAF Hospital

  Medical training

  Dental training

  Institute of pathology and tropical

  medicine

  Voluntary gliding schools x 2

  Headly Court

  Medical rehabilitation

  None

  Henlow

  Signals engineering

  Headquarters RAFSC Signals Staff

  Officers command school

  Radio introduction unit

  MOD Civilian technical training

  Air Cadets regional headquarters

  Test equipment engineering

  Voluntary gliding school

  Hereford

  Ground training

  None

  Innsworth

  RAF Personnel management centre

  None

  Lingholme

  Communications centre

  None

  276
  provided to the Trade and Industry Select Committee and published—Trade and Industry Select Committee, Minutes of Evidence on Exports to Iraq HC86-i, Tuesday 26 November 1991. Further information in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost and effort. As to exports to Iraq from other countries I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 18 November 1992, Official Report, column 250.

  SA80 Weapon
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to review the issue of the SA80 weapon to the infantry.

  Mr. Aitken
  No.

  RAF Support Command
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current operational role, including auxiliary roles, of each RAF station in Support Command.

  Mr. Hanley
  The primary and secondary roles of RAF Support Command stations are as follows:
  277

  RAF station

  Primary Role

  Secondary Role(s)

  Linton-on-Ouse

  Flying training

  Air Cadet regional headquarters

  Air Cadet Wing headquarters

  Voluntary gliding school

  Locking

  Ground training

  RAF South West Band

  Air Cadet regional headquarters

  Newton

  Ground training

  Headquarters Air Cadets

  Training development

  Glider examining wing

  Air experience flight

  Regional provost and security unit

  North Luffenham

  Ground radio engineering

  Ground radio defects investigation

  Training development

  Fire service training

  Language training

  Explosive ordnance demolition training

  Rapier project development

  Oakhangar

  Communications centre

  None

  Quedgeley

  Equipment supply depot

  Air Cadet Wing Headquarters

  Rudloe Manor

  Communications Centre

  Regional provost and security unit

  St. Athan

  Aerosystems maintenance and storage

  Ground training

  Wales University Air Squadron

  Voluntary gliding school

  Air Cadet regional headquarters

  Royal Auxiliary Air Force Defence

  Force

  Scampton

  Flying training

  Joint arms control implementation group

  Engineering management training

  Tucano defect investigation

  Tucano logistic support

  Sealand

  Electronics maintenance

  MOD Civilian technical training

  Air Cadet regional headquarters

  Voluntary gliding school

  Shawbury

  Flying training

  Air traffic control training, examination and evaluation

  Air experience flight

  Stafford

  Equipment supply depot

  Tactical supply wing

  Stanbridge

  Joint Service Air Trooping centre

  Supply computer centre

  Swanton Morley

  Central servicing development

  Maintenance computer center

  Voluntary gliding school

  Swinderby

  Recruit training

  None

  Syerston

  Air Cadets gliding

  None

  Uxbridge

  Management of dispersed units and personnel

  Ceremonial (The Queen's Colour Squadron)

  Headquarters music services

  Air traffic control staffs

  Valley

  Flying training

  Search and rescue unit and Mountain

  rescue team

  Search and rescue training

  Air to air missile training

  Signals unit

  Wroughton

  RAF Hospital

  None

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names of commanding officers of each RAF station in Support Command.

  Mr. Hanley
  For personal security reasons the names of those holding official appointments of air commodore rank and below are not generally released to the public domain.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the former Members of this House who have been appointed since 1988 by his Department to 278
  quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations; and if he will list in each case the title of the post, the salary, the duration of the appointment and the party which the former hon. Member represented.

  Mr. Hanley
  Former membership of the House of Commons is not a relevant qualification for appointment and is not centrally recorded. We are aware of only one example. Sir Antony Buck QC, the then Member for Colchester, North, served on the independent board of visitors for the military corrective centre, Colchester from 1980 to 1992. At that date he stood down as a Member of Parliament and relinquished his appointment.
  279
  Appointments are reviewed every three years and Sir Antony's last reappointment was in 1989. The post was as a member of the board and was not salaried.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names of individuals who(a) are spouses of hon. Members, (b) are members of the House of Lords, (c) are spouses of members of the House of Lords and (d) have been party candidates for Parliament, indicating for which party, who have been appointed by his Department since 1988 to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations giving, in each case, the title of the post, any salary payable, and the duration of the appointment.

  Mr. Hanley
  There is no requirement for my Department to hold such information.

  Burma
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what links his Department has with the defence forces of Burma.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are currently no substantive defence links between the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces of Burma.

  Depleted Uranium Ammunition
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), of 1 July,Official Report, column 632, when he was informed of the concerns expressed by the three military personnel regarding fears of inhalation of depleted uranium dust.

  Mr. Hanley
  The exact date on which these personnel first sought medical advice is not recorded in their medical records, but it is understood to have been after their return to the United Kingdom from the Gulf on 21 January 1991. The monitoring showed no detectable depleted uranium contamination.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) of 1 July,Official Report, column 632, at which hospital or medical centre was the monitoring to which he refers conducted.

  Mr. Hanley
  The monitoring was carried out by the Defence Radiological Protection Service at the Institute of Naval Medicine, Gosport, on 8 February 1991.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the depleted uranium shells fired at the Ministry of Defence range at Kirkcudbright between 1982 and June 1993 were subsequently recovered.

  Mr. Aitken
  Two complete rounds and one fragment have been recovered.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department's memorandum on anti-armoured ammunition with depleted uranium penetrators placed in the Library of the House in March 1979 is still applicable.

  Mr. Aitken
  Clearly the strategic environment has changed radically since the publication of the memoran-dum, but the statements of the underlying principles of the programme and the means by which it is carried out remain valid.

  Swan Hunter
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) of 2 July,Official Report, column 642, whether the Ministry of Defence will now be paying Swan Hunter more than the agreed successful tender for the work on the three Type 23 frigates.

  Mr. Aitken
  We have agreed an incentivised arrangement with the receiver under which any cost under or overrun will be shared between the receiver and my Department on a pre-determined ratio subject to an upper cost ceiling, which does exceed the original contract price. It is too soon to say whether the original contract price will be exceeded.

  Peacemaking Operations
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he has given to a system of dual contract for personnel in Her Majesty's services to enable volunteers to make a standing commitment to international peacemaking operations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  We do not believe that a system of dual contract as described would improve the United Kingdom's ability to provide armed forces for international peacekeeping operations.

  Royal Military Schools
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the chief executive of the Duke of York's royal military school in 1993–94.

  Mr. Hanley
  The following key targets have been set for the chief executive of the Duke of York's royal military school in 1993–94:Curriculum

  To achieve at least 5 GCSE passes at Grades A to C for 80 per cent. of pupils by August 1993.

  To achieve 90 per cent. of A Level passes at Grades A to E by August 1993.

  To achieve 35 per cent. of A Level passes at Grades A and B by August 1993.

  To achieve 100 per cent. award rate for BTEC National Diploma courses by August 1993.

  Pastoral

  To list minimum boarding standards for all houses by April 1994.

  To formulate a policy on extra-curricular activities by July 1993.

  To formulate a policy on assessing, monitoring and reporting by March 1994.

  Finance and Administration

  To prepare a 5 year financial plan to meet per capita goal by October 1993.

  To maximise efficiency in works property management.

  To save £150,000 on the school's in year LTC 93 bid by March 1994.

  Development

  To carry out a pay and conditions review for all school staff by April 1994.

  To produce and market the school prospectus effectively to the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Army and Royal Air Force by July 1993.

  To complete preparations for co-education by April 1994.

  281
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the chief executive targets of the Queen Victoria royal military school in 1993–94.

  Mr. Hanley
  The following key targets have been set for the chief executive of the Queen Victoria school in 1993–94:Academic and Curriculum

  To achieve at least 3 Standard Grade passes at Credit and General Levels (1–4) for 90 per cent. of S4 pupils.

  To achieve at least 5 Standard Grades (1–3) for 60 per cent. of S4 pupils.

  To achieve 3 Higher Passes at A-C Grades or Scottish Vocational Education Council (SCOTVEC) equivalents for 60 per cent. of S5/S6 pupils.

  To continue the phased implementation of the National 5–14 Programme in line with Scottish Office Education Department (SOED) recommendations, with full co-ordination between Primary and Secondary Departments by 1 September 1994, including a system for parental responses on quality.

  Pastoral

  To monitor the effectiveness of the School Pastoral Policy and Organization Document and complete its review by 1 September 1993.

  Extra Curricular Provision

  To maintain and improve at least 50 extra-curricular activities, both physical and cultural, involving pupils aged 10–15 in at least 3 per week and those aged 16–18 in at least 2.

  Management and Development

  By June 1993, to report on the feasibility of admitting girls and fee-paying pupils, and the extent of provision required for them.

  282
  By June 1993, to develop and implement a strategy for income generation using the School's facilities, thereby achieving a level of income of 1 per cent. of the total School budget.

  By April 1994 to confirm the pay and grading structures in the school and associated allowances and rents.

  By April 1994 to instigate job descriptions for all teaching staff.

  To implement teacher appraisal and development procedures in line with SOED guidelines and timetable including a pastoral element.

  By April 1994 to have in place a report on management and financial information systems.

  By April 1994 to continue and enhance efficiency measures effected in Financial Year 1993–94 in order to absorb increased costs associated with developments in the School curriculum without increasing pupil per capita costs.

  Warship Refits
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral statement of 24 June,Official Report, columns 446–50, how he will consult those affected by his proposals for warship refitting.

  Mr. Aitken
  A consultation document has been issued today.

  The document will be provided to representatives of those of my Department's staff who may be affected by the proposals, hon. Members with a constituency interest, the relevant local authorities, the dockyard management companies and other interested parties. Copies of the document have also been placed in the Vote Office and in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Comments on the proposals are to be made to my Department by no later than 10 September.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

"The Health of the Nation": Progress
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are now able, one year after the publication of The Health of The Nation, to give a progress report on achieving the targets listed as key areas for improving health.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, we will publish a full report on progress on The Health of the Nation in September.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply; I am glad to know that we shall have a report in September. But does the Minister agree that in the past year several actions by the Government, in which I would include cancelling health education advisers for schools, cancelling HIV and AIDS education in the national curriculum and failing to ban tobacco advertising, have undermined the search for those very important standards? Does she further agree that in this context the recent pronouncement of the Secretary of State for Health that she would run up stairs at the Department of Health and serve fruit rather than biscuits seems rather trivial?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Baroness. Looking at the 21 key target areas, it is interesting to see that within a year for nine of those areas we are on target. Six are going in the right direction, but perhaps not fast enough. Six, I have to say, are not going in the right direction. Those are the ones that we shall tackle.
Lord Jenkin of Boding: My Lords, can my noble friend, speaking as a health Minister, give the House an assurance that the amendment on sex education for which the House voted by a substantial majority earlier this week will help and not hinder the campaign against the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and the rise in unwanted teenage pregnancies?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that that is the case. I am absolutely certain that by making sex education compulsory in schools we shall begin to tackle much more aggressively the number of unwanted pregnancies among teenagers, which is the highest in Europe.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that if the health of the less well off people in Britain could he brought up to the level of the better off, the targets of The Health of the Nation would all be
1502
achieved or over-achieved? In view of this well-documented statistic, can she say why no mention is made in the document of the desirability of eliminating inequalities in health?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, when we look across the world, in all developed countries there are variations in health which are linked to geography and to people's social and economic circumstances. We should not overlook the fact that health in this country has steadily improved in all regions and for all social groups as measured by key indicators such as infant mortality and life expectation.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can the Minister say what the Government are going to do about the very serious shortage of doctors working in the field of STDs in some parts of the country? How will they reach the targets in Section D of The Health of the Nation if this shortage continues?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Chief Medical Officer is reviewing medical manpower. I am sure that that is one of the issues that he will take into account.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister say whether it will be possible for her, on this very important report, to have consultations with the British Medical Association, UNISON and all the people who devote their lives to our NHS, who are only too keen to assist her?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we are aware that if we are to achieve the targets in The Health of the Nation we have to involve everybody in the country: those who work within the NHS and those outside it. Certainly we shall achieve very little if we do not involve those who work within the National Health Service. Indeed, this policy was widely welcomed by them when it was launched a year ago.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we welcome the setting up of the Nutrition Task Force under The Health of the Nation programme? Can she say whether there has been any progress with regard to that programme and whether the outlets, such as schools, have yet received any guidance under the new programme?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Nutrition Task Force was set up in October last year. It has this week launched its agenda for the next six months and is consulting on it so that everybody can see what it proposes. If there are gaps or different priorities, the task force will take those into account.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the promise of the report in September. Will it include in particular a report on how far we have achieved the dietary targets in The Health of the Nation, particularly in view of the concern of many in this country that people living on social security, especially those under 25, in receipt of a lower benefit are unable to take advice from The Health of the Nation?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I can give the noble Baroness that assurance. One of the matters that

1503
concerns me is the lack of knowledge that young people have in preparing food and apparently the lack of enjoyment. I believe that food should be enjoyed by all.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that running up the stairs is a useful form of exercise, and taking more fruit is an essential part of improving our diet? Therefore the advice of our right honourable friend Mrs. Virginia Bottomley is absolutely right.
Did my noble friend hear on the radio today that polio has been virtually obliterated in the Americas, both North and South? Can she tell me what the situation is both in this country and in Europe?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his support for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. One need only look at her to see that she is fit and healthy and responsible for the nation's health.
I am sure that my noble friend is aware that polio has been eradicated both in this country, in Europe and increasingly throughout the world. Indeed, smallpox also has been totally eradicated.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, can the Minister define for us those target areas which are doing well, those which are not doing well and those which are lamentably failing? With regard to tobacco advertising, can she confirm that her Chief Medical Officer of Health favours a restriction on cigarette advertising?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord will have to wait until September for the details of progress on the targets. With regard to tobacco advertising, it is unclear whether in view of the tight controls that are already in place a ban would provide a further fall in smoking. We believe that the best way to control tobacco advertising is through voluntary agreements with the industry. However, we are still considering responses to the Smee report on the effects of tobacco advertising on tobacco consumption. Ultimately it is for individual people to decide whether they want to stop.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister will recall that last week she answered a question to my satisfaction on the issue of deaths at birth and before the age of one in Manchester. Is she aware that since then the decision has been taken to close the Booth Hall Children's Hospital on the east side of Manchester? It has a long history of serving the area in caring for the health of the children; and with the exception of the authorities concerned, everyone else in the area is opposed to the plan. Can the Minister undertake to give the proposals the closest scrutiny before allowing the closure to take place to the detriment of the children in the area?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the closures of hospitals are for local determination. If the community health council objects, it must refer to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for a decision.
Lord Eat well: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on Monday I received a circular from the Department of Health dated 23rd June in which it was stated that its policy on AIDS had four pillars, one of which was the inclusion of HIV and AIDS teaching in the national curriculum? Now that the Government have kicked away one of the four pillars of that policy, can the Minister say how that squares with the statement in The Health of the Nation that AIDS is the biggest public health crisis facing the nation?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as I understand the amendment that was debated thoroughly the other night in your Lordships' Chamber, there is no question that children will not be taught about AIDS and HIV in school. But it will be as part of sex education, which is where it belongs.

Veterinary Medicines: Safety
3.17 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they conduct any independent scientific tests upon veterinary medicines prior to the issue of product licences in order to ensure that the products meet the manufacturers' claims for safety to the environment, animals and humans.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, in common with applications made for licences for human medicines, the Government rely upon the integrity of the data submitted by the pharmaceutical companies in support of veterinary product licence applications. Some of that data can be produced on behalf of applicants by independent organisations.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Is he aware that organophosphates have never been tested on humans because they are so dangerous? That is therefore treating the users of sheep dips as guinea-pigs. Can he say how many suspected adverse reactions have to be reported before the product licence is withdrawn?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is important that the noble Countess should understand that the procedures involved in the assessment of data submitted by pharmaceutical companies are extremely stringent. Toxicologists, pharmacists and veterinarians in the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, together with scientists from other government departments, carry out a thorough examination of all data submitted in support of product licence applications. Members of the independent Veterinary Products Committee also apply their own specialist scientific knowledge to complete the assessment process. Manufacturers' claims for safety, quality and efficacy are evaluated on the strength of thorough and critical analyses of the data presented.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the noble Earl say how effectively the Veterinary Products Committee monitors suspected adverse reactions to veterinary medicines? Does the committee rely on the Veterinary

1505
Medicines Directorate for monitoring? If so, who pays for the cost of that? Can the Minister also say how secret is the safety monitoring information?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as at 6th July the number of suspected adverse reactions to sheep dips involving humans since 1st January 1985 reported to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate was 397, involving 483 individuals. Those cases are reported in a variety of ways to the directorate; sometimes through GPs, sometimes through the Ministry. That work continues. Every case is followed up and we hope to have a digest from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate when Ministers review the status of organophosphate sheep dips later in the year.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that his department has issued instructions to those who use organophosphorous sheep dips that care has to be taken in the application by farmers and other people who may use them?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend is perfectly correct. Information on the potential hazards from individual products is contained on the product label and health and safety data sheets provided by the manufacturer. For sheep dips, following recent recommendations from the Veterinary Products Committee, a new leaflet, a stick-on label and wall poster have been sent to all registered sheep farmers in the UK re-emphasising the requirements for safe use of these products. In addition, the HSE has published a guide to producing a farm COSHH assessment which is available free of charge from local HSE offices.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he will have total support from all those who believe that questions of this kind must be determined by science and not by scares and pressure groups?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. The noble Countess's strength of feeling on this issue is well understood. But I hope that she appreciates that the Government must decide these matters on the basis of independent scientific advice. That advice will be coming forward later in the year and Ministers will attend to the issue with the seriousness which it undoubtedly deserves.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the noble Countess's feelings are not only well understood but are well justified?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government will take a view on that later in the year.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, with so many antibiotics being used in the farming industry, is there a danger to the food chain and to the resistance of humans to infection?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the tests carried out on all veterinary medicines include safety tests which incorporate tests on medicine residues. I do not believe that there are any licensed veterinary medicines which
1506
pose the kind of danger to which the noble Baroness alludes; but if she has any examples, I would be pleased to hear of them.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware of the two very real concerns that I have? The first is about the integrity of the chemical companies. We all know that if a product is banned in this country it is immediately sent to third world countries still with English labels on so that the users do not understand what they are doing. The second is about the independence of the Veterinary Products Committee, According to last year's annual report only one member of the committee did not have links with the chemical companies.
Earl Howe: My Lords, under the Medicines Act it is a legal requirement that data submitted in support of a product licence application must not be false or incomplete. If it is found that data have been withheld, the licensing authority has the power to suspend, revoke or vary the provisions of the licence. It is in no company's interests to attempt to short-circuit the, proper procedures. I shaft refrain from commenting on the second part of the noble Countess's question for reasons which I hope are obvious.

Bosnia: UN Protection Role
3.23 p.m
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many civilian casualties occurred in the United Nations protected areas of Sarajevo, Zepa, Gorazde and Srebrenica in the most recent month for which figures are available; and what progress is being made in finding the additional troops that the United Nations protection force requires to make protection effective.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, there are no definitive figures for casualties incurred in the UN protected areas in Bosnia, as estimates differ radically according to source. Of the 7,600 additional personnel which the UN Secretary General says are required to deter attacks against safe areas, to date 6,120 have been offered from Bangladesh, Pakistan, France and Malaysia.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. In the present situation, where civilians are massacred and aid workers murdered, is it not essential that the United Nations takes under its own command the forces of the Bosnian Government? Would that not make possible, with the help of the existing UN forces and allied air cover, the protection of the innocent and the bringing to justice of war criminals?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not find the noble Lord's proposal acceptable for two reasons. Impartiality is a basic tenet of UN peace keeping. Indigenous forces clearly could not be regarded as impartial by all, even if they were seeking to be so. I believe, too, that the forces now fighting against one another in Bosnia, because they have

1507
different objectives and from time to time have changing objectives, could not be expected to form a united force. It simply would not be reasonable to expect the UN to control local troops when the local commanders cannot even exercise that control at the present time.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, further to the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, what progress has been made with the idea of setting up a war crimes tribunal to try those responsible for the rape and murder of civilians? Does the Minister not agree that it would be necessary to establish a general framework of law within which such a tribunal might operate by extending the Fourth Geneva Convention to conflicts which are not between high contracting parties or even sovereign states but which would nevertheless allow the forces controlled by those entities to be tried in the jurisdiction of the high contracting parties?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as regards the first part of the noble Lord's question, we believe that it is necessary to establish at the earliest time possible a mechanism to bring to justice the perpetrators of war crimes. The United Nations has asked for nominations for 11 judges and one prosecutor. As regards the second part of his question, the matter needs much further investigation. I understand why he asks the question but there are many differences of opinion about going down the route he suggests.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, to what extent has publicity been given in the area to the fact that there will be war crimes trials in order to discourage people from behaving badly at this stage?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there has been some local radio publicity but, given the situation as it is in Bosnia, it is extremely difficult to get regular publicity. Much, unfortunately, is rumour. However, I believe that once the tribunal is set up there will then be a special effort to get publicity on the all important issue of persuading people with evidence to come forward.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that both Serb and Croat forces are obstructing humanitarian relief convoys and seizing part of their cargoes? If that is in fact happening, can she tell the House what the UN Security Council is doing to stop such outrageous action?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I must tell the noble Baroness that it is not only Serb forces or Croatian forces but also Moslem forces in certain areas which have impeded the passage of humanitarian aid. We have in no sense given in to the threats made against those delivering aid. The UN Security Council is well seized of the matter. But imposing wishes in such a place as Bosnia at the present time is well nigh impossible: it happens only because of the very clever negotiation being carried out by UNPROFOR troops on the ground. We have to leave it to their good sense to try to get as much through as
1508
we possibly can. I note that the flow of humanitarian aid to Bosnia must be increased. That was part of the political declaration coming from the Tokyo G7 meeting.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, do the Government still believe that the application of sanctions by the Government and others under the aegis of the United Nations is effective? Do the Government believe that sanctions will bring this cruel war to an end?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, sanctions are undoubtedly hampering the Serbian re-supply of Bosnian Serbs. Further to that, there is now an annual inflation rate in Serbia of more than 225 per cent. The fact that now one has to provide 1 million dinars in Serbia for one deutschmark is significant evidence that sanctions are indeed working. Sanctions alone will never bring an end to the dispute. Only the parties to it, deciding to bring an end to the dispute, can bring that peace.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, would the noble Baroness care to comment on the reported remarks of the Foreign Secretary that if the parties in Bosnia cannot come to an agreement themselves, then the United Nations would perhaps have to withdraw its troops and leave them to fight it out among themselves, the Bosnian Moslems firstly being armed? Is that report correct? Can the noble Baroness say what timescale and in what terms the Foreign Secretary is thinking, if that report is true?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am quite certain that if the Foreign Secretary spoke as the report referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, indicates, he certainly had no timescale in mind. We have made it quite clear, as has the Secretary General of the UN and the UNHCR, that if there were to be any lifting of the arms embargo, that would force a withdrawal of UNPROFOR and the aid agencies. I do not believe that we should give up; we should do all we can to help the Owen-Stoltenberg work forward. That is what we are seeking to do, at the same time supplying humanitarian aid in the most difficult of conditions.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the Minister mentioned peace keeping. Is that not a little premature, as there is no ceasefire? Does the noble Baroness agree that the Korean war provides a precedent for the suggestion that I made earlier?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have always referred io UNPROFOR as the largest peacekeeping force ever deployed. There have been times when it has kept the peace. It has made the peace in many of the local ceasefires that it has negotiated over these long months. But I believe that Bosnia is unique. It does not bear comparison with any previous conflict. There is such a good preventive presence in many areas that we should go on trying to make and keep the peace.

EC Tobacco Subsidies
3.32 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they agreed to a substantial increase in the expenditure of the EC in subsidising tobacco growing in 1993 over that permitted in 1992.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Treaty of Rome provides for tobacco to be eligible for support under the CAP. Expenditure requirements are a consequence of the support mechanisms adopted. The expenditure on the 1992 crop, which largely falls on the 1993 budget, reflects an expected larger harvest. This, however, is the last crop to which the unreformed regime applies.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it the implication of my noble friend's Answer that for the following year there will be a substantial reduction in this waste of taxpayers' money? While the expenditure for growing tobacco is further subsidised, is the expenditure on propaganda against smoking being similarly increased?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct. The Commission estimates that the annual expenditure on tobacco subsidies as a result of the CAP reform agreed last year will reduce by over 25 per cent. between 1994 and 1997. We shall be pressing for further reductions at the next review. My noble friend is also correct in that the campaign to reduce the prevalence of smoking lies at the centre of the Government's The Health of the Nation initiative.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to answer a simple question? Can he spell out to the House what are the main arguments against paying the growers of this exceptionally carcinogenic crop not to produce tobacco?
Earl Howe: My Lords, were the Community to cease its subsidies to tobacco growers completely there would be many hundreds of thousands of people, particularly in southern member states, who could not subsist. Furthermore, the Community would simply import the tobacco which it was no longer growing itself. It is much better to recognise life as it is by trying to reduce the level of smoking and by making sure that the tobacco which is grown in the EC is of the less harmful, milder varieties.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that despite the fact that expenditure under this head (Chapter B1-17) has been incurred at the rate of over 1,000 million ecus per annum, there has been no substantial diminution at all in the expense, although it has been widely proved to have been fraudulent from top to bottom and in some cases corrupt? Is the noble Earl further aware that, according to the recent preliminary draft budget, expenditure during the year 1994 onwards is due to be £994 million, of which one-eighth is to be borne by the British taxpayer? On the assumption that we are now really at the centre of Europe, will the noble Earl take
1510
steps to ensure that the preliminary draft budget which will come before the Council is substantially reduced?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord's sentiments are not at all out of tune with those of the Government. For many years we have consistently campaigned for reductions in EC subsidies for tobacco, but with limited support from other member states. However, the recent reforms are a very definite step in the right direction. As I said to my noble friend, we shall be looking for further reductions in subsidies in 1996. Perhaps I may pick up on a point made by the noble Lord. As the United Kingdom does not produce or store tobacco and therefore has no receipts, the abatement agreed at Fontainebleau will apply in full and, in effect, our net contribution to the tobacco regime will be around 6 per cent. to 7 per cent. of EC expenditure.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords. does my noble friend agree that an increase in subsidy is bound to result in an increase in the import of cheap cigarettes to this country to the detriment of our own tobacco industry, which gives to the Exchequer each year well over £6 billion—the equivalent of over 4p on the standard rate of tax? Can my noble friend tell me the logic of giving taxpayers' money to increase the growing of tobacco and at the same time banning advertising?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe that I answered my noble friend's final question a moment or two ago. However, what he says reflects the need for EC subsidies to be spent in a cost effective way, which does not disadvantage unduly those in the Community who grow the crop.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords—
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Lord Wyatt!
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government—
Noble Lords: Cross-Benches!
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government still support discretionary powers to enable member states to give preference to new producers of tobacco when allocating national tobacco quotas? Will not the use of such powers really prolong the problem?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we do not support any measures which result in a net increase in the amount of tobacco produced in the Community.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords—

Business
3.38 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have passed the 30th minute. We are now in the 31st minute and I shall proceed with the Business Statement.

1511
At a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on local government in Scotland.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the National Lottery etc. Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the order of commitment to the Sexual Offences Bill will be discharged and the Second Reading and remaining stages of the Representation of the People Bill will be taken.
Finally, I know that many of your Lordships are interested in the prospective dates of the Summer Recess. I am not yet in a position to announce those dates. However, it may be of assistance to the House to know that it is expected that the House will be sitting during the week beginning 26th July but I hope that at about that time a balmy breeze is beginning to proceed over the Chamber of your Lordships' House.

Scottish Local Government
3.39 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat a Statement about local government reform in Scotland which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has made today in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government's proposals for local government reorganisation in Scotland have been the subject of detailed consultation and discussion for the past two years. Throughout that time, support for the concept of single-tier local government has been strong and sustained. I have received a great deal of valuable comment from a wide range of individuals and organisations and I am publishing today a White Paper which sets out our decisions on the new structure. I am also publishing a leaflet which will be made widely available in Scotland and summaries of the responses I received to our second consultation paper on local government reform and our paper about the future of water and sewerage services. I have placed copies of all these documents in the Vote Office where they will be available in the usual way when I complete this Statement.
"The Government have decided to establish a single-tier structure of local government throughout Scotland, comprising 28 authorities. The details of these authorities are set out in the White Paper. The new authorities will vary significantly in size and character, reflecting local wishes, circumstances and requirements.
"We intend to re-establish the four Scottish cities as unitary councils and to create powerful new authorities on their outskirts to act as a counter-balance. In the more rural areas of Scotland the new authorities will inevitably cover
1512
substantial areas but areas for which our consultation has shown there is an established identity. The three islands authorities will remain unchanged.
"The new authorities, whatever their size, will be encouraged and expected to pursue actively the adoption of schemes of decentralised management and administration to ensure that decisions are taken at the most local level that is practicable and that people can discuss problems with their council without having to make a long journey to its headquarters. I will be asking authorities to prepare and publish comprehensive schemes for decentralisation.
"The new authorities will all be responsible for providing the full range of local authority services including education, housing and social work. The Government consider, however, that the Reporter service for children's hearings would be more effectively provided as a national service and I am proposing to establish a new body for this purpose. In addition, economies of scale available in the water and sewerage industry point to fewer, rather than more, bodies responsible for these services than we have at present. Further, customers should be able to benefit from the efficiencies and investment in the water and sewerage infrastructure which can be provided by the private sector. We therefore intend to establish three public water authorities, broadly in line with Option d in the consultation paper Investing For Our Future. These authorities will own and operate the current water and sewerage assets and arrange for new investment in ways which will maximise the involvement of the private sector.
"The existing police forces and fire brigades will be retained. Some statutory co-operation will be required for their oversight and for the management of the Strathclyde passenger transport executive. In all other respects, it will be for individual authorities to make appropriate arrangements for the delivery of services in their area. I will expect to see a considerable development of the enabling role of authorities, and a willingness to explore further the possibilities of co-operation with the private sector as they explore new ways of delivering services more efficiently. I will be looking also for a greater willingness to share the expertise of specialist staff.
"The changes I have announced will, of course, have implications for local government staff. I have already announced the Government's intention to establish a staff commission in Scotland to oversee the transfer process and to provide me with appropriate advice. Early retirement or redundancy compensation will be available in cases where particular staff are not required by the new authorities under the new structure and further decisions about these arrangements will be taken in due course.
"I have, of course, made it clear that I expect the new structure to cost less than the present two-tier system. Savings of up to £65 million per annum can be expected from the new structure and these

1513
savings are likely to pay back the inevitable transitional costs within four or five years. The actual level of savings achieved by the new structure will ultimately depend upon the actions of the new authorities themselves.
"The main objective of this reorganisation is not, however, to cut costs. It is to increase the effectiveness of local government in arranging the delivery of services and responding to local needs and concerns. I believe the new structure will make local authorities more accountable and responsive to the people they serve, and help all authorities achieve the standards already reached by the best. It will remove the confusion which undoubtedly exists over which council is responsible for which function, so that users know where to go when they are dissatisfied. It offers local government in Scotland the prospect of a bright, dynamic future. It will give a major boost to the implementation of the Citizen's Charter in Scottish local government.
"My intention is to introduce a Bill to implement these arrangements. Subject to the parliamentary consideration of the arrangements being cornpleted, I hope that it will be possible for elections to the new authorities to take place in the spring of 1995 to give them until 1st April 1996 to establish themselves and to prepare for the assumption of responsibility from existing authorities on that date. Thereafter, elections to the new councils will take place every three years.
"The proposals I have announced today are of the utmost importance to everybody in Scotland. They reflect the strong and growing support for all-purpose councils in Scotland. They represent a tremendous opportunity to improve and strengthen our local government system and the delivery of local services. And they are a great stride forward for local democracy in Scotland. I commend the White Paper to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Although I thank him also for having sent me the brochures and books pertaining to the Statement, he will be aware that I have not really had time to look at them, especially those relating to water and sewerage which are of specific and special interest to Scotland. He will be aware that much of the rest of the Statement and the maps were published in some sections of the Scottish press today although we can never rely completely on those maps.
What is interesting about the Statement is that almost the same fervour and enthusiasm were shown for the Wheatley Report, which suggested getting rid of single-tier authorities in favour of more manageable authorities. I cannot remember whether the noble and learned. Lord served on the committee next door when we considered that Bill. Many of us supported the Wheatley provisions. I certainly supported those ideas
1514
although I ultimately wanted a Scottish Assembly which could have established single-tier authorities. That would have been a more intelligent approach.
Although the Statement is expressed in terms of good business and good government, I feel that it is largely a dishonest juggling with the boundaries, such as happened with the old London County Council and the Greater London Council. Almost my first vote in another place was related to the abolition of the LCC because the GLC was supposed to give a Tory majority. It did not give a Tory majority, so the Government got rid of it. Such moves did not work and these provisions will not work in Scotland. The fundamental fact is that there are just not enough Conservatives in Scotland to provide decent Conservative representation in either local or national government.
I can see the footprints of the honourable Member for Stirling all over certain parts of the Statement, particularly those relating to the move towards outside bodies and quangos. I had hoped that the Scottish Conservatives had laid that ghost, but obviously it is still with us to some extent in the form of the honourable Member for Eastwood. Everyone in Scotland is aware that whatever happens in Scottish local government reorganisation, Eastwood had to be preserved as the one jewel in the crown on the whole west coast of Scotland.
We must look at the important subject of water and sewerage. I am sure that the Minister is aware of feelings in Scotland. The present police and fire provision is to be retained. Obviously, in areas such as the Lothians and Strathclyde, the police force will cover many local authorities. Will it be represented by joint boards or is it to be run by quangos? Will the service continue to be democratically answerable? On the question of local government staff, does the Minister have any estimate of the numbers likely to be involved?
If there is to be a £65 million saving to local government, will that be returned to local authorities over and above additionality, as it is called in some areas? Will it be additional or will it be taken away from local government? The transitional costs appear to be not far short of the figure given by my honourable friend the Member for Monklands West who said that they would reach something like £600 million. If everything goes as the Statement believes it will, the estimate is that they will be £350 million. We shall watch that figure carefully.
As the Minister said, this matter is of vital importance to Scotland. Now that we have the material, for which I thank him, when can we expect a debate in this House?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place and in his criticisms of the content of the Statement. Is the Minister aware that it is a controversial and partisan Statement, both in its conception and content? Now that we have passed beyond leaks in the Scotsman we have t he holy writ of the Statement itself. Does the Minister agree that such radical changes in local government should emerge on

1515
the basis of the maximum degree of consensus after consideration by some kind of independent commission? Have not these plans been cooked up politically inside the Scottish Office with a high degree of party political motivation behind them?
Is the Minister aware that the map produced by the Government is an odd one? The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, drew attention to the curious aspect of the arrangements in Eastwood. Paisley is sliced into two. It is a farcical and grotesque map. It reminds me of nothing more than the map of Bosnia which was the basis of the Vance-Owen plan. That of course had the decent motivation of creating peace. This has the rather disagreeable motivation of seeking to assist Conservative Party interests inside Scotland. Is the Minister aware of the dangers of a government who are singularly unrepresentative in Scotland these days producing proposals of this kind to assist their position?
One of the revealing sentences in the Statement is:
"We intend to re-establish the four Scottish cities as unitary councils and to create powerful new authorities on their outskirts to act as a counter-balance".
Most people will believe that the adjective "political" should have been included, the motive being to create a "political" counter-balance. In the following paragraph, the Statement talks about the plan being,
"to ensure that decisions are taken at the most local level that is practicable and that people can discuss problems with their council without having to make a long journey to its headquarters".
That is a tongue-in-cheek statement when one considers the Statement as a whole, which greatly tilts the balance of power towards the Secretary of State in St. Andrew's House. It also leaves the Highland region intact. Far from having an established identity, the Highland region has a network of identities. One would have thought that it might have required some consideration from the Government in the light of what purports to be the philosophy behind the Statement. The Statement is controversial and unacceptable. It will arouse a great deal of argument inside Scotland. I beg leave to doubt whether it will achieve what is undoubtedly one of its principal purposes—the rescue of the Tory Party in Scotland.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the principal theme that ran through the observations from both Front Benches was that this was a matter of political juggling. If the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, had been around Scotland, he would have appreciated, as was demonstrated in a wide array of representations made to the Secretary of State, that there is strong support for a return to single-tier local authorities in Scotland. The noble Lord said that he thought a better way to have approached this matter might have been through the establishment of a commission. I do not know much about the areas of England where the Local Government Commission is already under way, but I should not have thought that anyone who is keeping half an eye on the map for England would have failed to see that it was not proceeding without controversy. Scotland is much smaller. There are fewer authorities. It is not like the
1516
time before the Wheatley Commission when there were no fewer than 426 councils in Scotland. The position now is different.
So far as concerns water and sewerage, we have three authorities. I hope noble Lords appreciate that we have spelt out that they will be public water authorities. They will have boards presiding over them. With that, and the other exception of a national system to run the Reporter service for Scotland, no other powers are being taken away from local government, and none of them, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, suggested, is being taken into the domain of the Secretary of State.
As I said, the police and fire authorities are to remain the same. As I said in the Statement, there will obviously have to be some statutory obligation for the oversight of police and fire authorities. For example, under our proposals for Strathclyde it is envisaged that there will be some 10 local authorities for which there will have to be joint statutory arrangements. In addition, there may be many joint agreements. Enabling lead authority roles may be taken up by different local authorities, but we do not intend that there should be other statutory arrangements.
It is estimated that there will be a saving of some £65 million. That comes essentially from the predicted reduction in the number of local government employees. It is estimated that reductions in the range of 700 to 2,200 will bring about that significant saving.
We spell out in the White Paper what we consider the transitional costs will be. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, might have been gracious enough to concede that every time the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Tom Clarke, turned round he added a further £100 million to the cost of the transitional arrangements. He ultimately reached a figure of £600 million. On any estimate, that was grossly off the mark. We expect that the transitional costs will be recovered within four to five years.
The White Paper will undoubtedly excite a great deal of interest in Scotland: I hope that it does. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that it was partisan. With his title, I should have thought that he would have rejoiced that Monifieth is to return to the County of Angus. If he thinks that only those parts of the country where there is a strong Conservative presence will be affected, I remind him—if he needs reminding —that of the vigorous campaigns fought in Scotland to change the local government map, no campaign was fought more vigorously than that in Rutherglen, led ably by its Labour Member for Parliament.
When we speak of counter-balancing, we envisage that there will be enabling arrangements. As there has to be some sharing of specialist services, it is believed that in those cases it is useful to have one or two authorities around the cities which are more likely to provide such services so that a sensible and sustained partnership can be established. Finally, the noble Lord asked when there would be a debate on this matter. I do not fashion out any enthusiasm for such a debate before the House rises this summer.
4 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I offer my noble and learned friend congratulations from one part of Scotland and ask him to pass them on to the Secretary of State for Scotland. It was only in 1974 that a body which was truly representative of the whole of the Highlands of Scotland was created. That was the Highland Regional Council. I am delighted that the Secretary of State and his team decided to pursue that creation and take it further. Whatever may be said about the small districts —and we all respect them intensely for what they have done —they did not have the clout to deal with the Scottish Office. I am delighted that the Highland Regional Council, or its successor similar in idea, will remain.
I am relieved at the proposal relating to water. The idea of introducing private funding for the creation of sewage disposal works and so forth is very good indeed. But perhaps I may also offer a word of advice. When the previous re-organisation took place, the officials at large in all the many authorities in Scotland took the Government to the cleaners. They managed to set up for themselves an organisation which ensured that some of them were able to take early retirement and then return to their jobs at a greatly increased salary. The greatest care must be taken, otherwise many of the envisaged economies may go by the board when dealing with staff. I welcome the Statement, and I congratulate the Government on their initiative.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Gray for his word of advice. Those of us who recall the previous local government re-organisation in Scotland remember with concern what happened with some employees. They managed to make a successful career out of changing jobs and improving their salaries while continuing to do the same thing. It is ultimately for local authorities to determine the number of their employees. We are alive to the problem on which my noble friend proffered advice.
I am also grateful for my noble friend's comments on our solution to water and sewerage in Scotland. I am grateful to him too, coming from the Highlands, for his support for the proposal that Highland Regional Council should remain as a local authority. There is a strong sense of Highland identity and we believe that that can be built upon. As he will appreciate, when one looks at breaking up the Highlands into smaller constituent parts the problems immediately become obvious. For example, the population of Sutherland is only some 14,000 and Caithness some 26,000. If those regions were to be extracted it would be impossible for them to run a viable local authority with the full range of services. I doubt whether Caithness and Sutherland, despite their parliamentary connection, would be particularly enthusiastic about being a joint authority.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is a great mistake to talk about single tier authorities for the simple reason that Scotland has never had single tier authorities? Before the 1974 re-organisation Scotland had three tiers of local
1518
government; they were district councils, large and small boroughs and county councils. This proposal is in the form of an experiment because we have never had single tier authorities.
Is the Minister further aware that, while I understand the anger of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, I am much more generous? Mine is an attitude of pity—pity that the Scottish Conservative Party has had to resort to the gerrymandering of local authority boundaries in order to try to obtain control of the areas where people will not vote Conservative. But all the gerrymandering of the boundaries will not change that. Therefore, the Government should have a second look—and look more constructively—at the proposals that they have published.
Perhaps I may raise with the Minister the specific issue of a local authority for the Stirling area. I have a great affinity with Stirling, having represented it for 13 years before the Boundary Commission denied those good people the benefit of my services. Is the Minister aware that the proposal for Stirling will leave it as the poorest local authority in Scotland, and possibly outside too, for the simple reason that it has no rateable value base and no industry whatever and it will be side by side with the Falkirk-Clackmannan authority, which will be the richest local authority? The net effect will be that shopkeepers in Michael Forsyth's constituency will find their council tax multiplying 10 times to pay for the folly of the Conservative Government's scheme.
When the Conservative Government re-organised local government in Scotland in 1974 they reduced by 50 per cent. the number of local councillors. The bureaucracy increased by 100 per cent.; the democratic input was reduced and the bureaucratic input was increased. How many councillors are there in Scotland and how many will be left as a result cf these proposals?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if the noble Lord does not like my use of the word "return" I am happy to retreat from it. The proposal establishes a single tier of local authorities in Scotland. It looks nothing like the local government map before the Wheatley changes, when there were some 426 authorities. If there is widespread support in Scotland, as I strongly believe that there is, for our approach, I am confident that those who examine what we are doing will realise that, far from this being a gerrymandering exercise, it makes good sense.
The example of Stirling upon which the noble Lord seized, and his indication that it is very different in make up from its neighbouring area of Clackmannan and Falkirk, clearly indicates to me why there should be separate local authorities. There is a rural hinterland in Stirlingshire which is not, mirrored in Clackmannan or Falkirk.
The noble Lord asked about the number cif councillors. The precise figures are given in the document and the noble Lord will have an opportunity to see them. It is envisaged that there will be a reduction from the present 1,600 to about 1,200. In our view, that will be more than a sufficient number of councillors to carry out the task, in particular as we

1519
wish to impress upon them that they should not continue with the culture of local government in Scotland as it presently exists but increasingly should turn to the idea of being enabling authorities, purchasing services to provide a better quality of service for those who live in their areas.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that, although the leaking of the draft document to the press was irresponsible, it provided the opportunity to sense in advance a reaction in Scotland to the proposals? Does my noble and learned friend further agree that in many areas local people are already viewing the proposals as a direct response by the Government to their heartfelt wishes? Will he accept that in Tayside there is considerable satisfaction that Monifieth is being returned to Angus?
Politicians are of course protesting or smiling, as the case may be. However, does my noble and learned friend agree that local government does not exist for politicians; it exists for local people? If at the end of the day more local people receive the kind of local government that they find easy to understand and want, these proposals will have fulfilled their aim.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, yes; whoever leaked the map to the Scotsman at the end of last week was irresponsible. But, as my noble friend correctly pointed out, the reactions of synthetic outrage have come from politicians rather than from members of the public. She has only to consider that estimable organ, the Dundee Courier, and the correspondence and responses which have appeared in that publication to see that there is overwhelming support in that small part of Dundee for the return of Monifieth to the county of Angus. I am sure that my noble friend will share my delight that that will happen once the proposals are implemented.
It is important that we should achieve a balance of local accountability while at the same time having a structure of local government which is sufficiently strong to be robust and viable in the delivery of services. It is clearly desirable that services are provided locally but, as I have indicated, we urge councils to adopt, as far as possible, an enabling role where that is appropriate.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I sympathise with the noble and learned Lord because he has to defend the indefensible. I sympathise with him in having to face the Highlands which will rise up in large areas and tell him that what is on offer is not what is wanted. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that Caithness and Sutherland is a single police division which has one Member of Parliament? It is unitary as regards the Caithness and Sutherland enterprise, tourism and water. Therefore, it is ridiculous for the noble and learned Lord to say that it is good that those matters should all now be put under Inverness, which is a great deal further away and more remote from the electors and the people who use the services.
The noble and learned Lord talks about an established identity. As I drove down to catch the
1520
sleeper train last night, I heard Ross-shire declaring its identity and complaining in resounding and eloquent terms about what it felt was coming its way as a result of the leaks in the Scotsman. The Statement talks about people being nearer to housing, education and social services but the people in Thurso and Wick will be 120 miles away from their centre of government. That is plainly not achieving the most local location possible for a local authority.
I wrote to the Secretary of State quite a long and reasoned letter containing statistics which showed that the cheapest form of local government had been that of Thurso town council when it had its own planning department. That is because it followed a principle dear to Tory hearts; that is, it employed the private sector to carry out some of its functions. Although it has its own planning powers, it employed highly qualified planning consultants in Edinburgh to help with planning matters. That was cheaper than running a planning department. It was cheaper than running a planning department in Wick and considerably cheaper than running a planning department in Inverness.
Will the Minister listen to the local people? I believe that a debate in your Lordships' House is essential before we move from a White Paper to legislation. Otherwise the Government are declaring that they are determined not to listen to the people.
The Minister said that the people of Caithness and Sutherland are not interested in having local government of their own; but, in fact, a pressure group exists already and the district council is against the proposed measures. Therefore, I hope that we shall have a debate on these matters.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, we have heard two sharply conflicting views from the Highlands. We are all well aware that there are conflicts of view. However, the noble Viscount has not addressed—and he should address—the fact that Caithness has a population of 26,000 and Sutherland has a population of 14,000. Some extremely sophisticated services are required to be delivered by local authorities and our assessment of the situation is that either of those, separately or combined, are too small to achieve that. Travel distances within the Highlands area have improved dramatically in recent years. However, the noble Viscount should consider that in the Statement which I made and in the White Paper I said that the Secretary of State will ask authorities to prepare and publish comprehensive schemes for decentralisation of management and administration within their areas. It is with particular regard to the Highlands that that proposal is included.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I welcome the Statement. I am particularly glad that the scare stories about water privatisation have been pulled asunder. I should like to ask my noble and learned friend about the three proposed water and sewerage authorities and the membership of those authorities which will remain in the public sector. Has my noble and learned friend given any thought to the composition of those boards? Furthermore, will he

1521
consider, even at this late stage, whether it is possible to ensure that the regional council elections, which are to take place next May, could not be put aside?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, on the latter point, the general consensus in Scotland, after a period of differing views, is that the elections should go forward. It is important to have regional authorities and councillors in place who are still enthusiastic about their task as the transitional arrangements are put in place.
My noble friend is right that there were some ludicrous scare stories doing the rounds in Scotland about water. I hope that the announcement which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made today will finally put those stories to rest. The issue of the membership of the boards has not yet been settled by my right honourable friend but I have listened to and will pass on to my right honourable friend what my noble friend said about their membership.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised to find that, with my background, this is a subject which will interest me greatly. I had intended to ask only one question and that has already been answered; that is, about the dates of the next regional elections. I wish to reserve my comments until I have seen the document. I have not yet seen it. I did not pay particular attention to what was in the press because I was not certain whether the Government had deliberately leaked information in a wrong form to lead us up the garden path. Therefore, I was prepared to wait until the genuine article was available.
I am sorry that I must contradict my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford. Four cities were single-tier authorities until Wheatley reduced them to the status of a district council. Whatever else may be said, I am fairly certain that the people in the four cities will be quite happy about the change which is to take place. I am sure that my former colleagues in Dundee will be surprised if I did not make that correction.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for the single-tier approach that we have taken.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, just leave it at that.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I confirm to the noble Lord that this Government would never for a moment indulge in leaking documents in advance of putting them before Parliament.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that I welcome the decision to have 28 single-tier authorities. That is very close to the 27 that I recommended to the Secretary of State via the columns of the Glasgow Herald. I might not have drawn the boundaries in exactly the same way, but I believe that that is about the right number.
Is he aware further that I welcome in particular, as did my noble friend Lord Gray, the decision about the Highlands? That is vitally important for the area, both economically and politically. My noble and learned friend will not be surprised to know that I welcome warmly the decision to enlarge Argyll and Bute, my former constituency, to make it a single-tier authority.
1522
Will my noble and learned friend assure me that the staff commission will be a firm commission and that it will not be like the last one? Will he assure me that it will stop any attempt by local authority staff to have a bonanza out of this reform? Lastly, has he given any thought to the question of reasonable remuneration for councillors?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his support as regards the Highlands and for Helensburgh being added to Argyll and Bute. There was a powerful campaign for that to be done and I am sure that there will be a great deal of pleasure that it is now a part of that local authority area.
I think that I made my views on the staff commission fairly clear. We certainly understand the point raised by my noble friend and also that raised previously by my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin. We do not have proposals to offer reasonable remuneration to councillors. The situation is as it was when examined previously. If we are to make such a change, such arrangements are usually done on a UK basis.

Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill
4.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason and amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reason and amendments be now considered. —(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO A LORDS AMENDMENT AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (64) as first printed by the Lords.]
LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 5, page 6, line 7, at end insert:
("(2A) Subsection (I) does not apply where the immediate landlord under the lease is a registered housing association and all the flats in the premises are—

(a) particularly suitable, having regard to their location, size, design, heating systems and other features, for occupation by persons of pensionable age, and

(b) are occupied by persons of pensionable age or physically disabled persons, and

(c) have special facilities which include the services of either a resident warden or a non-resident warden and a means for calling them.")

The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason:
1A Because it is undesirable to exclude premises of the kind described in the amendment from the right to enfranchise.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.
The House will no doubt recall that this amendment, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was accepted by the House on Report. Its effect is to exclude from enfranchisement and lease renewal premises where the immediate landlord is a registered housing association and where all the flats in the block are designed as accommodation for the elderly or disabled. So far so good. The record will show that I said at the time that I understood the reasons for the amendment. But the amendment is discriminatory. There is no fundamental reason why housing association developments for the elderly and disabled should be excluded from the scope of enfranchisement. Long leaseholders in such accommodation have as much right as any others to make a choice about taking control of their homes. After all, they are already effectively owners in the same way as any other long leaseholders.
It has been suggested that long leaseholders in that type of accommodation do not really want to enfranchise; they simply want to extend their leases. However, the amendment would also exclude such tenants from the right to lease renewal. As your Lordships will recall, an amendment was made in the House which gives long leaseholders the option of renewing their leases or enfranchising. There is no justification on that ground for the exclusion of housing designed for occupation by the elderly and the disabled.
However, perhaps even more important, since the Report stage both Age Concern and the Association of Retired Persons Over 50 have expressed their dismay at the exemption from enfranchisement of such developments. They are concerned for the leaseholders living in badly managed blocks who are angry and frustrated to discover that they will not now be able to take control of their property. The claim that long leaseholders in blocks designed for the elderly and disabled are not interested in enfranchising is not true. Bad management does exist in such blocks, and there can be no justification for preventing the long leaseholders from taking control of their homes.
It is true that the opinion of the House was not properly tested in the way that it should have been. I do not believe that it is the will of your Lordships' House that such a discriminatory amendment should be included in the Bill; indeed, in another place a clear majority (243 to 148) disagreed with the amendment on a Division.
The amendment is not only discriminatory, it is also wrong in principle. Further, it is unwanted by the very people whose rights it purports to interfere with. It is unreasonable. Therefore, I hope that the House will now agree with the other place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1A.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have to say that I believe many of us—and I do not mean just
1524
those of us on these Benches—will be rather dismayed that we are being asked to accept the rejection of our amendment by the other place. The amendment would have prevented the enfranchisement of sheltered housing held on leasehold and thus would have prevented the risk of losing such sheltered housing in the future for the elderly.
There is all-party agreement on previous legislation that housing designed for the elderly with wardens and wheelchair access—I emphasise that we are not just talking about converted bungalows but about sheltered housing with wardens —should remain for the elderly. We all know that the number of over-75s is growing rapidly; indeed, by the year 2001 there will probably be a million over-85s in the country. If they are to enjoy care in the community as they would wish, rather than residential care, we need to increase and not reduce the supply of sheltered housing.
The Minister made two points. He said, first, that the elderly should not be exempt from the right to enfranchisement because that would be discriminatory. But on numerous occasions whenever the issue has been discussed in the past we have made precisely that decision—that is, to discriminate against some elderly people now in order to protect the rights of many more elderly in the future. For example, we did so in this House on an all-party basis. We agreed that local authority rented sheltered housing should be protected from the right to buy. Secondly, we agreed that housing association rented sheltered housing should be protected from the right to buy. Moreover, we all agreed that housing association leasehold sheltered housing should be protected from the right to buy where it has enjoyed housing association grant from government.
However, here, where we have housing association leasehold sheltered housing which has not received government grant, but very often contributions from charities to enable the warden services to be provided, such housing may now be bought outright and, in time, when children and grandchildren realise the asset, will be permanently lost for the use of frail and elderly people.
The Government's second argument is that, in any case, such housing is protected by covenants. However, covenants are sometimes frail vessels. They are obviously subject to mutual agreement between leaseholders and freeholders. Indeed, it is precisely because of the inadequacy of covenants to protect tenures and such arrangements that, when we talked about heritage property, the Government were not merely content to rely on covenants but agreed to introduce estate management schemes. They accepted amendments from all parts of the House on an all-party basis to strengthen the provision because it was accepted that covenants were not enough. If covenants were not enough for heritage areas, they are even less appropriate a device to ensure that leasehold sheltered housing for the elderly remains available for them.
In Committee, the amendment had all-party support. It had support from the Conservative Benches and the Cross-Benches, as well as from the Opposition Benches. When the matter was pressed to

1525
a Division to ensure that the provision was introduced into the Bill, I believe that we were acting in the finest tradition of an all-party revising Chamber, thinking to the future. When the Government failed to put in Tellers, we naturally assumed that that was because of the strength of support of our argument and that, effectively, they accepted the amendment. But, alas, it was not because the Government were attentive to our arguments; it was because the Government were very inattentive to our procedures.
It was a wise amendment. I believe that the Government in another place have been foolish and short-sighted to reject it. It is not a political issue; it is a care-in-the-community issue in which we are trying to protect the well-being of elderly people in the future. I suppose that we can only acquiesce. However, I do not believe that there is any Member of the House—apart, that is, from those on the Government Front Bench—who does not believe that to accept the rejection of the amendment by the House of Commons is profoundly unwise.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, for her support for the amendment which I moved. I am aware that in moving it I did so with, as the noble Baroness has said, the support of many noble Lords. I express my profound disappointment not only with the response which the amendment obtained in another place but also with the comments of the Minister. He said that it was clearly not the will of this House that the amendment should be included in the Bill. How can he say that when it was the Government who failed to give your Lordships the opportunity to express opposition to the measure?
The Minister has said that the amendment is discriminatory. The Commons reason for disagreeing with the amendment states:
"it is undesirable to exclude premises of the kind described in the amendment".
I must tell the Minister that discrimination relates to people. The Minister has mentioned the balance we must find in treating people of different ages and different circumstances differently and dealing with a particular housing matter. I spoke for the National Federation of Housing Associations in moving the amendment and in my mind the balance came down in favour of attempting to preserve such specialist housing stock as we have. The amendment was not an attempt to discriminate against elderly people. I would certainly not wish it to be seen in that light. Were there more specialist housing stock, the matter would simply not have arisen. The amendment itself was based on legislation which already exists—the right to buy legislation—from which is excluded such stock. To suggest that this amendment was in some way off the wall and an objectionable way of going about things is to question the very legislation to which your Lordships agreed some seven years ago. However, tempted as I am to test the opinion of the House on this occasion because it has not been tested, I must
1526
accept that Members at the other end of the corridor have expressed an opinion that we shall sadly have to accept.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, like the two noble Baronesses who have spoken, I am indeed sorry that, another place should have rejected your Lordships' decision on this matter. The case has been strongly made out for saying that provision for the elderly and infirm should be protected and kept for that purpose. That, as I understand i t, was the reason for the original amendment. It is therefore a great pity that another place should apparently have disregarded those considerations. It is perhaps typical of these days that where real social concern for protecting the interests of those who are vulnerable in one way or another arises, it is your Lordships' House rather than another place which concerns itself with that. Whatever else we do, that is the message we might send to another place in the light of its decision on this matter.
Lord Monson: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I believe nearly all of us would agree that the purpose-built sheltered housing schemes with wardens, which are the subject of this amendment, fill a vital social need given our rapidly ageing population. It would be a great pity to do anything which fragmented these schemes or which for that matter discouraged housing associations from providing them. The Government have on earlier occasions made soothing noises about restrictive covenants, but they can be varied or discharged by the courts. A court's attitude to any particular arrangement cannot be predicted in advance. As regards these kinds of developments, there is surely practically no question of bad or inefficient management. The Minister denied this, but I cannot believe that housing associations are wicked or rapacious landlords.
Furthermore, leaseholders will have bought their flats or maisonettes willingly, with their eyes open and with no hope or thought of enfranchisement. Therefore the Government's rejection of our amendment must be either doctrinaire or opportunist. I say opportunist because presumably they think the:r move will be electorally popular. But as the prospect of getting rid of a bad landlord will rarely enter the equation, the Government can only have made their assumption on the basis that grateful leaseholders will be able to obtain their freeholds at a bargain price to pass on eventually to their descendants. However, although a few wealthy people in Belgravia will indeed be able to obtain freeholds at a bargain price, this does not hold good for the majority of leaseholders.
Since the last time that we debated this Bill, a highly respected firm of estate agents has published its conclusions. That firm has no axe to grind. It does not oppose the Bill and indeed the valuaLion departments of the firm stand to benefit considerably from the passage of the Bill. The firm states, among other things:
"The publicised aims of the legislation will not be fulfilled. Windfall gains will be greatest for those with the most

1527
expensive properties. The legislation will leave certain leaseholders in a far worse position than they are currently and leaseholders with long leases"—
that is, leases with over 90 years to run—
"will make little or no gain and will probably have to pay more to enfranchise under the Act than it would cost them to buy the freehold in the open market".
It would seem the Government's victory is a hollow one.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we did not make many amendments to this Bill and most of those that were made were fairly innocuous. This amendment, which has not been accepted in another place, was one of those amendments of principle intended to benefit people who need our help. It is deeply regrettable that the Government persuaded Members of another place not to accept it. Normally we ask another place to think again only once, but there are very rare occasions when we could ask it to think yet again. Unless there has been some unholy conspiracy within the usual channels, I should be very glad to support any move that there is to make the House of Commons think yet again.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am much saddened by what has been said this afternoon, particularly by so many of my noble friends. My noble friend Lord Renton has just said that we had not amended the Bill much. But some 300 amendments went from this House to another place. They were amendments of fundamental importance on leasehold extension; a residency test; inheritance tax exemption; and on protecting cathedral closes. Those were important amendments. Amendments were also made to help charitable housing associations which were put forward and indeed supported by my noble friend himself. It is not true to say that the House did not do its job extremely well in revising this legislation and putting forward amendments that were accepted by another place.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am glad my noble friend has pointed out that we did amend 300 times, but that is not out of the ordinary these days with the kind of Bills that are sent to us from another place. But most of the amendments that were made were made by consent and were made to improve the Bill. There were some controversial amendments made but not many. This is one which essentially in the opinion of both sides of the House could well have been accepted. I think it is regrettable that it was not.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I believe there are some fundamental misconceptions about what this amendment deals with. It deals only with long leaseholders; in other words, those elderly people who may well have already been given a lease for 70 or even 100 years. In the rest of the Bill we have given people the right to enfranchise if they have a lease of that length. Why is it that we cannot do that for elderly people, particularly in view of the fact that enfranchisement itself has no effect on the terms of leases of those tenants? Much has been said on this matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that restrictive covenants were frail vessels. I do not think
1528
that they are. They can be altered only with the agreement of all parties to the lease. If all parties to the lease agree then why should they not do so?
The amendment will affect only a very small number of leaseholders because it does not exclude all flats designed for the elderly or disabled but only those where the immediate landlord is a registered housing association. The numbers affected will be limited still further because most property let on long leases by housing associations is let under the leasehold schemes for the elderly. Those are shared ownership schemes in which the maximum share a tenant can purchase is 75 per cent. Therefore, such leases would not qualify for enfranchisement or lease renewal in any case because a tenant must own 100 per cent. in order to qualify.
Finally, perhaps I may turn to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I was very surprised by his speech. When I opened the debate I said that we had received representations both from Age Concern and the Association of Retired Persons Over 50 which, as organisations which are supposed to represent the elderly, were deeply distressed by the amendment. It was on the basis of their representations that the other place rejected the amendment. I believe that it would be very strange if this House did not do the same.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
2 After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
Effect on initial notice of designation for inheritance tax purposes and applications for designation
(".—(I) A notice given under section I I shall be of no effect if on the relevant date the whole or any part of.—

(a) the specified premises, or

(b) any property specified in the notice under section 11(3) (a) (ii), is qualifying property.

(2) For the purposes of this section the whole or any part of the specified premises, or of any property specified as mentioned in subsection (1), is qualifying property if.—

(a) it has been designated under section 31(1) (b), (c) or (d) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (designation and undertakings relating to conditionally exempt transfers), whether with or without any other property, and no chargeable event has subsequently occurred with respect to it; or

(b) an application to the Board for it to be so designated is pending; or

(c) it is the property of a body not established or conducted for profit and a direction has been given in relation to it under section 26 of that Act (gifts for public benefit), whether with or without any other property; or

(d) an application to the Board for a direction to be so given in relation to it is pending.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) an application is pending as from the time when it is made to the Board until such time as it is either granted or refused by the Board or withdrawn by the applicant; and for this purpose an application shall not be regarded as made unless and until the applicant has submitted to the Board all such information in support of the application as is required by the Board.
(4) A notice given under section 11 shall cease to have effect if, before a binding contract is entered into in pursuance of the notice, the whole or any part of.—

1529

(a) the specified premises, or

(b) any property specified in the notice under section 11(3) (a) (ii),

becomes qualifying property.
(5) Where a notice under section 11 ceases to have effect by virtue of subsection (4) above—

(a) the nominee purchaser shall not be liable for any costs under section 29; and

(b) the person who applied or is applying for designation or a direction shall be liable—

(i) to the qualifying tenants by whom the notice was given for all reasonable costs incurred by them in the preparation and giving of the notice; and

(ii) to the nominee purchaser for all reasonable costs incurred in pursuance of the notice by him or by any other person who has acted as the nominee purchaser.

(6) Where it is claimed that subsection (1) or (4) applies in relation to a notice under section 11, the person making the claim shall, at the time of making it, furnish the nominee purchaser with evidence in support of it; and if he fails to do so he shall be liable for any costs which are reasonably incurred by the nominee purchaser in consequence of the failure.
(7) In subsection (2) as it has effect for the purposes of subsection (1)—

(a) paragraphs (a) and (b) apply to designation under section 34(1) (a), (b) or (c) of the Finance Act 1975 or section 77(1) (b), (c) or (d) of the Finance Act 1976 as they apply to designation under section 31(1) (b), (c) or (d) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984; and

(b) paragraphs (c) and (d) apply to a direction under paragraph 13 of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1975 as they apply to a direction under section 26 of that Act of 1984.

(8) In this section—

"the Board" means the Commissioners of Inland Revenue;

"chargeable event" means—

(a) any event which in accordance with any provision of Chapter II of Part II of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (exempt transfers) is a chargeable event, including any such provision as applied by section 78(3) of that Act (conditionally exempt occasions); or

(b) any event which would have been a chargeable event in the circumstances mentioned in section 79(3) of that Act (exemption from ten-yearly charge).")

The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment:
2A Line 52, leave out "as it has effect for the purposes of subsection (1)".
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2A to Lords Amendment No. 2.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 form part of a group of amendments designed to prevent the break-up through enfranchisement of those historic estates with exemption from inheritance tax. The original amendments were introduced at short notice and at a late stage in our consideration of the Bill. On reflection we felt that some refinement was appropriate and Commons Amendments Nos. 2A and 3A remove unnecessary words. The amendments do not alter the policy; rather they improve its application by applying all aspects of the exemption to properties where designation under previous legislation is still pending.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2A to Lords Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
3 After Clause 62, insert the following new clause:
Exclusion of right in case of property transferred for public benefit etc
(". After section 32 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 there shall be inserted—
"Property transferred for public benefit etc.
32A.—(1) A notice of a person's desire to have the freehold of a house and premises under this Part shall be of no effect if at the relevant time the whole or any part of the house and premises is qualifying property and either—

(a) the tenancy was created after the commencement of Chapter III of Part 1 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993; or

(b) (where the tenancy was created before that commencement) the tenant would not be entitled to have the freehold if either or both of sections 1A and 1B above were not in force.

(2) For the purposes of this section the whole or any part of the house and premises is qualifying property if—

(a) it has been designated under section 31(1) (b), (c) or (d) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (designation and undertakings relating to conditionally exempt transfers), whether with or without any other property, and no chargeable event has subsequently occurred with respect to it; or

(b) an application to the Board for it to be so designated is pending; or

(c) it is the property of a body not established or conducted for profit and a direction has been given in relation to it under section 26 of that Act (gifts for public benefit), whether with or without any other property; or

(d) an application to the Board for a direction to be so given in relation to it is pending.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above an application is pending as from the time when it is made to the Board until such time as it is either granted or refused by the Board or withdrawn by the applicant; and for this purpose an application shall not be regarded as made unless and until the applicant has submitted to the Board all such information in support of the application as is required by the Board.
(4) A notice of a person's desire to have the freehold of a house and premises under this Part shall cease to have effect if—

(a) before completion of the conveyance in pursuance of the tenant's notice, the whole or any part of the house and premises becomes qualifying property; and

(b) the condition set out in subsection (I) (a) or (as the case may be) subsection (1) (b) above is satisfied.

(5) Where a tenant's notice ceases to have effect by virtue of subsection (4) above—

(a) section 9(4) above shall not apply to require the tenant to make any payment to the landlord in respect of costs incurred by reason of the notice; and

(b) the person who applied or is applying for designation or a direction shall be liable to the tenant for all reasonable costs incurred by the tenant in connection with his claim to acquire the freehold of the house and premises.

(6) Where it is claimed that subsection (1) or (4) above applies in relation to a tenant's notice, the person making the claim shall, at the time of making it, furnish the tenant. with evidence in support of it; and if he fails to do so he shall be liable for any costs which are reasonably incurred by the tenant in consequence of the failure.
(7) In subsection (2) above as it has effect for the purposes of subsection (I) above—

(a) paragraphs (a) and (b) apply to designation under section 34(1) (a), (b) or (c) of the Finance Act 1975 or section 77(1) (b), (c) or (d) of the Finance Act 1976 as they apply to designation under section 31(1) (b), (c) or (d) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984; and

(b) paragraphs (c) and (d) apply to a direction under paragraph 13 of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 1975 as they apply to a direction under section 26 of that Act of 1984.

(8) In this section—

"the Board" means the Commissioners of Inland Revenue;

"chargeable event" means—

(a) any event which in accordance with any provision of Chapter II of Part II of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (exempt transfers) is a chargeable event, including any such provision as applied by section 78(3) of that Act (conditionally exempt occasions); or

(b) any event which would have been a chargeable event in the circumstances mentioned in section 79(3) of that Act (exemption from ten-yearly charge)." ")

The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment:
3A Line 69, leave out "as it has effect for the purposes of subsection (1) above".
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3A to Lords Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3A to Lords Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
4 After Clause 85, insert the following new clause:
Property within cathedral boundary
(". There shall be no right under Chapter I or II to acquire any interest in or lease of any property which lies within the precinct boundary of a cathedral church, within the meaning of the Cathedrals Measure 1963.")
The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment:
4A Line 3, leave out from "which" to the end of line 4 and insert "for the purposes of the Care of Cathedrals Measure 1990 is within the precinct of a cathedral church."
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4A to the Lords Amendment No. 4.
It was the will of this House at an earlier stage that property within the precinct of a cathedral church should be exempted from collective enfranchisement and lease renewal under Chapters 1 and 11 of the Bill. We decided that we did not wish to oppose that amendment on consideration in another place, but we felt that as drafted it was not entirely satisfactory. The difficulty lay with the imprecise nature of the term "precinct boundary". We foresaw disputes about whether buildings fell within the scope of the precinct and therefore were exempted. That is why we decided to modify Amendment No. 4.
We looked at a number of options when deciding how the intention of Amendment No. 4 could best be
1532
made clear. We concluded that the most satisfactory change would be to use the definition of "precinct" in the Care of Cathedrals Measure 1990. This places a duty on individual cathedral authorities to submit to the Cathedrals Fabric Commission a plan indicating the extent of the cathedral precinct. Once the plan is approved by the commission, the precinct boundary is defined. That seems to us a fair and sensible way forward.
Naturally, we have sought the views of the Church Commissioners, the General Synod and the Cathedrals Fabric Commission itself. I am pleased to say that they agree that clarification of the meaning of precinct would be helpful and agree that the solution we propose is acceptable.
I believe that the amendment made to your Lordships' amendment in another place will achieve the aim of excluding property within cathedral closes in a far more satisfactory manner than the original drafting of Amendment No. 4 would have allowed. I hope that the House will agree.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4A to Lords Amendment No. 4—(Lord Strathclyde.)
4.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we are grateful that the Government have not tried to reverse a decision that was taken in this House on a Division but have tried to clean up the amendment in another place. I fully accept that the Cathedrals Measure 1963 does not define precisely the precincts of a cathedral church and that the amendment which another place has made to our amendment referring to the Care of Cathedrals Measure improves the drafting.
As the noble Lord quite rightly pointed out, under Section 13 of the Care of Cathedrals Measure it is,
"the duty of the administrative body of a cathedral church to prepare a plan indicating the extent of the land surrounding the cathedral church",
and it must do so within two years of the 1990 measure being passed. Since that provision is now being included in a statute on leasehold reform, can the noble Lord tell the House how many cathedral church administrative bodies have defined the precincts of their cathedral in the terms of the 1990 measure? If the answer is not many, a few or a majority, then it seems that we are left with a slightly unsatisfactory situation.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as I had something to do with the carrying of the amendment which exempted property in cathedral closes from the provisions of this Bill, I should like to say that, like the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I am very pleased that the Government have accepted the amendment, subject to minor alterations. I am sure that all deans and chapters will be equally grateful, subject to the noble Lord being able to answer satisfactorily the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, subject to the answer which my noble friend will give to the very pertinent question of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, the proposal seems to me an improvement in the drafting of the Bill. It is certainly to my mind a clearer provision than was originally included. Subject

1533
to my noble friend's confirmation of the number of cathedrals which have complied with the precinct provision, this appears to be an improvement.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I too take the opportunity to thank the Government for accepting the amendment. I was on my feet when the Lord Chairman commendably put the Question on the previous amendment, so I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Government for accepting Lords Amendment. No. 2. The Government's acceptance of that amendment has been warmly welcomed by many organisations concerned with the heritage. I believe that the Bill is better as a result.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind words. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked a pertinent question. The problem was that under the original amendment precincts were not defined at all. It was not a matter of their not being defined precisely. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, is right in saying that some of the 41 cathedrals in England and Wales have been tardy in submitting plans. To date 10 have yet to do so. Therefore, properties will not be exempt from collective enfranchisement or lease renewal until such time as the boundaries of any precinct are agreed by the commission.
The Church itself is well aware of the situation. I believe that it is preferable that we deal with the legislation this way round. It will be up to the cathedral authorities themselves to get their act together to produce the information which is required in order to have the protection offered under this legislation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Lottery etc. Bill
4.50 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
Clause 20 [Apportionment of money in Distribution Fund]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 50A:
Page 9, line 17, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall allocate the balance in accordance with subsections (3) and (4) below.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 50A I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 51 A, 52, 54, 57, 58, 60, 64, 92 and 93, and, in order to make sure that they are clearly in the same group, to the notice which has been given that we wish to oppose the Motion that Clauses 27, 37 to 40 and Schedule 6 should stand part of the Bill. That sounds complicated but it is not.
The amendments have the same effect: to take out a quite unnecessary piece of vainglory which has been put into the Bill—I do not know at whose suggestion. No one has confessed to having had the bright idea of the Millennium Commission. It is patently a nonsense. The provision ought never to have been in the Bill. As it is set up, the Millennium Commission is not only an additional and quite unnecessary quango; it is also quite conspicuously and deliberately a political quango. It has 10 members of whom two are Ministers of the Crown, and one is to be appointed by the Leader of the Opposition. I note that Members of the Committee from the Liberal Democrat Benches have an amendment to extend the nonsensical nature of the quango. However, I hope that they will not feel that their attempt to spread the gravy around a little more widely is in conflict with the amendments which follow Amendment No. 50A, which stands in my name.
When is the millennium? Apart from anything else, no one can decide in exactly which year it arises. Is the millennium at the end of the year 2000, or 2001? Alternatively, is it at the beginning of the year 2000? People are booking the River Room at the Savoy and rooms in the Ritz on different assumptions about when the millennium takes place. Let us forget the idea that there is any such thing historically as a millennium. Far more objectionable is the idea that at this time, and presumably after mature consideration, we should be setting up something in competition with President Mitterrand's grand projet. If I know this country well, the grand projet—a second Eiffel Tower, a cone of glass such as is situated in the front yard of the Louvre, an Opera Bastille, or whatever the projects are—will be established in seats which the Conservative Party believes that it might otherwise lose at the most appropriate general election, if indeed there were to be a Conservative Government at that time.
I rather fear that there are people in all parties who would be subject to the same temptation. I include not only my own party, but the Liberal Democrat party too. Such an organisation is bound to be staffed, deliberately to some extent, by politicians. Its members are bound to include people whose political affinities are well known. It is bound to take political decisions about what will best commemorate their own names rather than the 2000th anniversary of the Birth of Jesus Christ.
We have perfectly good provision in the Bill for the arts, sport, national heritage and charities. One of our amendments provides that the money going to those four real purposes—as opposed to factitious purposes —should be devoted to some project which could indeed commemorate a millennium. But the idea of setting up a Millennium Commission and giving it space in the Bill and extra money is a nonsense. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Later in the proceedings in Committee, from these Benches we shall move an amendment that if there is to be a Millennium Commission it would be wrong not to have the Liberal Democrats represented on it. However, I agree with the noble Lord that the Millennium Commission and Millenium Fund are a

1535
nonsense. I shall argue later that they are a nonsense of which we wish to be part, but my contention is that they are a nonsense.
I support the intention of the group of amendments to abolish the Millennium Fund and to redistribute its one-fifth share among arts, sports, heritage and charities. I do not do so as a spoilsport. I hope that at the appropriate date—there is some confusion about it as the noble Lord said—we shall have a multitude of celebrations to mark the end of one millennium and the beginning of the next. I hope that there will be street parties, fireworks and festivals. I hope that by then we might even have something to celebrate: a string of test victories would come in quite handy, or even a successful economy.
There is something about the Millennium Fund substantially in the hands of any Secretary of State which makes the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. Just listen to the grandiose language of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum which states:
"to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium".
There is a ring of monumentalism about it. It sounds a little like potential politically inspired monuments rising on the British landscape. Of course, if one looks around the world there is no shortage of political monuments. There is President Ceausescu's palace called the House of the People. There was that huge statue of Felix Dzerzhinski, the first head of OGPU. It was gratifying to see the Muscovite population pulling down the statue in 1991. Anyone who has had the privilege of going to North Korea will see the numerous statues of Kim-II-Sung. Then there are always the great golden crossed swords on the main highway to Baghdad.
I have no doubt that the Government will tell us that they disclaim any such monumental Ozymandias ambitions. They probably have more modest projects in mind. I wonder what they are; a John Selwyn Gummer garden of rest in Marsham Street; the Redwood Chair of Welsh Language and Literature at the University of Aberystwyth? I put forward those suggestions in jest. It will be interesting to hear from the Government exactly what projects they have in mind for the Millennium Fund.
What sort of projects will they be? It will assist the Committee if the noble Viscount can give the Committee some examples so that the Government can justify to the whole nation that there should be a Millennium Fund. The sum of money involved is potentially very great. On a £2 billion turnover for the lottery, the sum would be of the order of £100 million a year, rolling up. That is enough over five years to create the ultimate discretionary political slush fund: half a billion pounds to be spent on national "feel good" projects. I do not believe that that is sensible. How much better it would be to put the money where there is a good mechanism for decision and where it can do some good: into heritage, sports, art and charities. It is for that reason that we support the group of amendments.
5 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: It has not been easy to arrange the grouping for the amendments. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for slipping in a paving amendment which enables him to take his proposal before what I believe is a rather better proposal in Amendment No. 51, to which we shall come later.
I am not absolutely sure that, given a free choice, I should have chosen this as the best way of celebrating my birthday today. However, if I am to be here, perhaps it is not inappropriate that we should be talking about some kind of celebration. The trouble is that, as has been pointed out, we do not quite know what we are celebrating, nor do we know what form of celebrations there might be.
On the first point, the Government have already agreed that the end of the second millennium is not until the end of the year 2000, but obviously people will regard the arrival of that year as something special. The phrase used in the explanatory memorandum of the Bill that,
"the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium", nicely captures that initial ambiguity.
On the second point, we have been told remarkably little—and we are well advanced with the Bill—about what kind of celebrations the Government have in mind for the quite considerable sums of money that might be in prospect. The Government have said that that should be left to the Millennium Commission, but I think that we are entitled to know more than that. It was in the manifesto of the Conservative Party. I have taken the trouble to look at what was promised about the use of the Millennium Fund. It makes quite good reading. The first item is:
"To restore the fabric of our nation".
What could we have better than that?
The next is to help Manchester with its sporting facilities for the Olympics. I do not wish to be defeatist, but it is just conceivable that Manchester will not hold the Olympics. I hope that the bid which has been put in on its behalf does not rely on a contribution from the national lottery to make it viable.
There is a proposal to nominate some other major city to hold an international trade fair. That is a little unlike the good causes provided for in the Bill, which I find puzzling. Then there is a proposal to provide millennium bursaries for young people and newly retired people—not those who have been retired for some time—who offer their energy to,
"schemes designed to change the face of the United Kingdom by the year 2000".
Some schemes!
I read some of the proceedings of the House of Commons to see whether any addition is to be made. I found one: the Minister concerned said that it might be a good idea to spend money on getting the clocks in the villages and towns of this country to work again. As he quoted Rupert Brooke, it seemed to me that he had in mind particularly Grantchester. One can imagine that it would be a remarkable indication of the arrival of the third millennium that the clock

1537
there should be made to go and commend itself to the distinguished residents of that village, some of whom are known to us.
One absence from the Bill, so far as I can see, is any provision for an endowment reserve for the buildings which will be looked after through Millennium Fund finances. It may be said that that is the intention, but there is nothing in the Bill. I believe, however, that an amendment has been put down. So, although it may be said that a nice new concert hall is to be put up in Wigan alongside the site of the pier, it is not clear who will be responsible for its future upkeep.
I go along with the views expressed about the worth of the Millennium Commission. I have some reservations about the proposal to do away with it altogether. For one thing, for what it is worth, it is a manifesto commitment. For another, it would be quite difficult to police the 5 per cent. deduction from the other four good causes which have been proposed by the noble Lord in putting forward the amendment. I do not think it would he easy for the good causes to identify projects which are suitable to mark the millennium when the Government themselves seem to have little idea of what those projects should be. Speaking, perhaps especially, for charities, I believe that there may be practical difficulties in allocating their 5 per cent.
I still believe that too much money is involved for millennium purposes. So far as one can calculate, in the next few years, something like £400 million would be devoted to that purpose, making certain assumptions. It seems to me that that is far too much. It is a point which I shall argue in more detail when we come to Amendment No. 51.
To summarise, although I sympathise with the general approach of the amendment, I am not entirely happy with it. All I can say is that it is rather better than what is in the Bill at present.
Lord Renton: I am sure that Members of the Committee would wish me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, on his birthday and on a most excellent speech. I was interested by it and I agreed with most of it. I very much hope that we shall be able to celebrate his birthday in the year 2000.
There are three strong reasons for celebrating the millennium. The first is to celebrate 2,000 years of Christianity and to encourage us and many of our fellow mortals to carry on for another 1,000 years. That is the first and perhaps the strongest reason. Then, for the great mass of people, whether or not they are Christians, whether or not they are churchgoers, whether or not they are intellectuals, reaching the year 2000 is a great moment in the passage of time. That in itself is worth marking and celebrating.
The third reason, which some Members of the Committee may think the strongest of all, is that it is an excuse for a damned good party. I believe that the Government are right to have decided that there should be some special way of celebrating and that there is no better way of raising the money than by means of a lottery.
As to how much is to be spent on each of the items mentioned in Clause 20(3), we are simply into the
1538
numbers game. As many as there are people, so there will be opinions. Speaking for myself, I am rather glad that the Government have simplified the matter by giving 20 per cent. to each of the five good causes. It saves a great deal of argument to give each the same amount. Speaking for myself, I hope that the Government will stick to it.
Lord Annan: I hope that the Committee will go along with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on the amendment. Like him, I support the Government on it. When I spoke on Second Reading, I said that this was a Bill which would bring a great deal of joy, excitement and vivacity to people's lives. That is precisely what I think the millennium proposal will do. Someone will pay for the celebrations for the millennium. It is no good thinking that there will not be any. They will be enormous. Who will pay? The taxpayer? Here is a marvellous way in which we avoid the cost falling on the Exchequer and. it seems to me, on local councils and local villages which at that time can perhaps ill afford to celebrate the event as they would like.
I believe that we are bound to set up a fund of this kind. People say that it is too big a fund. But surely this is a chance for something imaginative to be done in the country, in the North of England and in Scotland, each region perhaps having some major project which has long been wished for by the population. Now at last it will be able to be realised. It is well worth doing for that reason. It will bring joy and amusement to people's lives. If one has a project of this kind, who is to say what the money is to be spent on? I am delighted that the Government have not come forward with precise proposals. What they will clearly do—which they have not always done in the past few years—is to consult the population. There will be a marvellous selection of batty, mad, ingenious ideas put forward, some of which will be really worth while following. I hope that the Government will stick to their proposal and reject the amendment.
Lord Birkett: I wonder whether this is not rather a mean-spirited set of amendments. After all, not all monuments are monuments to vanity. When we had a Festival of Britain in 1951, we built the Royal Festival Hall. Thank goodness we did. To celebrate the millennium we do not have to build a National Theatre or a British Library. But they have been built only in the nick of time. I am sure that plenty of other projects will need to be built; and if they celebrate the millennium, so much the better.
I am very much looking forward to the "millennium party" of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. But I hope that not too much of the money will be spent on that. It should be spent on things which are permanent. Paris does it all the time. Whether or not Paris does it out of vanity, I do not care. That city has the Beaubourg. Whether it is called the Pompidou Centre or not, I care not. It has done an amazing amount for the library service in France, which was never as privileged as our own library service, and indeed for the arts. What it has done for the Louvre is wonderful, and the Opera House in the Bastille is a magnificent structure. Monuments can be of

1539
enormous advantage to the nation, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, enormous fun. I hope that the Committee will not consider these amendments too carefully. They are a little mean-spirited.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I should be very grateful if in responding to these amendments my noble friend the Minister would deal with two points. I am generally inclined to the feeling that we should have some celebration of the millennium. But I wonder whether, as the millennium commemorates the two-thousandth anniversary of the birth of Christ, the Churches are being involved. I am sorry to see that there are no right reverend Prelates here this afternoon. I would have hoped, in view of the fact that the very basis of the celebration, the 2000 years, has a religious background and origin, that the Government were consulting with all the major Churches; and obviously with the established Church. As a member of that body I naturally hope that it will be consulted as well as the other major Churches. I very much hope that we shall be told that the Churches will be involved.
I have a little unease about the Millennium Commission. One sets up these bodies with the highest principles and ideals and with the highest approach. But they are apt to grow. It would be a great pity if the Millennium Commission grew into a large, bureaucratic body. I should like therefore to hear from my noble friend the Minister that it is proposed to limit, strictly and firmly, the number of people whom the Millennium Commission will employ. It is of itself a good purpose, but that purpose could be somewhat discredited if it grew into an inflated bureaucracy.
5.15 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: As my name is down to Amendment No. 58 I should like to speak to that; and, with the leave of the Committee, to save time I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 60A, which is in my name but in the next grouping. As in my view these two amendments go together, perhaps I may address them at the same time. The impact of the amendments is to switch 5 per cent. of the total from the Millennium Fund to charities. Here I am picking up a point put forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale; namely, was it right to have as much for the Millennium Fund as for the others?
I should also like to remind the Committee of all that has been said in this debate about the shortage of funds which otherwise would be likely to accrue to charities because of the amounts going into the national lottery. It is in order to help recoup those losses for charities that I suggest in Amendment No. 58 that there should be an increase from 20 per cent. to 25 per cent., correspondingly making the Millennium Fund suffer a decrease of 5 per cent. by Amendment No. 60A.
I am well aware that some Members of the Committee consider that charities should not be tarnished by any involvement with the national lottery. But that is not my view. My feeling is that, if we are to have the national lottery, charities should be substantial beneficiaries. I suspect that there will be
1540
substantial losers. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that we should not wait for the millennium before we produce a string of test victories; nor for that matter a national football team which can win its matches—and also perhaps some Wimbledon winners. I hope that some of the sports funds will go towards improving all of these activities nationally, as well as at the local level, from where the national winners will come. I should like to commend to the Committee the amendment to increase by 5 per cent. the amount going to charities. I am normally very much taken with the argument of simplicity, which I support in general; but I believe that this case should be one of the exceptions. I hope that we shall agree to improve the amount being attributed to charities.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I do not wish to throw a wet blanket over the joyous news of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, about the celebrations at the turn of the century. But I must remind the Committee that within 18 months of the turn of the present century we were in deep trouble in the war in South Africa. Perhaps I may also remind the Committee that three years before the turn of this next century we shall be in trouble in Hong Kong. In a situation when six years is a long time to anticipate history, I do not want to be too gloomy. I am bound to confess that I am closer to the year 2000 than some Members of the Committee. I am beginning to wonder whether I shall be able to join in the celebrations.
Lord Redesdale: I am thoroughly looking forward to the year 2000 when, I hope, we can celebrate with a £½ billion party, which perhaps seems a little excessive. I do not think it is necessarily mean-spirited to be against the Millennium Fund. We could be left, way beyond the millennium, with monuments that we regret ever having built in the first place. To give just one indication of the dangers of what could be thrown up in the next few years on a whim because so much money is available, we have only to look at the Albert Memorial, which many people wish had gone down in the great hurricane.
Noble Lords: Shame!
Lord Redesdale: I am sorry; that is a personal view. It now seems as if it will be very difficult to find the money to carry out restoration. One of the problems with the Millennium Fund is that, because the views behind it are so wide, we could end up with monuments that we did not especially want in the first place.
Baroness O'Cathain: I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment. We are being mean spirited and there is no suggestion that the £400 million or £500 million should be spent on a gigantic party. One of the more sensible suggestions is that there should be projects throughout the United Kingdom, one in each of the regions.
It may be said that £400 million to £500 million is a lot of money. But when one divides that amount four ways, on my calculations we are left with £100 million or £125 million. That will not build us a

1541
monumental project on a huge scale —the cost of building opera houses or some of the grands projets of Mitterrand in Paris are well in excess of £100 million or £125 million. But that should not stop us.
We must have imagination. We are falling into the trap of being extremely petty minded and insular. Other countries throughout the world have grand projects. Look at what Sydney Opera House achieved for the Australians. Some people may not like it. But that was funded out of lottery money. It is a grand project; it is a project of which the people of Sydney, and in fact of all Australia, are immensely proud. We should do something like that.
What do we have? As I said at Second Reading, we have a handful of grand projects; the last one was in 1951, the Royal Festival Hall. We must look back to what the Victorians did in South Kensington with the science museums, the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Royal Albert Hall. Over the past 50 years we have done very little of which future generations will be proud. We ought to stand up and say "We are a big country. We are an important country. We are letting our heritage go into decline". But that will be matched by the National Heritage Memorial Fund from the lottery. Let us not blur the edges between national heritage, the arts, charities and sport. They will obtain a similar sum of money over a period of four years. They will be able to produce great tennis players and the means to ensure that our heritage in terms of our cathedrals, museums and indeed the memorial to Prince Albert will be looked after.
This is something different. We must keep it different. Let us have the money ring-fenced to ensure that we can hand something on to future generations of which they will be proud, as the Australians are proud of Sydney Opera House.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I am delighted to find such an enormous weight of opinion in your Lordships' Chamber opposing the amendment. I wish to make two points. The first, in reflection of the speeches of my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton, concerns the Christian dimension. It is arguable that the only thing that is lacking in western democracies is the utter failure of our spiritual lives in the current century with the advances in medicine and technology. It is hard otherwise to understand how people have failed so singularly to deal with human nature emotions such as self-pity, guilt and so forth. They are all concerned with the spiritual health of the nation. I echo the view that it is deeply saddening that no right reverend Prelates are present to take part in the debate.
My second point is that one of the problems in this country is the shattered confidence that we seem to have. I believe that the symbolism of the millennium, apart from the important Christian significance, is that we must, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said, recognise an important moment in time and reflect on where we are going. We must try to rekindle, in a spirit of nationhood, where we might go forward and rekindle our national confidence.
Lord Lucas: I too welcome the Millennium Fund. To my mind it is the key beneficiary of the whole lottery and with imagination, courage and independence it will do great things.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, is troubled by thoughts of,
"Two vast and trunkless legs of stone".
But pride of that kind is no bad thing. I am grateful for the pride of the Pharaohs which has left us the pyramids and not left us grubbing around in the remains of their rubbish tips with toothbrushes.
Viscount Astor: The thought of grubbing around in the remains of a rubbish tip with toothbrushes left me for a moment thinking and I was slow to rise to my feet. However, I should point out to the Committee that the proposal for a Millennium Fund was stated clearly in the Conservative Party manifesto before the last election. It was on the basis of that manifesto that this Government were elected. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, read our manifesto with such care, even though he had to read it on his birthday. It shows his interest in the Millennium Fund.
We believe that these amendments seek to remove something which lies at the very heart of the Bill—the Millennium Commission. The amendments tabled variously seek to remove all provision for the commission from the Bill, or to ensure that the money which would have gone to the commission goes instead to the other distributors,
"for use on Millennium projects".
One of the key features of the Bill is the proposal to create a powerful new foundation which will fund far-sighted works to stand as monument to the civilisation and achievements of the second millennium for the enjoyment of future generations. There are precedents for this great Millennium Commission—the great exhibition of 1851 and the Festival of Britain in 1951—where the foresight of previous generations left us with two great legacies—the South Kensington museums and the South Bank.
I remind the Committee that in 1851 the Liberal Party was in power. The Kensington museums are here today and are doing very well. I remind the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that in 1951 the Labour Party was in power, and the South Bank is also thriving today.
I hope that the Committee sees the opportunity given to us by the national lottery to match the foresight and achievement of previous generations. I do not believe that your Lordships would want to ignore this opportunity to do something really important; to set in motion a series of projects which will benefit future generations and perhaps even earn their gratitude. Do we really want to miss this chance? Do we really want to miss the opportunity that the millennium offers? I think not. We should all realise that it is our historic duty to seize the moment and to look ahead, and to seize this opportunity offered to us.
In order to carry out its work, it is important that the Millennium Commission is allowed to operate as a body with a clear purpose, independent of government. After all, it will have nine members, only two of which will be Ministers. One will he nominated

1543
by the Leader of the Opposition in another place; the remaining six will be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. It should be independent of the interests of the arts, sport or the heritage. We are looking for projects which are out of the ordinary and which will, we hope, have importance far beyond the confines of a specific interest or group. Those projects could be on a scale similar to those of which I reminded your Lordships earlier—developments like the museum complex in South Kensington. A national body is needed to mastermind the process, while of course taking as much advice as is available, and in particular from the expert bodies.
The Millennium Commission will not be stuffed with politicians, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. I pointed out that they will be in the minority. It will not be a political slush fund to help whichever political party may be in power.
We recognise that there are two views on when the millennium occurs. The Bill accommodates both of those views by stressing that the Millennium Commission should fund projects for the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium. I understand that there is some argument that the millennium may not start until the end of the year 2000. If we think that nobody will celebrate the new year at the beginning of the year 2000, we are mistaken.
I was asked what kind of projects will be appropriate for funding. Again, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, cannot have it both ways. At one point he said that it would be a political slush fund and then I am asked what it will fund. It will be independent. If I said what it would fund, that would put a political slant on it, and we have no desire to do that. The commission will decide what is appropriate. The Bill affords the opportunity for the commission to be independent of government.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. If it is so important for the Government that there should be no political input—the very point that he is making in not specifying the kind of things that might be funded—why then is it important to have two Ministers on the commission?
Viscount Astor: It is important to have some political input. The point I was making is that the political input is a minority. Perhaps I may give the noble Lord some examples that he might find helpful. The commission will be looking to fund a smaller number of big projects as well as a larger number of small local projects and possibly bursaries for individuals. It may be that it will consider an application for a large sports complex of national importance. It may be that it will consider an application for a multi-media arts centre, or indeed a new building for an important charitable enterprise. The commission will be able to choose.
1544
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked about the numbers. The board is small. That is important. The number of staff of the Millennium Commission must be approved by the Secretary of State. He will need the Treasury's consent. That gives a strong indication of the level of control which will be exercised in this matter. And of course there is no reason why the Churches should not be consulted. It is extremely important that they will be consulted. The point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is an extremely important one.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, when he says that the Millennium Commission will provide joy and excitement. Indeed it will; I am sure that it will. It will also produce something more important than that. It will provide a legacy for the future of which we shall all be proud. It will provide things from which future generations will benefit. They will look back and say that they saw the initiative, they acted and they did something about it. I think that that is very important and I therefore urge the Committee to reject these amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If I had any doubt that these amendments were right I would have been cured of that doubt by the bombast which has been evoked in the Committee by the suggestion that it might be better to have the money coming from the national lottery allocated by those in the arts and sport, in national heritage and in the charities who know what they are doing rather than there being either direct political appointments or other appointments by the Prime Minister. I must remind the Committee that in terms of the Bill this is a zero sum gain. Any money that goes to the Millennium Fund comes directly from the share that is available for the other four purposes. It does not mean that there is any less money spent on worthwhile long-term projects if the Millennium Fund is to be abolished. It simply means that the money is to be spent by those who know what they are doing rather than by a bunch of people who were put there in order to celebrate the greater glory of government. That is the difference between our amendments and the rest of the proposals.
I look forward to celebrating the millennium. I should like to celebrate the millennium but I shall do so with proper enjoyment only if my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby is there to celebrate it with me—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey:—and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who enters his 82nd year with a very distinguished contribution.
Some of the suggestions being put forward seem to ignore the fact that this is a proposal for a distribution of the funds from a national lottery. On the idea of street parties—I do not disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, about the value of celebrations through street parties. But state funded street parties? How will the allocation be made? Will the local government finance department division of the Department of the Environment be invited to construct a multiple regression analysis for the allocation of funds for

1545
street parties so that one gets so much per head of population, so much more for young people under the age of 11, so much more for deprivation, and so much more or less according to the average cost of a pint of beer in a particular locality? It is nonsense to suggest that street parties should be state funded in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, wishes them to be. Street parties, if they are going to be any good, will be spontaneous. They will be contributed to willingly and joyfully by the people in the areas.
I accept the Government's argument that they ought not to specify too much in advance what the Millennium Commission should do. The Minister is right to resist, although he did not quite resist, the suggestion of making political input to the Millennium Commission. But the concept of a Millennium Commission as something dedicated only to the millennium, a warring band of people with different regional interests, different cultural interests, different social interests and different artistic interests, does not make sense. It would be wise for the Committee—and the Committee would not be blamed for it in the year 2000—if it accepted these amendments and rejected this unnecessary proposal in the Bill. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
5.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.50A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 117.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Airedale, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Birk. B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bridges, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mulley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dortmand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Eatwell, L.

Redesdale, L.[Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Galpern, L.

Russell, E.

Geraint, L.

Seear, B.

Hampton, L.

Serota, B.

Hamwee, B.

Shepherd, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.[Teller.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Auckland, L.

Aldington, L.

Belhaven and Stenton,L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Belstead, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Bessborough, E.

Annaly, L.

Birkett, L.

Annan, L.

Blatch, B.

Arran, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Astor, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

1546

Brentford, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas,L.

Butterworth, L.

Lyell, L.

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Campbell of Croy, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Carnock, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Marlesford, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Merrivale, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Mersey, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Milverton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mountevans, L.

Cranborne, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cranworth, L.

Munster, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Davidson, V.

Nelson, E.

Dudley, E.

Newall, L.

Dundonald, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Elles, B.

Orkney, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pym, L.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Erroll, E.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rees, L.

Flather, B.

Renton, L.

Foley, L.

Renwick, L

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Gibson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gisborough, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Goschen, V.

Seccombe, B.

Granard, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Stewartby, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strange, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Harmsworth, L.

Harrowby, E.

Sudeley, L.

Hastings, L.

Swansea, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Tebbit, L.

Hayter, L.

Teviot, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Thurlow, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hothfield, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Howe, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Killearn, L.

Wharton, B.

Kimball, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Young, B.

Leigh, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.44 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): Before calling Amendment No 51 I have to inform the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 51A to 60A inclusive.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No.. 51:
Page 9, line 18, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) Of the balance—

(a) 23.75 per cent. shall be allocated for expenditure on or connected with the arts,

(b) 23.75 per cent. shall be allocated for expenditure on or connected with sport,

(c) 23.75 per cent. shall be allocated for expenditure on or connected with the national heritage.

(d) 23.75 per cent. shall be allocated for charitable expenditure, and

(e) 5 per cent. shall be allocated for expenditure on projects to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium.").

The noble Lord said: In introducing this amendment I shall try not to duplicate the discussion which we had on the previous amendment and I shall be brief. All along I preferred this amendment to the one on which we have just voted. I believe that this amendment stands very much on its own merits. Having listened carefully to the discussion which has taken place, I still remain unpersuaded that the Millennium Fund should properly get the same allocation as the four good causes for which the Bill provides. As I explained in my earlier speech, I accept that there is a manifesto commitment and that there are things which can be celebrated at the millennium, whenever that may be. I certainly do not want to give the impression that we are a mean lot.
I still cannot persuade myself that the provision in the Bill is quite right. I listened with care to what the noble Viscount said about the possible uses of the Millennium Fund and found it interesting that all the examples that he gave fell within the four categories covered in the remainder of the Bill. If he is right, there is an extraordinary risk that the commission will be for ever duplicating the work of the other bodies charged under the Bill with distributing the lottery proceeds and on which they are the great experts. I cannot think that that makes a great deal of sense.
We are talking about quite a lot of money. I do not want again to go over the calculations which were touched on earlier, but for debating purposes we can assume that there might be something of the order of £400 million available for this short-term scheme. We have also heard and been given assurances that there will be no very large staff. There will be a considerable risk of that staff being overwhelmed by the number of applications of varying kinds which come in, with the risk that it will not be possible to give a proper degree of scrutiny to the individual projects and one will end up by spending a great deal of money in too short a time. It is rather like a local authority which discovers near the end of the financial year that it has a certain amount of money to spend which it will lose if it does not spend it. The local authority spends it on totally unnecessary projects. I speak with feeling as we are currently suffering from that situation in my area.
The question of ensuring that millennium projects are grounded on a sure foundation concerns me greatly. Any of the grand designs of which we heard so much so eloquently earlier in the evening will come under intense scrutiny both from real experts and from those who regard themselves as experts. One has only to think of the current argument taking place about the new Queen Elizabeth Gates in Hyde Park on which widely differing views have been expressed. There is quite a risk of controversies of that kind evolving on a considerable scale.
I should be very much happier if the commission had a more limited and more closely specified remit, matched with a more limited budget. So it may take time to ensure that, as far as humanly possible, the projects and programmes are worthy of the celebratory purposes which the Government have in mind. There is a risk that the commission could find itself being asked to fund anything and everything. I
1548
am not suggesting that the fund should be cut out altogether, as the last amendment proposed, but £20 million a year for five years seems to be a reasonably adequate sum for the purposes in mind. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I should like to support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said in moving this amendment. I would have voted Not-Content on the previous amendment if the Government had not had a manifesto commitment at the last election—a manifesto commitment which was not a commitment made by other parties—so that people had an opportunity of voting against it. I feel that the Millennium Fund should be limited in size and used for one or two specific projects only, of which I hope that education will form a part so that students will be able to travel for the benefit of the country as they go through life. We should spend the money on something that will be useful for the nation as a whole rather than on bricks and mortar.
I am sure that the arts, sport, national heritage and charitable institutions will all be undertaking various projects to celebrate the start of the third millennium. I should have thought that they would use the money that they can obtain from this source towards that end because it will be over and above their normal income. At the. same time, we should bear in mind that charities could well lose income as a result of the national lottery. I should have thought, therefore, that it would be sensible to limit the Millennium Fund to 5 per cent. and to increase the share of the other four organisations. They know what is required. They—rather than a body stuck somewhere in the centre of the country and without the opportunity of seeing what is happening around the country—know what is best.
Baroness O'Cathain: It is with great sorrow that I have to argue with my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale, particularly on his birthday. It is not a very nice thing to do. However, the reality is that if the Millennium Fund were limited to 5 per cent., as my noble friend suggests, it would probably mean that there would be about £100 million or £125 million for the whole country to mark the millennium with a grand project or projects. Already it has been suggested that there should be regional projects, so we are talking about £25 million for each such project. I am afraid that the sort of projects that can be funded for £25 million would hardly be noticed. The reality of large project funding has probably not sunk home to most Members of the Committee, but the organisation which I head, the Barbican, is in the books for £500 million. I advise the Committee that £100 million would not build anything significant and if that sum were to be divided by four between the four regions, it would be ridiculous.
It is quite wrong to talk about putting more money into the other four categories. They will have plenty of money through the lottery fund. I see the Millennium Fund as being, in effect, capital expenditure as against revenue expenditure for the other four categories. I am talking about ongoing expenditure for which the Government are unable to make up the difference between what they would like to give the arts, sport,

1549
national heritage and charities and what they are actually able to give the arts, sport, national heritage and charities. We should leave the Millennium Fund for something that will be there for generations to come. Although we said all that on the first group of amendments, I feel that chipping away at that sum of money will leave us in the worst of all possible worlds. We shall have something of which we cannot be proud and which will not really mark the millennium or anything else.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question. I am always happy to engage in discussion with her in private or in public on my birthday or at other times. She will recall that on an earlier occasion she said that the money ought to be ring-fenced for millennium purposes, whereas the Minister said, in effect, that, on the contrary, it should be spent on precisely the projects for which the other four good causes were set up. I wonder whether my noble friend could comment on that.
Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps I did not explain myself correctly. What I meant was that that money should, indeed, be ring-fenced and be quite separate. As I have just said, the Millennium Fund could deal, in effect, with capital expenditure, whereas the revenue expenditure—the ongoing expenditure—could be used to keep our existing national heritage monuments up to scratch. We could use it to maintain our cathedrals instead of always having to go cap in hand to the Church of England or whoever, saying, "This roof is falling down. This spire needs attention. These bells need rehanging". Such expenditure could come out of the part of the national lottery fund that is allocated under the heading "National Heritage", whereas the Millennium Fund should be something quite different and new and should be used to mark the celebratory occasion.
Lord Renton: In spite of the interest which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and I have shared over many years with regard to one particular national charity, and having given a good deal of thought to this matter, I am sorry to say that I cannot agree with him on this amendment. It could have a derisory effect if only 5 per cent. of the total—and we do not know what the total will be—were devoted to projects to mark the third millennium.
We need to bear two things in mind in relation to charities. First, in any event, charities are raising money successfully (and have been doing so for many years) in various other ways, such as through covenants which obtain tax exemptions and now through GiftAid above £250. They also raise money through small lotteries. That is the first factor to bear in mind. The other factor is that even if the amendment were accepted, the effect upon charities as a whole would be marginal. It would mean that they would get 3.75 per cent. more of the total than is planned under the Bill. We are into the numbers game, let us face it. As I said on the previous amendment, I think that the Government are right to make the five
1550
categories subject to equal distribution. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend Lord Astor will resist the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hate to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, on his birthday but I am afraid that I do because I think that to reduce so heavily the amount of money made available for the Millennium Fund would destroy the greater part of its purpose. The 2000 millennium is a tremendous occasion, and if we are to celebrate it at all—and there is an argument for paying no attention to it and for not celebrating it—surely we must be prepared to do so in a fairly spectacular manner.
One or two Members of the Committee suggested on the previous amendment that, as a result of these funds being available, one or two important new buildings should be erected as happened in 1951 and in 1851. Therefore, I think we should resist the amendment. Although one fully understands the reasons and the justification for this proposal in the noble Lord's mind, if we are to celebrate the millennium, we must do it properly—and if we are to do it properly, I am afraid that the amount must be 20 per cent.
6.p.m.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend sits down, wonder whether his memory is the same as mine. On one of the earlier days when we were discussing the Bill, I believe that my noble friend the Minister said that a proportion of the money for the Millennium Fund would be used on the other four categories. So would it not be better, rather than travelling around two sides of a triangle, for the money just to travel the shorter and more efficient course along one side?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My noble friend's argument, if he thinks it out, seems to point the other way. It is of course for my noble friend the Minister to explain what he meant. I would not presume to act as his interpreter. It may well be that some of the money allocated to the Millennium Fund will overflow into one of the other four categories provided for in the Bill. That would be sensible in the circumstances. But my noble friend Lord Swinfen must understand that that would be only if the ordinary, accepted purposes of the Millennium Fund had first been met. The proposals contained in the amendment would reverse that procedure.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Committee did not care for the previous group of amendments. So be it. However I wish now that I had drawn the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to the fact that, apart from the other benefits, we would have removed five clauses and one schedule from the Bill. I should have thought that that might have appealed to him.
The debate on this group of amendments, especially from those Members of the Committee opposed to the amendments, is based upon a number of misunderstandings. First, there is the whole issue of grands projets and previous examples. Well, the Festival Hall., the Beaubourg, Crystal Palace and the 1.851 Exhibition did not obtain their money from lotteries.

1551
The money came from the taxpayer or on occasions from public subscription. Secondly, even if they did obtain some of their money from lotteries, there is no reason now why the amount of money going towards the celebration of the millennium should come only from the Millennium Fund.
Members of the Committee have argued that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, would lead to a derisory sum for the Millennium Fund. They seem to ignore the fact that such a sum could well be supplemented from the national Exchequer, local funds, public subscription and sources other than the national lottery. I should have thought that it was in accordance with the Government's view that we want additionality in public spending that other sources of funding would be explored for those projects which are considered by the Millennium Fund.
I find the objections to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, to be ill-founded. I hope that he will succeed in persuading the Government that the amendments are worth taking on board in the Bill.
Lord Redesdale: I should like to comment upon one or two points that have been raised in the debate. One raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, was that £500 million will not go far today in producing a large project. All the examples so far given are of individual projects. They relate to one project at a time in one place. Everyone in the country will be contributing towards the lottery. With the exception of charities, most of the money to be given to the arts, sport and the heritage will, it is hoped, be spent on capital projects. Instead of having one project which would benefit the capital, let us say, would it not be better to have smaller projects all over the country? Would it not be better if the money went directly to the arts, sport and the heritage for projects all over the country and that much less money was given for the exciting projects that could take place in the year 2000?
Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps I may make one or two points following the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. Arts funding in this country is difficult. We have all been told that the Arts Council, which handles government expenditure on the arts, will have to reduce its funding to the arts this year by some £5 million. That might not sound a great deal of money, but it means that some companies will go out of business. There is a black theatre company that is on the verge of going out of business; there is an orchestra which is struggling for its life. The arts world does not have a huge amount of money to spend. The money for the arts which will come from the national lottery will make up the deficit between what the arts community wants to enable it to continue and enhance the arts world in this country and what it will be able to do if the current level of government funding persists. It will make up the balance.
We cannot say that we will use the money that is going to the arts to build another opera house, to build this or to build that. I take up the point made by a
1552
previous speaker that the Millennium Fund could be spent in four different ways through the four regions. If we then divide the 5 per cent. by four again, it leaves a piteous sum which is hardly worth spending on a capital project.
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, "Oh well, the Kensington museums were not created out of a lottery". He asked whether there was an example of something that had been. There is a good example of what was created as a result of a national lottery. It is the British Museum. It was founded by a lottery. It has 6 million visitors a year. It does not charge for admission. Admission is free. That is a good example of the use of lottery funds.
It is important that in order to carry out its important work the Millennium Commission is allowed to operate as a body independent of government and not in the pocket of particular interests. As I have said earlier, we are looking for projects which are out of the ordinary and which will, we hope, have an importance far beyond the confines of a particular discipline, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Swinfen.
Amendment No. 51 would reduce the commission's share of the proceeds by three-quarters, to only 5 per cent. That is also the aim of Amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 85. The noble Lords, Lords Holme of Cheltenham and Lord Redesdale, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen, with Amendment No. 83, seek to remove the statutory protection from the Millennium Commission, which would otherwise prevent any alteration by the Secretary of State under Clause 25 from leaving the commission with less than 5 per cent. of the proceeds. Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 would make it impossible for there to be any change to the percentages to give the commission more than 5 per cent. of the proceeds.
The commission will receive its 20 per cent. share of the funds generated until the end of the year 2000 only. That is a short period of time when one compares it with the life of the national lottery when it is up and running. It is a short period of time if we compare it with how long we believe the national lottery will exist and flourish in this country. There is a power for that length of time to be extended in exceptional circumstances; for example, to prevent a building remaining half finished. It would be unrealistic to expect the commission to fund the several major and lasting projects which it is to be set up to do, and to furnish us with a new heritage to pass on to future generations, on perhaps six years' worth of only 5 per cent. of the proceeds.
No one knows how much the national lottery will raise for good causes. If, in the event, the Millennium Commission has more funds than it can wisely and sensibly use on high quality projects, it will be possible for Parliament to alter the balance at that stage. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said, he intends to put the split of funds to Parliament once every Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, asked me about the four examples I gave. I knew that if I gave any examples I might fall into a trap. Needless to say, I did, and it was a point upon which the noble

1553
Lord, Lord Allen, pounced. The examples I gave were merely illustrative. I could have given an example of a new cathedral for the nation. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, must not read too much into those examples. The Millennium Commission and not the Government will choose the projects.
I hope that earlier I enthused Members of the Committee with the possibilities which the Millennium Commission can offer. I believe that the amendments are not desirable. The Millennium Commission is a new idea which is both worthwhile and exciting. Our debate today has enabled the Committee to discuss important issues about the Millennium Commission, has made them clearer and has addressed many of the anxieties. I hope that if pressed the amendments will be rejected.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I thought that the noble Viscount was treading on dangerous territory when he reminded us that the British Museum was in part funded by a lottery. He might have thrown in Westminster Bridge for good measure. I could have been tempted to expand on why it was decided to give up the funding by lotteries but that would not make comfortable hearing while we are discussing this Bill. I shall not yield to that temptation.
I was also interested to hear the Minister put great emphasis on the fact that there will be little time for this strange creation. That rubbed in my point that there will not be enough time for it properly to spend the considerable sums of money which will fall to its lot. I also point out that the proposal which lies behind—
Viscount Astor: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. The point is not the period of time the Millennium Commission has to spend the money. If the commission has money left over at the end of the year 2000 it can carry on and spend that money. My point is the short period of time in which the commission will receive money from the distribution of the national lottery.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: It comes as news to me that it is contemplated that the commission will remain in existence for a long time to come. I had thought that the whole concept was that it should reach its decisions during its comparatively brief existence before the end of the year 2000. I agree that if the commission embarks on major projects they will not be finished by that time. I commented earlier on the absence of provisions in the Bill which would cover the maintenance of the buildings which it had managed to erect. But that takes us down a different road.
Incidentally, the proposal involves increasing the allocation for arts as well as for the other good causes. I do not propose to divide the Committee again. I wish to read all the speeches that have been made and possibly return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 51A and 52 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 9, line 20, at end insert ("with preference, so far as practicable, to amateur practitioners of the arts").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment is grouped with Amendments No. 55, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and Amendment No. 56. I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will move Amendment No. 55. My Amendments Nos. 53 and 56 are aimed at influencing some of the new money in the direction of participatory activity in sports and the arts in contradistinction to spectator and audience activity.
I remind Members of the Committee of some lines of verse which express what I am trying to urge on the Committee:
"I want to know a butcher paints, A baker rhymes for his pursuit, Candlestick-maker much acquaints His soul with song, or haply mute, Blows out his brains upon the flute".
Members of the Committee will want to know that the butcher's boy plays inside right for his town football team and that the baker's van driver opens the bowling for his village. At one time in our cultural history there was far wider participation in art and sport. One has only to think of music in Pepys's bourgeois circle or to consider what is suggested by the title of the Sheffield Wednesday team. There is also the English water-colour school, one of the glories of English art.
The amendments seek to encourage amateur craft, the amateur orchestra, the amateur dramatic society, the village cricket team, the town football team and so forth. I shall focus on sport. I am afraid that what I am about to say will inevitably sound like the chairman of the school governors at the school's sports prize-giving. Sport and art give entertainment, and rightly so. But that is not primarily why they are subsidised; there are other reasons. If suppose that the primary reason for subsidising sport is the moral qualities it engenders, generally expressed in participatory sport by a word such as "sportsmanship" or the idiom, "It isn't cricket". Undoubtedly the physical advance of the nation is a reason for subsidising sport—again participatory sport. I am glad to see that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is again on the Treasury Bench. He has the enviable gift of acquiring a deep suntan while sitting hours on the Treasury Bench. Ordinary people have to go out into the open air to get theirs, and these amendments are designed to help them to do so.
I should like to add three short points. First, I am not wedded to the drafting of these amendments, although I see no reason why they should not pass muster among the people who must administer the law or, indeed, in a court of construction. Secondly, the amendments are entirely consistent with the amendment which will be moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Indeed, they go very well together. By strengthening and widening the base of the pyramid., the apex, which will be professional, can be raised higher and will be stronger. I doubt whether the noble Lord's amendment is necessary as the Bill stands.

1555
However, if my amendments are carried the case for his amendment will be strengthened and therefore, I hope that he will be encouraged to support them.
The third point is that the amendments are automatically conducive to a wide regional spread in the benefits of the lottery. That was a matter which much occupied Members of the Committee when we last discussed this Bill. I believe that all Members of the Committee were satisfied that as regards England, Scotland and Wales, the noble Viscount's reply was entirely satisfactory. But it certainly did not obviate all the doubts of Members of the Committee as regards the spread throughout the English regions. Focusing on participatory art and sport automatically brings about that regional spread.
Finally, in commending the amendments, I remind the Committee of an advertisement which appeared in the Church Times:
"High Church curate required. Slow left arm bowler preferred".
I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is indeed my duty to speak to Amendment No. 55 which is in the name of my noble friend Lord Donoughue. It is entirely inappropriate that I should do so since I have been successfully avoiding organised sport ever since I was in primary school. The noble and learned Lord has convinced me that his amendment, by giving preference to participatory rather than spectator sports and by giving preference to amateurs rather than professionals, is stronger than my noble friend's amendment and I support the noble and learned Lord's amendment.
Lord Renton: I support the amendment. I do so for a reason which has not yet been mentioned. In various professional sports which attract huge crowds, millions of pounds are paid to the professional players. I am not speaking of individuals, although some individuals build up huge fortunes; for example, in the spheres of tennis and golf. We find that one football club will pay as much as £1 million for the transfer of a player to it from another club. I do not see the point of having in the lottery money contributed by the people to swell those funds for professional sport. It is far more important that amateur sport should be encouraged wherever possible, especially for young people.
Lord Howell: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. While I have a great deal of sympathy for the point that he was making in relation to football, the noble Lord will appreciate that in a large number of professionally based sports, nothing like those kinds of fees are paid or are available to the participants and yet those sports are a very important part in the sporting life of the country.
Lord Renton: I am grateful for that intervention. The noble Lord is quite right. However, the point that I seek to make is that we must be careful to see that clubs, companies and people that already have huge funds to dispose of as a result of professional sport do not have their funds swollen still further. That is the
1556
only point that I make. One way to ensure that would be to see that the emphasis is on amateur sport, especially for young people. Most of our schools have playgrounds but they are not always sufficiently spacious for a football field. I am thinking of the local education authority schools. Most of the privately run schools—public schools—have plenty of good playgrounds.
For example, these days, instead of every village having a school, one large school is built for as many as half a dozen villages. I know from experience of my old constituency that not all those schools have their own playgrounds. The fund which we have in mind could help to rectify that matter.
Baroness O'Cathain: I believe that the point about encouraging amateurs and youngsters to play more sport and to become involved in the arts is covered in the Bill. Clause 21 provides that 83.3 per cent. will be for distribution by the Sports Council. I have worked with the Sports Council in the past and I know that it encourages amateur sport. It encourages it by giving money and equipment to schools to encourage participation by youngsters in sport. I was heartened to see that the point made by my noble and learned friend, and which also struck me, is covered in the Bill. I may have misread the Bill but perhaps the Minister will tell me whether I am right or wrong on that issue.
Lord Gibson: Earlier my noble friend Lady O'Cathain reminded the Committee of the dire need of the professional arts. I should be happy to support the amendment if it were not for the word "preference". Surely we can leave it to the distributing agencies to decide where the greatest need lies. If the sense of the words were—and I know that they would not be suitable for legislation—"not forgetting" the amateurs, I should wholeheartedly support the amendment. However, I believe that the words "to give preference" will tie the hands of the distributing agencies too greatly and the importance of the professional arts in their need for funds will be forgotten.
Lord Swinfen: When my noble friend replies, will he advise the Committee whether the types of club about which my noble friend Lord Renton was speaking would count as businesses and, therefore, not be eligible to receive funds under the Bill?
Lord Redesdale: I support the amendments. One can be both an amateur and a participant and in the case of the sport I play—rugby—one can go for a very long time without ever seeing a spectator. I support the idea behind amateur sports being given money in that way. Many rugby clubs are on greenfield sites which are already at risk from developers. Most amateur clubs in the country, especially rugby clubs, have financial problems.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: These amendments send an important message to both the Sports Council and the Arts Council. The Sports Council point has been well made. I believe that the word "participation" rather than "professional" is the key to this matter. We should not only think of team sports but

1557
we should think also of sports like golf and tennis which people can play virtually throughout their lives. It is important that some of the money should go to help those sports and the people who play them.
The same is true as regards the Arts Council. The Arts Council is keen on a few major organisations on which it showers its largesse. For example, of the £7.89 million which the Scottish Arts Council disbursed to music associations last year, almost £7 million went to three large professional organisations. That meant that there was very little left to go to all the other amateur and professional musical organisations scattered throughout the length and breadth of Scotland. Therefore, this amendment gives us an opportunity to say to those two bodies that they should cast their largesse as wide as possible.
Lord Lucas: I too agree with these amendments and with what my noble friend has just said. Certainly my personal experience of trying to get money out of the Arts Council for an amateur organisation is that I would rather have applied to the Treasury.
The importance of the amateur culture which underpins both sports and the arts in the country cannot be underestimated. It receives very little support at the moment and this lottery, being a national and public subscription, would seem to be an entirely appropriate way of getting money to it.
Baroness O'Cathain: I should like to make one point about the Arts Council. I think, again, that there is probably some misunderstanding about what the council actually does. The Arts Council is very specific in awarding its grants, especially to the national companies—for example, the National Theatre, the Royal Shakespeare Company and the Royal Opera House—that part of the funding it gives should be spent on what it calls "education". The criteria are quite strong. Such organisations must try to visit schools and get them to participate in play readings, in the case of the Royal Shakespeare Company, in role taking, and so on. I believe that much such activity is undertaken by the Arts Council. I would not want Members of the Committee to think that the council only makes big gestures in putting on marvellous operas, or the plays of the Royal Shakespeare Company, for the fat cats of industry.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Annan: I have great sympathy with the point made by my noble kinsman. I had some experience of the subject when I sat on the arts committee of the Gulbenkian Foundation which tried to distribute money to amateurs as well as to professional companies in its early days. It has gone rather further in that direction in recent years. That is why one must not blame the Arts Council for supporting mainly professional bodies and for promoting high standards in art. It is reasonable to leave it to other funding bodies to help amateur productions. I bow to the view of my noble friend Lord Gibson. Perhaps the matter is already covered in the Bill. Will the noble Viscount reply to that point?
Lord Mancroft: I had not originally intended to speak on the amendment. However, having listened to the debate and the noble and learned Lord who moved the amendment, I must say that I agree with the sentiments behind it. It must be better that the funds are distributed to amateurs or participants, whichever way you like to put it.
However, I have two reservations. First, there is the actual wording of the noble and learned Lord's amendment. And, secondly, I wonder whether it is actually necessary to write such a provision on the face of the Bill. I believe that the feeling of the Committee is clear: we would think it better that the funds should not be used to support professionalism in sport but that they should be used to support amateur participation in sport and in the arts.
I do not know quite what trumpet I am blowing. But there is one sport which possibly has not crossed the minds of many Members of the Committee. It is the ultimate community sport in the country, open to people of all ages, from small children to pensioners, to compete on an equal footing. It is marvellous in that it is, and always has been, a complete sport where the sexes can compete equally. I refer, of course, to our greatest national sport; foxhunting.
Viscount Astor: I understand the concern expressed by Members of the Committee not to exclude any category of sport, whether amateur or professional. from the possibility of benefiting from the national lottery. The sports councils will be free to consider applications from either type of organisation on merit. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said that the charters of the sports councils already ensure that both amateur and professional sporting bodies may receive grants. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Restating that in the National Lottery etc. Bill is not necessary, nor would it have any particular new force. I hope, with that reassurance, that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will withdraw the amendment that he moved on behalf of his noble friend Lord Donoughue.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is keen for preference to be set in statute for the amateur artist. He has tabled an amendment to achieve that aim. I agree that the amateur artist has long been cherished in our country. Both the amateur and professional sectors of our artistic culture contribute enormously to everyone's quality of life.
However, the distinction between the professional artist and the amateur is not fixed, nor is it always clear. We can all judge that someone who, for example, makes a living from theatre direction is a professional practitioner of the theatrical art. But, in many other areas, artists who do not make a living from their artistic endeavour do sometimes make some money from them. Someone with fine art or dramatic training may live by plying a very different trade but is in no way disbarred from occasionally accepting money for acting, singing, painting or perhaps even giving an after-dinner speech. I am afraid that a statutory requirement such as that proposed by the noble and learned Lord might only mean legal wrangling which would distract the Arts Council from distributing lottery money where it would do most to help us all enjoy life a little more.

1559
The noble and learned Lord is also concerned that participatory sports should benefit to a greater extent than those which are considered spectator sports. I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that those who receive the most benefit from sport are often those who play rather than merely watch. But many of us are purely spectators for a number of reasons. Some sports have very high fitness or skill requirements. Indeed, some of us including myself—and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as he said—cannot quite hope to meet such high standards; in fact, we may not wish to do so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Viscount must not assume that my lack of participation is because I cannot meet the standards; it is because I do not want to participate.
Viscount Astor: I accept what the noble Lord says. It may indeed be the case that he does not wish to participate. However, if the noble Lord had put his mind to it, I am sure that he could have been a great sporting champion in Haringey. Every sport is, by its nature, participatory for those who play it. Whether or not it is also a spectator sport will depend on its popularity and intrinsic interest. I hope therefore that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, will accept that a definitive boundary of the sort he proposes would be neither possible nor desirable.
My noble friend Lord Renton was concerned that funds should not go to professional organisations. The aim of the national lottery is to provide funds for the public benefit rather than private profit. We are absolutely clear on that aim. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, pointed out, there are some professional organisations which do not make a profit and which, because they provide a service for public benefit, should perhaps be eligible to receive funds.
The sports councils and the Arts Council have great experience. That is why we chose them to distribute lottery money. I believe that we must rely on their good judgment to ensure that funds are applied across the country in the way that benefits most people. I am sure that they will look closely at what has been said in the Chamber today.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, talked about suntans and my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I have to tell the noble and learned Lord that I do not think that sunbathing will ever be considered either as sport or as art; but, of course, it is certainly a pleasure. Finally, I suggest that the amendments are unnecessary. I hope, with the assurances that I have given, that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The amendments were probing amendments. I was particularly anxious to hear the views of both noble Lords who have been so distinguished in ordering the funding in relation to the arts. I am extremely grateful to my noble friends Lord Annan and Lord Gibson. I am only sorry that my noble friend Lord Charteris was not galvanised into making a speech. However, we had the benefit of his advice at the conclusion of the first day of Committee.
1560
I was also glad that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, managed to get the noble Lord, Lord Howell, to his feet. Of course, the latter noble Lord has been a distinguished participant in sport.
The debate has sent out a clear message; it has served a useful purpose. I wish to read what has been said and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 54 to 58 not moved.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 9, leave out line 25.
The noble Lord said: This amendment is a simple one. It would require a good deal of embellishment if it were to be carried into all parts of the Bill. It is, however, a peg upon which I wish to hang, for a few moments, my worries about the position of charities in this Bill.
At this hour in London Mr. Tony Blair, the principal spokesman on home affairs for the Opposition in another place, is delivering the Goodman lecture for 1993. I hope he will outline, from a Labour point of view, the role of charities in a post-Beveridge, post-Socialist and post-Thatcher epoch. The world is so changeable now in so many ways, socially and economically, that it is not easy for established organisations to find their way, especially when many of their purposes have been attained by other means. However, I speak for no one but myself. I form my own judgment from many contacts among charities and elsewhere.
The charities are the only one of the four main areas of distribution of the lottery who stand to lose from it. The charities have a lot to lose. For one thing, at the present time they are in receipt of state aid to a far greater extent than the other bodies this Bill seeks to help. I believe that charities now receive more than £6 billion a year in tax reliefs alone. It is the growth of charities and charity-giving, and the extension of the concessions which have been given over the years, which have led to this enormous drain on revenue in the present circumstances.
Corporate bodies are included in tax reliefs on charities. That used not to be the case. Concessions are now much more freely available to private charitable giving at a lower level than they used to be. What will happen when the charities are brought within the scope of this Bill? I do not know whether they have come into the scope of this Bill voluntarily or whether they have even been asked about it. Perhaps they have been press-ganged into it to give a varnish of respectability to the whole gambling enterprise. However, if they have been press-ganged into this Bill to make it more respectable from a moral point of view, their position should be reconsidered. One might also consider retaining the second of the charitable purposes described in Clause 41; that is, the non-registered charitable and philanthropic works and purposes, rather than concentrating on registered charities. However, I realise the distinction is difficult to make.
How will charities stand as regards this measure? What will their supporters want to happen? I believe some societies with subscribers and members will have to obtain a definition of their position under the Bill. I believe that in some charities those who are supplying the money and the influence in voluntary work and other areas will want to know where their charity will stand as regards the receipt of money from the national lottery. I believe this will be a tiresome process in certain cases.
We know how divisions can easily arise between traditional supporters and possibly the voting members of charities when moral issues arise. We should look, for example, at the National Trust and the moral issue of hunting. The membership of that body was extended from hundreds of thousands of members to several millions so that those who were not registered subscribers of the National Trust could enter that organisation to register their vote. The National Trust is only just emerging from a serious constitutional rift.
I hope the Minister can tell me what consultation has taken place between the Government and charities on matters relating to their position under this Bill. Has any assurance been given that a future Chancellor of the Exchequer will not regard benefits to charities under this Bill as a justification for reducing charitable concessions for tax purposes to the charitable world?
The Committee may remember that a few years ago Chancellor Lawson introduced into the Finance Bill a clause to restrict tax concessions to charities in the year of assessment to the amount spent on charitable work. That created such a rumpus among the charities and the Charities Aid Foundation, and other bodies, that he had to abandon the idea. Yet there is no doubt that some charities are receiving enormous benefit from investment income which is free of tax and which is being accumulated for capital purposes. I do not blame charities who have carried out their work for many years and who have substantial obligations to staff and officials for benefiting from concessions. They may have workers in the field. The RSPCA, for example, has a payroll of staff in the field of over 1,000 people. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children also has an inspectorate. Therefore, one can understand that charities want to take the same precautions as anyone else who has responsibility for the security of employment and the life work of their staffs.
However, when one sees the capital appreciation that charities are realising at the present time, one is aware they are building up large funds. All of that money is tax free. Charities are in the same privileged position as the occupational pension schemes where tax relief is given on contributions and on interest on investments. Those schemes have similarly built up enormous capital reserves. Their reserves are so big that Maxwell laid his hands on some of them. This is an aspect of the whole matter of charities and taxation that is bound to come under review.
Those in the charitable field receive huge reliefs from taxation. We should also bear in mind local taxation and VAT The Inland Revenue alone paid out to charities £544 million in tax last year. That is
1562
big money. The question arises as to whether charities would be better off working through the regime which is so fully established and from which they receive substantial benefit. Some charities may decide to announce that as a matter of policy they do not desire to receive any money from a national lottery. The fact that the lottery is a gambling exercise will have some influence on that decision.
Personally, I object to the whole Bill, including its slovenly Title. It is entitled the National. Lottery etc. Bill. Is that what we have come to now in drafting Bills? Why not put "etc. etc." and cover everything? I would be more lenient towards the Bill if it had the title which I would give it—"The National Voluntary Levy (with Prizes) Bill". That would separate it from the moral issues. It would avoid much of what will be used against the Bill by those whose prejudices, like mine, go back a long way.
This is not the message to be giving to the people today. It will be still less the message to give to the people by the time it comes to be put into operation. If we are to get through the next winter after the November Budget in any political or economic shape it will be a miracle. I believe that the nation does. not realise how grave the position is with respect to our future. The debate on Maastricht is an indication of how bottled up we are about everything.
The only positive answer that I want from the Minister is that he will make sure that any shortcomings in consultations with the charities are repaired between now and later stages of the Bill. I know the difficulties in obtaining opinions from charities about anything. Many of them do not look. much further than the work which they have seen needs to be done, in which they are engaged and for which they receive support.. I do not blame them. If I were responsible for policy in the RSPCA I would be thinking of cruelty the whole time. I would want to be where there was cruelty. I would not expand the horizons of the charitable world. I would get more money to stop the cruelty. That is what a large number of people are doing in their respective fields of charitable endeavour.
I hope that the charities will be allowed to consider their special interests, which do not apply to the other areas covered by the Bill. They should not be put at a disadvantage. For them, charitable giving is traditional, well established and in many cases profitable. They do their work on the basis of voluntary subscriptions or legacies. The dead finance a great deal of our charitable work today. The interests of those who give to charities have to be safeguarded by those who are carrying on the work, probably in reduced circumstances today.
I plead for the charities to be taken fully into account and for consideration to be given to what can be done to safeguard them and remove their present worries. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We all know and respect the involvement of my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby in these matters. However, having heard what was said from this Bench at Second

1563
Reading, he will not be surprised that we do not agree with him. We certainly do not agree with the amendment.
My noble friend is asking, I am sure rightly, that there should continue to be consultation with the charities about the effects of the Bill. There has been consultation, notably with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which does not exactly represent the charities but includes in its membership a large number of charities. Contrary to my noble friend's suggestion, its anxiety is not that many charities will resist the idea of receiving money from a national lottery. It is worried that charities will be net losers as a result of the existence of a national lottery. In other words, the amount which they receive from a national lottery may be less than they lose in other ways.
It so happens that the Minister has been good enough to write to me and to other noble Lords about this issue and the assurances which we sought that there would be proper continuing inquiry into the net effect of the Bill on charity income. I am grateful to the Minister. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, is also grateful to the noble Viscount for what he said. It may be that the amendment gives him an opportunity to say from the Government Dispatch Box what he said to us in his letter of today's date. In that case the amendment will have served a particularly useful purpose.
Lord Swinfen: The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has raised an interesting point. The major worry of charities is that they will lose income because people will buy lottery tickets under the misapprehension that the major proportion of what they spend on the ticket will go to charities. We have been given an assurance that advertising and promotion of the lottery will not be allowed to be carried out in such a way that any reasonable person will continue to be under that misapprehension.
However, there are still worries for charities. They are afraid that they will lose because people will spend money on the national lottery that they might otherwise have given to charity. There is also the moral question as to whether it would be right and proper to accept money from a lottery. Some charities today do not accept money which they would consider to be tainted with gambling in any form. Those will probably not apply for funds under the Bill.
The noble Lord also raised the question of additionality and the possibility that funds given to charities as a result of the national lottery might be used to offset funds which they receive today from government or local authorities. On other occasions, and in relation to other subjects, we have been given assurances that that will not be the case and that the situation will be monitored. However, I should be grateful if my noble friend could reassure the Committee on that point when he responds to the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, devoted a great deal of his speech to the question of tax reclaimed by charities. A thought occurred to me while he was speaking. I am not a tax expert or a lawyer so I do not
1564
know the answer, and the thought may be mischievous. But will a charity which is given a grant from this source possibly be able to claim back the tax which the lottery promoters have paid on it? That is an intriguing thought. If that is not the intention of the Government, perhaps they should take a look at the Bill and make certain that some form of money clause is inserted.
Lord Birkett: The spectre of charities losing out as a result of the lottery persists in this Chamber. The Committee may be interested to know that I read today that the Institute of Charity Fundraising Managers revealed in a survey that only one in five of its conference delegates believed that the national lottery would have a significant effect upon their fund-raising efforts. That is very interesting.
In relation to the arts and sport, which are the main or original beneficiaries of the lottery, it is worth reflecting on where charity giving goes. The figures are for 1991, which is the latest year for which complete statistics are available. The amounts received under a list of nine general headings are: medicine and health, £476 million; general welfare, £350 million; international aid, £323 million; animal protection, £108 million; heritage and the environment, £85 million; religious missionary work, £75 million; youth, £15.5 million; arts and recreation, £15 million; and education, £2 million. Therefore, arts and recreation, the two other main beneficiaries, are second from the bottom of the list at £15 million compared with £476 million for medicine. I believe that the 20 per cent. already going to charities is a damage limitation that will be more than enough. I cite those figures to the Committee because I pray that the effect upon charities will be very much less than has been feared.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may begin by answering a number of the questions asked. My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked me about lottery money being additional. We had a fairly long debate on that at an earlier stage, when I gave assurances.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asked about consultation. Between the publication of the White Paper in March 1992 and the publication of the Bill, and subsequently, Ministers and officials have had many discussions with charities, including the NCVO, and with grant-making organisations.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen also asked whether charities could get the tax back. The simple answer is no. It is a duty collected by Customs and Excise. It would not be possible, therefore, for charities to reclaim it.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the letter that I wrote to Members of the Committee who spoke on charity issues earlier. I am happy to confirm the assurances I gave in that letter, for the benefit of all Members of the Committee.
During the earlier debate in Committee on amendments concerning the possible effect of the national lottery on charitable income and on the level of the horse-race betting levy, I promised to consider further what should be done in terms of an undertaking to report on those matters. While we do not accept that a statutory requirement to report is an

1565
appropriate or practical way forward, I have considered further what undertakings I can give in those areas. I am happy to give the undertaking that once the national lottery is established the Government will regularly monitor the situation in the area of charitable incomes and the level of the horse-race betting levy. We shall do that in the light of all the information available and in co-operation with all the interested parties. We shall also place a report containing any relevant information each year in the Libraries of both Houses and consider carefully any conclusions that might be drawn.
I hope that that assurance will put at rest the minds of a number of Members of the Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, does not like the Bill. He does not like the idea of a national lottery. He even voices disquiet over the distribution of lottery money to charities. I believe that the noble Lord is in a small minority in this Chamber. There are many charities and voluntary groups with a different outlook on this initiative. They are keen to apply for funds from the lottery. The Government cannot accept an amendment that would rule them out. Those charities which do not wish to receive money from the lottery will choose not to apply—indeed, they do not have to apply—just as some charities choose not to accept money from certain sources on other grounds; perhaps because the activities of a would-be donor do not seem compatible with the stated aims or principles of the group.
Many charities will wish to apply. In their interests we should not decide for them on what some of us may think is a good idea. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Howell: I welcome the assurances that the noble Viscount has given following pressure from both sides of the Chamber continually to monitor the situation and provide information. I thank him for the assurance.
However, there was one omission in what he said. He did not include the Pool Promoters Association. He referred to the Horserace Betting Levy Board and other organisations. I hope that he will give similar information about the pools promoters. The real competition to the national lottery arises from the pools. In practice, we shall have two national lotteries running side by side. They must be equal in all respects. The pools promoters believe that the lottery will affect the pools. I do not share that view but it is important that we know the facts over a period of time so that if necessary we can return to the subject. Public information is vital. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will undertake to provide information to the Committee about the pools promoters' national lottery, and the effect of the national lottery upon the pools.
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord asks a valid question. It might be better dealt with when we discuss the amendments which concern the pools and, for example, roll-over, later on today.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I have expressed my worries. Other people can read them; and other people can then say what they wish to say to the appropriate quarter.
However, I wish to express with regret my lack of confidence in the Government's judgement on such matters. They have made such colossal errors in the past 15 years on various important matters that one wonders whether their judgment is really sound.
Who asked for the national lottery? It. was not the charities. I believe that commercial pressures and a belief of a change in public opinion has led the Government to decide that they will further a lottery. They have then sought to put forward purposes that are given as the objects of the lottery in order to enlist the support of the public. I believe that there is humbug in the situation too. I am obliged to Members of the Committee, and to the Minister for his reply. Time will tell. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 60 to 61 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Viscount St. Davids: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Committee stage on the Bill begin again at 7.55 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

European Parliamentary Elections Bill
7.7 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Sexual Offences Bill
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, that the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Lucas.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People Bill
7.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill concerns the security of certain members of the armed forces, members of the Ulster Defence Regiment as part of the reserve and auxiliary forces, registered as civilian voters. The merger cif the UDR with the Royal Irish Rangers to form the Royal Irish Regiment resulted in the home service component of the new regiment becoming part of the regular Army.

1567
The Representation of the People Act 1983 confers on members of the regular forces a service qualification. Consequently, those who now enlist as full-time home service personnel may register only as service voters; it is illegal for them to register as civilian electors.
The position of part-time members of home service battalions is, on the other hand, arguable. Their liability for call-out could be considered in law to render them part of the reserve and auxiliary forces and, hence, exempt from the provisions for service voting. All personnel serving out their existing UDR engagements are not affected and can continue to register as civilians.
Under the electoral system in Northern Ireland, canvassers who are not security vetted distribute and collect registration forms from households. Home service personnel who had enlisted since the merger would have to tell these canvassers they were no longer eligible to be registered on the standard civilian forms. Our concern is that this, coupled with the appearance of their names on the completed register, could lead to their identification as home service personnel.
I do not wish to cast doubt—far from it—on the integrity of canvassers, who do a difficult job well. The element of risk may indeed be small, but I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is prudent to remove it, particularly since I would remind noble Lords that from 1970 to June 1993 no fewer than 202 Ulster Defence Regiment and Royal Irish (home service) personnel have been killed and 457 wounded or injured. After study, we have concluded that this is best done by amending the Representation of the People Act 1983.
A secondary consideration is that the service voter arrangements are meant to assist service personnel serving overseas. Home service personnel serve only in Northern Ireland—except for some limited periods for training.
The purpose of the Bill is to amend the definition of who constitutes a member of the armed forces in Section 59(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983. By excluding home service personnel from the definition, they will be able to continue to register as civilian voters. The reference to a member of the regular Army in the Bill means that both officers and soldiers are included. Also, the amendment extends to both full and part-time home service personnel, thus removing any doubt about the position in law of the part-timers of whom I spoke a moment ago.
As the annual registration round in Northern Ireland begins in August, we seek commencement on Royal Assent. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
Lord Howell: My Lords, first I thank the noble Viscount for the full explanation that he has given to us about the purpose and details of the Bill. Perhaps I may say on behalf of my noble friends on this side of the House that it has a warm welcome and a fair wind.
I wish to take the opportunity of endorsing what the noble Viscount said about the great courage of our
1568
forces in Northern Ireland and to say how much we all owe them for the fact that so many have been murdered and seriously injured in the past 25 years. We know that they will continue, despite all provocation, to maintain those high standards.
There are two points to make arising from the sorry state of affairs which makes the Bill necessary. They are essential matters in the cause of democracy in our country. First, it is absolutely essential that soldiers who volunteer their lives on our behalf should at all times be protected by the electoral process. As I understand it, that is the main purpose of the Bill.
The second point is that it is absolutely vital that their right to vote is protected in a free society. Since the Bill seeks to achieve both those objectives, I have much pleasure in giving to it the support of these Benches.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm one point for me? I listened with care to his explanation. I hope that the changes which he proposes will not give rise to someone doing what I, as an accountant, might do; that is, to note that there is a change in the register. Will my noble friend confirm that the changes he proposes will not give any information, even by deduction, through comparing last year's or any previous registration roll with the current one? I believe that in the background notes that will have been taken care of, but perhaps my noble friend will confirm that.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for his welcome for the Bill. His party's enthusiastic support for it has been greatly appreciated by Her Majesty's Government in another place, and of course here. I am equally grateful to him for taking the opportunity to pay tribute to the performance of our troops in Northern Ireland, which is a rather less glamorous theatre than perhaps some of the other theatres to which our troops find themselves committed. The tribute is all the more welcome for that.
The noble Lord made two extremely pertinent and valuable points. Of course, he is right. Soldiers should be protected in the way in which he suggested, and that is the main purpose of the legislation. I also confirm to the noble Lord, as I am sure he knows full well, that all three services go to enormous lengths to point out to servicemen and women that it is their right to vote. Every effort is made to make sure that that right is made as easy as possible, considering the difficult circumstances in which they find themselves. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to confirm that.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Lyell asked me an equally important and pertinent question arising, no doubt, from his considerable experience of Northern Ireland. I can confirm to him that there will be no change to information already available on the electoral roll as a result of the Bill. The aim of the Bill is to ensure that the status quo continues.
Once again, I thank noble Lords for their support for the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 1st July), Bill read a third time, and passed.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until seven fifty
five.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.18 to 7.55 p.m.]

National Lottery etc. Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 21 [The distributing bodies]:
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 9, line 32, after ("Britain") insert:
("( ) as to 15 per cent. for distribution by a sub-committee of the Arts Council of Great Britain, for expenditure on or connected with film,").
The noble Baroness said: The aim of this amendment is to ensure that the film industry is adequately funded and that the funds are distributed by a body with a knowledge of the industry which can concentrate on film and video issues and ensure a more efficient distribution of resources. It would be able to target projects and maintain a stricter control on spending, as well as providing a coherent national strategy for films.
At present the Arts Council remit on films is very narrow. It is mainly concerned with, and its funds are used for, avant-garde films and documentaries on artists. Looking to the future with the lottery, the Minister during the Report stage in another place said:
"Under clause 24, we will direct the Arts Council to take into account the need to fund film".—Official Report, Commons, 28/4/93; col. 1068.]
But he expected that only a single member of the Arts Council lottery committee would have had experience in the film industry. That is not good enough.
It is not hard, I agree, to make a case for special treatment for all the art forms. But it is true that nevertheless film is a special case and deserves to be given direct access to the lottery funds.
Why is film a special case? Each year over 90 per cent. of adults in the UK watch films at home or in the cinema, and that does not include the many children who get enormous pleasure from films and videos. It is the most popular and accessible art form of the late 20th century. Its popularity and breadth of appeal should be taken into account when funds for the national lottery are being considered.
Film and television are the principal means of articulating the culture of a country. In the United States the film industry is recognised as an important factor in the knock-on effect on the manufacturing and service industries and makes a positive impact on employment. Yet only 59 British films were shot last year and the industry is suffering from a serious slump in investment. In 1986, capital allowances for the industry were withdrawn; and during the fever of deregulation the Eady levy was dropped in 1985. That
1570
was a clever system which linked box office success to the future funding of home production. Alas, we do not have it any more.
Despite recent talks and protestations, the Government do not support the industry to the extent that other European governments and the United States Government do their industries. If the present state of affairs continues, the expertise and experience still existent in this country will be lost for ever.
The film industry is fundamentally different from other recipients of Arts Council money. It operates in a commercial environment quite different from the general ethos of the Arts Council. The Arts Council will naturally tend to follow its previous remit and specialise in areas where it has more relevant experience or where its funding has been cut. Funding for films, even if comprehensively addressed, will lag behind.
There will shortly be separate arts councils for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That may be suitable for other art forms but the film industry badly needs a national strategy, both for production and distribution. Lottery Funds could provide much-needed capital for new regional independent cinemas; it would be extremely constructive in that sphere. It would extend the range and quality of films being shown and allow more people access to British films. Other possible projects would be the updating and cataloguing of British film archives where films are stored and are sadly disintegrating. It could also support the Children's Film Foundation, which makes entertaining and educational films for children. That also badly needs much greater support. In the national lottery we have a great opportunity to resuscitate what was once a flourishing industry. I hope that it will not be thrown away. I ask the Minister to smile kindly on the amendment. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I rise briefly to support both amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. Perhaps I may say how pleasing it is to see her in her place, speaking with her usual eloquence for a cause to which she has devoted so much energy over the years.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: In this country film has a particular place in the arts which the Government would be wise to recognise in some way in the Bill and in the distribution of the proceeds of the national lottery. I do not refer simply to the contribution film makes potentially to the economy and the balance of payments or to the arts as a whole. Given British pre-eminence in the cinema we would be wise to build on the work of some of our brilliant actors and actresses and our fine producers and directors who make Britain one of the centres of excellence in the sphere of the arts. I refer also to the contribution that film makes to young people's understanding of the arts. In saying that I do not mean simply as people who go to the cinema, but also as participants in film making.

1571
I have recently been involved, as trustee of the Citizenship Foundation, in a competition in which schools were invited to make films. The number of schools participating and the quality of films reveal a flourishing artistic involvement, probably as much as in the graphic arts and music. I hope that the Government will recognise, given our sad record as a nation with our indigenous film industry, that it is worth special consideration. Whether or not the exact wording of the amendments is correct I cannot say. But I hope that the noble Viscount, in responding, will be able in some way to concede the point.
Baroness Mallalieu: I too rise to support the noble Baroness and to express gratitude for the amendment which gives the Committee an opportunity of considering the position of the industry and the ways in which the Bill may afford some relief.
The importance of the industry, its particularly serious position today, and the desperate need for investment in it, are all clear. I hope that the Government will express their view on the importance and the future of the industry and some view of the essential need for further investment —perhaps, at any rate in part, from this lottery. It is clear that there is need for a national strategy in relation to the film industry.
It may be that the wording of the second amendment in the names of my noble friends Lord Donoughue and Lady Birk is to be preferred. We look to the Government for a clear expression that the Bill will provide some means whereby funds can be devoted to the specific needs of the industry before it declines irreparably.
Baroness Wharton: I too support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. As the Committee is aware, the British industry has lost all its tax incentives and many other incentives over the years with the result that raising finance in this country is extremely difficult, given the considerable size of even a modest film budget.
As ours is a shrinking industry through lack of funds, the amendment would provide a helpful way of injecting British money into British films and ensuring that receipts remain firmly in this country. Perhaps the noble Viscount can confirm that the Government consider film and art as eligible for support from the fund.
Lord Birkett: I too support the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in her plea for the film industry. I have a raft of interests to declare. I have been a film maker for most of my working life. What is more, I am chairman of the Children's Film Foundation—the Children's Television and Film Foundation as it now is. That does not receive any funds from anybody. It lives more or less on the fat in its wool like a Herdwick sheep. Yet what it does is so important that it deserves funds from somewhere. It provides the first seed money—the most difficult money of all to raise—which is used to write the script, do the location recce and put the package together so that we can approach the financiers.
1572
Alas, we do not have enough money to finance films fully, but we can at least provide the seedcorn money that enables story films for children to get off the ground. I say "story films" because those are almost the only thing that nobody makes nowadays. People make serials, swap shops and every known form of programme but rarely tell ordinary stories for one-and-a-half hours like other films.
I would therefore love it if the lottery could provide funds for my children's film foundation and, indeed, for young people in all directions, and for the film industry which has been shamefully underfunded for as long as I have been working in it. Whether or not we can say, "And 15 per cent. to films please", I somehow doubt. I fancy that as soon as one put that in the Bill, all the other art forms would say, "And 15 per cent. for me". By the time they had finished, that would add up to 225 per cent.
I doubt that the specific amendment moved by the noble Baroness is tenable in the Bill. I hope, however, that the Government and those finally deputed to distribute the funds will remember the film industry. It is about the most deserving and underfunded cause I can think of.
Lord Dormand of Easington: As we know, the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, who has just spoken, is an expert on films and has devoted a great deal of his time to the making of them. We all appreciate what he has done. I mention that for two reasons. First, his contribution is extremely valuable to our debate. Secondly, in complete contrast, I am a film buff, a man in the street who, since being a child, has enjoyed seeing films. That gives rise to my interest in this specific debate and this amendment.
I strongly support the amendment for two basic reasons. First, this country has some of the world's best film makers. Secondly, as I am sure most Members of the Committee are aware, the film industry is in a disastrous condition. It is a terrible state of affairs that almost all of our best directors have had to go to America, to Hollywood in particular, to be involved in film making. I find it impossible to understand why financiers in this country are not prepared to invest in film production in Britain.
The situation has given rise to some unfortunate events, to put it mildly. I shall give some examples. When the old Associated British Picture Corporation studios were sold to Cannon, Cannon sold off the film archives to an American company. Those archives are the treasure of our nation's history. Members of the Committee will have seen many of them on television from time to time. Elstree Studios were sold off by Cannon with the result that their film archives are being transferred elsewhere. The British Film Institute, which plays a major role in the film industry in this country, wanted to buy those archives but it did not have sufficient money. As a result, precious millions of feet—literally millions of feet—of film may well be lost and with it a vital part of our heritage. Those archives were sold to a French company. If ever there was a case for public money to be used, that was it.

1573
Then there are our feature films—many of them, by any standards, among the best movies ever made. The allocation of lottery money to the British Film Institute to preserve and keep them in this country is essential if we are to put any value on them. They must surely be part of our most precious heritage. It is some time ago since attention was drawn to the fact that until the mid-1950s film was developed in cellulose nitrate stock. After some time it simply disintegrates. It can be transferred to cellulose acetate stock which does not degenerate, but it is a very costly process. The BFI's existing grant cannot be used—it is not permissible—for that purpose. An allocation of funds from the lottery would be a godsend. It would secure that stock permanently.
Many individuals and organisations interested in film production, including the British Screen Advisory Council, strongly believe that in the establishing of a body which could be called—I suggest this as a name which has been used on more than one occasio—a National Film Corporation. It could focus on film production and bring together the essential requirements for such work. Here again provision could be made by money from the national lottery. If that does not occur, it is difficult to see how such an important—indeed essential—body could get off the ground.
According to Screen Finance, which is published by the Financial Times. on 24th March this year there were just four films involving British production companies envisaged for the first three months of this year. Things could hardly be worse than that. I am sure that Members of the Committee remember the golden era of British film production when literally hundreds of films were produced in this country every year. It is particularly disappointing in that cinema admissions are now increasing. The low of 53 million admissions in 1984 to the 100 million in 1992 must surely give rise to some optimism. If the entrepreneurs wit h some help from the Government—perhaps in the form of taxation policy and lottery money—cannot take advantage of the prospect, we are indeed in a sorry state.
I am aware of the Government's philosophy of standing on your own two feet but there are some features of our national character, history and culture which should legitimately be helped by the state—by the state I mean by society as a whole. Do the Government not accept that what is happening in Australia and France in particular, although other countries are taking the same kind of action, with film making is a perfect example of the view that I have just expressed? Perhaps the Minister will comment on this when he replies.
I conclude by asking the fundamental question in this matter. Do the Government think that films are part of our heritage, our culture, our way of life and that in the films we can make and have made in this country is an essentially British aspect? Our history and record of film making gives a resounding yes to that question. The national lottery funds provide a timely opportunity not only to save but to develop talent which is second to none. I hope that the Government will grasp it with both hands. The important point of this amendment is that there
1574
should be a sub-committee with special responsibility for film. If present proposals are maintained, there will be little doubt that the industry will continue to be treated as the poor relation. It is a sorry position to many of us that the so-called "high" arts enjoy a privileged position. The time has arrived for that to be changed. I hope that the Government will now recognise the very strong case being made for film inside the House, inside another place and indeed outside Parliament.
8.15 p.m.
Viscount Astor: I can assure the Committee that the Government are well aware of the importance of the film industry, which receives our support in a number of ways. For example, the Government provide £5 million of public money for film production and put some £15 million into the British Film Institute for its excellent work. An important new recent development is the series of seminars which the Secretary of State has initiated with those involved in the film industry to work out answers to some of the difficult challenges which face the film world.
In the Bill we have chosen to use one body—the Arts Council—to distribute lottery money for the arts. We are quite clear that the arts include film and, for example, crafts. We decided that it would not be practicable to use specific film bodies for distribution in this area simply because if we did so for film in the arts sector there would he no reason why we should not multiply the number of distribution bodies in other sectors, too. We deliberately chose the National Heritage Memorial Fund as a distributor rather than several bodies dealing with the different aspects of our heritage, such as the countryside or important historical buildings. If we did so, we could open the flood gates to claims for specific areas to have their own body. That would lead to an increased bureaucracy, each with its own penny packet of lottery funds to dole out. The distributors would not be able to take a strategic view. That is not what the Bill is about. An important principle of the Bill is that the distributing bodies do not receive lottery funds themselves for their own use.
What we are proposing is that through Clause 24 we shall direct the Arts Council to take into account the need to fund film applications. We will also generally direct the Arts Council and other distribution bodies that where they do not have specific expertise in a particular area they should take account of the need to seek it from a relevant expert body unless of course that expert body is the one applying for funding. In considering applications for lottery funding, the Arts Council is proposing to use a special lottery committee which will have on it at least one member with expertise on film. I understand that the committee might be supported by a special advisory committee dealing purely with film applications. It will call on the advice of other expert bodies such as the British Film Institute to help it make its decisions. We are convinced that this offers a very flexible framework within which film stands to benefit a great deal from lottery proceeds.

1575
I fully accept the spirit behind Amendments Nos. 63 and 71 to Clause 23 but I should like to assure your Lordships that they are unnecessary. It is clear from the wording of the Arts Council charter that the council can fund film. In its annual report on how it has distributed the lottery proceeds the Arts Council has to publish the directions and demonstrate achievement against those directions. If film is not being given a fair crack of the whip, it will be quite clear. On a practical level it is now up to the Arts Council and the interested bodies to work together to find the best way to distribute the film element.
I hope that I have made it clear to the Committee that we understand the problems of the film industry. I have described the distribution mechanism that will deliver to film a fair share of the lottery proceeds. I hope that with that assurance the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Birk: I thank all those—colleagues and others—who have supported the amendment. All of them in different ways have some expertise in the film industry. I was not quite as happy about the Minister's reply, which I found very disappointing. I spent several years as a governor of the British Film Institute. There is no doubt that every which way was used in order to economise and in order to make the small amount of money go to the best use.
With the ending of the Eady levy and the change in taxation, it was quite impossible for the film industry, without more positive help, to get anywhere. Although I would not stick completely to the figure of 15 per cent., I believe that films are in a different category from, say, music, the arts and the theatre with which the Arts Council is used to dealing.
In order to get films back to nearly where they once were it is important that they should have, if you like, some positive discrimination with a lead which will enable the industry to return not only to where it was, but to Improve. We lose such a great deal. As the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and others pointed out, it is not only a question of economics but also of culture and art. The industry is very important for the country.
The more we lag behind, the less possible becomes success. There is a great deal to get through at this time of night. I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I reserve the right to return with it or something different at Report stage. In the interim I hope that the Minister will think about it and perhaps discuss the matter with his colleagues in order to see whether there is some way in which films can be given more positive help—even though I know that the Minister was doing his best—than he was able to offer me.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Before calling Amendment No. 64, I should inform the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 65.
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 65:
1576
Page 10, line I I, after ("millennium") insert (", which shall be allocated in equal part to projects connected with the arts, sport, the national heritage and charitable purposes,").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to provide that the Millennium Fund is spent equally on the arts or heritage charities otherwise there is a danger that too great a proportion of lottery funds will be spent on large, high prestige projects and the funding will not reach charities or other local community initiatives.
During Report stage in another place Mr. Key (who was then the Minister) made a statement which he had already made at Committee stage. He said that the Millennium Fund would be spent on a few large-scale projects and a large number of smaller community projects. That might seem like ample reassurance as to the way in which the Millennium Commission resources will be spent. However, he also suggested that that commission would be a slim, fit body and not over-burdened with bureaucracy.
In my view those statements are incompatible. How is the Millennium Commission to make good funding decisions across the range of community activity if it is to have very few staff? I have heard it said that civil servants are suggesting that the commission could be serviced by only four staff.
Amendment No. 65 and Amendment No. 66 which is grouped with it, would resolve that apparent contradiction. They provide that the fund be spent in equal measure on the arts, sport, heritage and charities. I suggest that that should be acceptable to my noble friend since the range of projects which the manifesto suggested might be funded by the Millennium Commission falls into each of those categories. I beg to move.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: Although we on these Benches agree with Amendment No. 65 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in particular I wish to speak briefly to Amendment No. 66 which is grouped with it. If I heard the noble Viscount correctly earlier in the debate when we were discussing the Millennium Fund, the proposal in Amendment No. 66 is acceptable to the Government because it simply provides that the,
"Commission shall consult with the relevant body or bodies specified in section 21".
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will be able to confirm what I believe he said earlier—that it was the intention that the Millennium Commission should only operate in close consultation with each of the four sectors, in which case I imagine that this amendment is acceptable to him.
Lord Annan: I hope that we do not accept Amendment No. 65. It will simply torpedo the whole purpose of the Millennium Fund.
Viscount Astor: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has put the case very succinctly about Amendment No. 65. As I said earlier, we intend the Millennium Commission to be able to exercise vision in the task it will be given. We are not yet in a position to say precisely in which fields the best projects will be proposed. That is why the Government cannot accept Amendment No. 65, proposed by my noble friend

1577
Lord Swinfen. It is no doubt likely that several possible millennium projects will be in the areas which will also benefit from their own allocation in the Bill. But I do not think that we should limit the commission to these areas.
To do so would possibly rule out forever other valuable and far-sighted projects, which I am sure the Committee would feel should not be missed out. For example, there may be applications to the commission for a new environmental, scientific or design projects, as well as for artistic, sporting or heritage projects. In short, I am fearful that this amendment would allow the commission to commemorate, but would stifle its ability to innovate.
It is clear that the Millennium Commission, like all of the other distributors, will have as its underlying brief the improvement of the quality of life. I suggest that we can trust to the good judgment of the commissioners to judge the best projects from any field. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment.
As regards Amendment No. 66 which requires the commission to consult, the scope of the Millennium Commission will be very wide, and consultation on particular projects will go far wider than the four distributors listed in Clause 21 of the Bill. That is not to say that we do not expect those bodies to be consulted—they will be, as will many other bodies. The directions which the Secretary of State is minded to make under Clause 24 will specify that expert bodies should be consulted as appropriate on applications. This is intended to apply to the Millennium Commission as to the other distributive bodies. It would he a mistake to describe—
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. I want to be clear about this. Although the Millennium Commission may consult with other expert bodies, the noble Viscount is saying that they will be instructed to consult with the bodies nominated in the four specific areas and that that will happen. Did I hear that correctly?
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may repeat. I said that the particular projects would go far wider than the four distributors listed in Clause 21 of the Bill. That is not to say that we do not expect those bodies to be consulted. They will be consulted; but the point is that so will other bodies. It will not be limited to those four bodies and the directions—
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: This is the nub of the matter. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for again giving way. When the Government say that they expect them to be consulted, that is rather loose language. He then made it more specific by saying quite emphatically that the bodies will be consulted. Is that the version on which we should rest our understanding?
Viscount Astor: What I said was that the directions which the Secretary of State is minded to make under Clause 24 will specify that expert bodies should be
1578
consulted, as appropriate, on the application including the four distributor bodies. I hope that that explains that point to the noble Lord, Lord Holrne.
Perhaps I may return to Amendment No. 66. believe that it would be mistake to describe in the Bill some bodies and not others as those who are to be consulted. That is why it is better that the Secretary of State should be allowed to do that by order under Clause 24. Therefore, with that reassurance that the commission will be asked to consult with appropriate expert bodies, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Viscount sits down, did I understand him to say that the commission will be able to consult because the Secretary of State said that it would? Will the Secretary of State specify the bodies that the commission will be allowed to consult or can it consult whoever it wishes plus the people that the Secretary of State says that it shall consult?
Viscount Astor: The noble Baroness is quite right. I said that the Secretary of State will say that the commission shall consult with those bodies, but we do not want to limit the number of bodies with which it can consult because it could consult a great many other expert bodies also.
Lord Swinfen: I wonder whether my noble friend can comment on the number of staff at the commission? He said that the commission will be innovative and that it "shall consult". If the rumour that the commission will have only four staff is correct, I must advise him that they will not have the time to do all the digging around that will be necessary if they are to be innovative and they certainly will not have the time to consult properly.
Viscount Astor: What my noble friend has said about four staff is total speculation. It is obvious that the Millennium Commission will have to have an adequate number of staff to be able to carry out its duties and to deal with applications. I said earlier that we expect that number to be small because the staff will not be involved with the very large number of projects that some of the other distributing bodies will be handling.
Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend for that information. I shall read the earlier part of his answer to my amendment but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Payments from Distribution Fund to distributing bodies]:
Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 67:
Leave out Clause 22 and insert the following new clause:
("Payments out of the Distribution Fund
22. The Secretary of State shall, each quarter, make payments out of so much of any money in the Distribution

1579
Fund as is held for distribution by a body specified in section 21 of the amounts needed by that body to meet its current distribution requirements.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 67, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 73 which is grouped with it. The power of the Secretary of State provided for in Clause 22 is one of a number of powers, the extent of which gives rise to a concern often expressed in this Committee. The passage of this legislation through the other place revealed that that power is of greater extent than my noble friend and his colleagues have any intention of using. It would therefore seem reasonable for us to seek to clarify that power and to make sure that the clause expresses more precisely what power it is that the Secretary of State is to have.
No one has any doubt that my noble friend and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State would use the power given to them by this clause in anything other than a wise and appropriate way. But it is not good in principle for Parliament, and in particular for this House, to extend the powers of government unnecessarily. We must not forget that we are granting powers to all future Secretaries of State.
As I understand the position, the Government intend that the distributing bodies will apply for money to be made over to them from the distribution fund. The then Minister, Mr. Key, speaking in Committee in the other place, made that clear in his reply to a debate there, saying:
"The reference to 'such terms' and 'payments of such amounts' as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate will ensure that the distributing bodies can draw down funds as and when they need them".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee A, 23/2/93; cols. 263–4.]
So why does the clause not say that? Even more, why does it say almost precisely the opposite?
In his reply in the other place, the then Minister also referred to "the agreed financial arrangements". I should be grateful to my noble friend if he would spell out, for the benefit of the Committee, what those arrangements are and between whom they are agreed. These matters may be clear to experts in the field but I, for one, am not an expert.
I know that an attempt was made in the other place to remove the power to control the distribution fund from the Secretary of State, and I can appreciate why the Government resisted such a move. Every care must be taken to secure the proper stewardship of lottery proceeds and that the proceeds are wisely invested on behalf of the distributing bodies.
The amendment standing in my name and in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Holme of Cheltenham, would not interfere with the principles of control and stewardship in any way. It seeks to set out the Government's intentions as expressed in Committee in the other place. The specification of quarterly payments is included because it seems reasonable to set out a basis for payment in order to assist the distributing bodies in making their awards, and I understand that the quarterly payment of grants is a commonly adopted practice. I beg to move.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I was glad to add my name to this amendment, and should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has said. I shall confine my remarks to Amendment No. 67. I comment on Amendment No. 73 only to say that its spelling seems a bit shaky.
The clause is expressed in such wide terms that, as I read it, there is nothing to stop the Secretary of State from holding up payments from the distribution fund to a particular beneficiary if he disagrees with that beneficiary's allocation policies, perhaps on the grounds of politics and perhaps—if I dare mention the word again—on grounds of additionality. I, too, had noticed that the clause seems to provide exactly the opposite of what Mr. Key said that it would provide in Standing Committee in the other place. I naturally go along with the understanding that the present Government have no sinister intentions of using this clause in the way that one fears, but anything that they say is not binding for all time on future Governments. It is much more satisfactory to have the position clearly spelt out in the Bill, as this amendment tries to do.
There is one other rather puzzling feature about all this. In the other place the then Minister said that the broad power given to the Secretary of State in this clause was dictated by Treasury rules and that those rules applied because the lottery money was raised from the public. In the light of some pressure there, he undertook to discuss further with the Treasury the management of the resources in the distribution fund. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to let us know the outcome of those discussions with the Treasury.
What are the Treasury rules which apply to the management of the money in the distribution fund? As a former member of Her Majesty's Treasury, I suppose that I ought to know, but I certainly do not. It is not public expenditure in any ordinary sense of that term. It is money raised from the public for specific purposes, so no question of hypothecation comes into the picture. It is not government revenue raised from taxation, to which ordinary rules apply. I wonder whether the Minister will be able to explain in a bit more detail what this is all about.
The net effect of the clause as presently drafted is to leave the recipients of the money in a state of uncertainty. I think that everyone would agree that that is most undesirable if they are to be able to plan sensibly how to distribute the money once they have received it.
To sum up, could the Minister clarify what the rules are; why they have to apply to lottery proceeds; and the reasons, if any, for not accepting this admirably drafted amendment?
Baroness Seear: Perhaps I may follow up the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. It is the question of this money being public money. When money is subscribed voluntarily, as it is in a lottery, it is not tax money. Any charity which raises money is raising it from the public. In what way is money raised from the public for a lottery different from any money raised for a lottery, or, indeed, a jumble sale, if it comes to that, for a

1581
charitable purpose? I hope that it would never occur to the Treasury that it had any control over those moneys. Why should it have control over the lottery money? What is the difference?
Viscount Astor: New clause 22 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State will make quarterly payments to the distributive bodies to enable them to meet their needs. It is entirely accepted by the Government that the distributive bodies should be able to draw down the funds being held and invested on their behalf as and when they need them. That will of course need to be done regularly and may even be more frequent than every quarter. I can assure the Committee that the Secretary of State will establish the most practical arrangements designed to meet the needs of the bodies. Those are not, however, an appropriate matter to be set in primary legislation.
Amendment No. 73 aims to ensure that distributive bodies may enter into a forward grant commitment to a beneficiary of up to five years and that revenue grants can be paid.
I can confirm the Government's intentions in this matter. The Government are prepared to allow considerable freedom in the application of national lottery funds. Such funds, unlike public expenditure, will not be subject to rules on annuality. That will allow them to accumulate, if that is desirable, and also allow flexibility over the year end. The funds will also be invested, with the interest on investments being returned as appropriate to the account for each distributive body. It will be for the distributive bodies to assess the forward commitments that they should make to grant recipients. It will therefore be possible for a distributive body to commit a five-year grant after considering the effect upon their national lottery funds and the needs of other potential applicants. It will be for the distributors themselves, within the appropriate accounting rules, to manage their funds to achieve the best use.
The national lottery distribution fund is under the stewardship of the Secretary of State on behalf of the distributive bodies. The Secretary of State must account for the fund to Parliament. The rules for drawing down funds may be complex and will need to be set out with precision. They should not be set out in statute. The main Treasury requirements are likely to be that the funds should not be drawn down by the bodies before they are needed. That would be wasteful because the bodies themselves do not have powers to invest the money. It will be invested for them by the National Debt Commission. I hope that that clarifies the point.
Baroness Seear: The Minister hopes that it does, but I do not know that his hopes are entirely justified. I cannot see where the Treasury comes into this. The Secretary of State in this case is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer; it is the Secretary of State for National Heritage, is it not? The money raised from the public is not tax money. What does it have to do with the Treasury?
Viscount Astor: The point is that the funds can be drawn down when they are needed. The funds are held
1582
and invested as a pool. The distributive bodies have no powers to invest money, so they should receive the money only when they need it. It is merely proper practice that requires that. I made it clear that the funds will not be part of government expenditure. The categorisation of money is a matter determined b:y the Central Statistical Office against a number of established criteria. While not categorised as expenditure within the controlled total, the national lottery expenditure is general government expenditure spent in the public sector. That is the important difference.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: The Minister has not explained the need for the provision contained in the clause that we are seeking to replace which provides:
"At such times as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate, payments of such amounts as he thinks appropriate may be made to a body specified in section 21".
There is nothing about Treasury rules or anything of that kind. The payment is entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State. If he chooses not to give money because he does not like the gifts proposed, there is nothing to stop him in the clause as drafted.
Viscount Astor: The purpose of the clause is to ensure that the money can be held and invested on behalf of the distributive bodies and then handed to them as it is needed. That, as I said earlier, might need to be done regularly. It might need to be done more frequently than every quarter. That is the point that I was making.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: If the clause said that we should all be happy, but it does not say that.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor: The clause grants the Secretary of State the power to do that. I said that the practical arrangements designed to meet the needs of those bodies will need to be complex. They are not appropriate to be set out in primary legislation.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I should like to take a step further what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said. We are talking about what could eventually be enormous sums of money. Our recent experience —I do not wish to be accused of being political—is that other huge sums of money being held in reserve are riot being made available to the people who own them to use for the purposes for which the money was raised. Let us suppose that an enormous sum of money started to accumulate and was held in reserve. Has the Secretary of State the power—if this Government or a future government were in a serious financial position—to put a financial moratorium on those funds?
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord has missed the point. Someone has to be responsible to Parliament for the fund. That person has to be the Secretary of State. I have explained the different criteria relating to the money. The money is not categorised as expenditure within the controlled total so it cannot be moved from where it is to somewhere else and spent on something different. Someone has to account for the money. The money is categorised by the Central Statistical Office as general government expenditure

1583
expended for the public use. If the noble Lord considers that point, he will see that the Secretary of State has no power to spend money except by passing it on to the distributive bodies under the Bill.
Lord Lucas: Could my noble friend enlighten me on another related point? Is it decided what rate of taxation will be payable on the interest earned on the sums on deposit?
Viscount Astor: My noble friend raises an intriguing point for which I do not instantly have an answer. I believe the answer is—if I am wrong I shall write to Members of the Committee and correct it—that the tax the Treasury collects on the national lottery is a tax on turnover. It is not a tax on the distributed funds. That is the difference. Having thought about it a little further, I can tell the Committee that no tax is payable on the interest.
Lord Swinfen: I am interested in what my noble friend has just said. My memory takes me back a not inordinately long time—indeed, shortly before dinner —to when he told the Committee that there was no tax payable on the funds raised for the national lottery. I asked him whether charitable organisations might be able to claim back the tax paid on funds distributed to them. He told me that a levy was raised on the funds by, not the Inland Revenue, but HM Customs and Excise. My noble friend may be in some difficulty in producing an answer this evening and I shall not press him for one.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend. I made it clear that the tax is levied by Customs and Excise. That is a tax in the general sense and my noble friend must not try to split hairs with me.
Lord Swinfen: I am trying to ensure that charities can receive a little extra money, which I am sure they would like.
I am not entirely satisfied with my noble friend's answer to the issues raised on the amendment. However, I shall not press him further tonight. I shall read what was said by him and by other Members of the Committee and may well return to the matter at a later stage. I appreciate that it may be limiting to make payments only on a quarterly basis but we need to ensure that when payments are necessary the Secretary of State is not in a position to withhold them for some reason which none of us can think of at the moment. I shall not speculate because that would be unwise. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Application of money by distributing bodies]:
[Amendments Nos. 68 to 71 not moved.]
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 10, line 30, at end insert:
("( ) In subsection (1) of this section, "expenditure of the relevant description" shall include expenditure for the purposes of revenue assistance, where appropriate, as well as on capital projects.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 72 deals with the important question of whether the funds as regards sport can properly be spent for revenue purposes or whether they will be earmarked mainly for capital projects.
We are concerned about the matter because in Standing Committee A in another place the then Minister, Mr. Robert Key, said:
"The national lottery proceeds will mostly be devoted to capital projects".
Later in this speech he stated:
"The presumption in favour of capital projects will not apply to charities. Projects for capital or revenue grants will be eligible to apply".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 23/2/93; col. 277.]
On another occasion Mr. Peter Brooke, the Secretary of State for National Heritage, made a similar comment. That has caused great anxiety to some of us, especially to those involved in sports and other bodies. These days sport does not need many capital projects. The great priority is for revenue projects. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, will correct me if I am wrong in saying that the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, which is doing good work of a unique character, spends most of its money on capital projects. Therefore, there is an imbalance that I hope the lottery will correct.
Forty years ago some of us in and out of ministerial office were urging all kinds of bodies to build facilities such as golf clubs, tennis clubs, sports clubs and so on. Many of them did so. Since most of those sports facilities do not make a profit and cannot run at a profit the problem today is to refurbish the facilities which are now crumbling. I shall not bore Members of the Committee by giving a long list of such projects, but I could do so. For example, I am a director of Wembley Stadium, which I declare. After taking over the stadium the present board has had to spend £75 million in order to modernise it and make our national stadium comparable with those in other countries. I am not making any claim on the funds of the national lottery for that purpose, and I do not think that we have any intention of so doing but that illustrates the point that within three or four generations facilities will need a great deal of money spent on them in order to keep them up-to-date, not least from the point of view of health and safety.
I am thinking in particular of small tennis clubs, swimming clubs, soccer clubs, rugby clubs, athletics clubs and the like which have their own facilities as a result of great effort and sacrifice by their members. Since we have a national lottery they might reasonably expect to make a claim on it for any money they spend on keeping those facilities up-to-date. The need for the refurbishment of sports facilities is forever with us. Therefore, I urge on the Committee for consideration the revenue aspect of capital projects.
I turn to the money needed by sports bodies. I could read out to the Committee a whole catalogue of 64 or more sports and their governing bodies in this country and make a case for each one, but I shall confine myself to the British Olympic Association. I believe that its purpose is supported by every Member of the Committee. It has to raise large sums of money to take teams for both the winter and summer games in each

1585
cycle of four years. Like other sporting bodies, the British Olympic Association has to pay a great deal of money in corporation tax and it does not like that. I can understand the difficulties of the Treasury at a time like this in saying there shall not be any alleviation of corporation tax for sports bodies. However, I hope that in better times we can alleviate the situation. Between 1989 and 1992 the British Olympic Association paid £1.47 million in corporation tax. Every penny of that had to be raised or donated by the public. People hardly take kindly to the fact that while they voluntarily give money for our wonderful Olympic athletes the Government are taking a large slice of that money.
The British Olympic Association states that sport is dealing with human resources, and I believe that that applies also to the arts. It must train our British teams to a high standard of perfection and take them overseas, sometimes, indeed, to distant parts, in order that they can compete adequately. For example, it has been calculated that this year our top rowers will have to pay £3,000 each in order to travel and compete in international regattas. The same story applies to most of the other elite British athletes. Governing bodies are seriously underfunded and not able to finance properly their international teams. That is verging on a disgrace for this country. One hopes that the advent of the national lottery will help to redress that situation.
The way in which Britain suffers compared with other countries can be well illustrated by the fact that French athletes are reimbursed for loss of earnings from a fund of £5 million per annum, whereas the United Kingdom Sports Council grant to the National Coaching Foundation, which is so important in that respect, is £1,420,000 per annum. Another illustration of the same point is that Germany spends £8 million per year on coaches and coach education, which is another important revenue consideration.
Therefore, I trust that the Committee will see the need to ensure that revenue and capital considerations receive an equal share of the proceeds. I hope that when the Minister responds to the amendment he will give us a satisfactory assurance which will enable us to proceed with the Bill. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Viscount Astor: I have no intention of preventing any Member of the Committee from speaking on the amendment, but it may help if I answer some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I may be able to give some assurances which the Committee will find useful.
The Government have no intention of ruling out revenue grants. Experience will suggest what is good practice in this area, as in others. It is clear that the charities sector will need to be able to make revenue grants. We are also clear that other distributors may need to make provision for revenue expenditure or endowment grants in certain exceptional circumstances. For example, if the maintenance cost of a new building funded from the national lottery cannot be raised from elsewhere, and that building is seen as a
1586
high priority project, a revenue grant or endowment might be made to support the project for a number of years.
We feel that there should be a presumption in favour of capital; but of course refurbishment projects are very often capital projects. None of the fine details of what the Sports Council will fund has been ruled out, nor has it been ruled in. It would not be proper to prejudge the outcome of the task which the Sports Council will have in working out guidelines on how the money is to be spent. I hope that I have shown that there is considerable flexibility. We have no intention of ruling out revenue grants. I hope that the Committee will be satisfied with that assurance, and that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord St. John of Bletso: I had intended to add a few remarks to what the noble Lord, Lord Howell. said on the work of the BOA. As the Committee may be aware, the BOA is self-funding. Will the Minister give the Committee an assurance that distributions will be made to the BOA as laid out in Clause 20(3) (b)?
Viscount Astor: We are working on the guidelines. I should not rule out any sporting organisation receiving lottery funds. In all our debates If have made it clear that it will be for the distributor bodies to distribute the funds as they see fit.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: The noble Viscount's intervention has allowed me to be even briefer than I would have been; and I thank him for that. The reason that my name is to the amendment is straightforward. My amendment seeks to ensure not that the Government, through the lottery, should want to show flexibility, but that they will show flexibility. As any businessman will tell them, inevitably every capital project has revenue costs attached to it. Therefore, in making a capital grant or a capital investment of any kind, it is almost inconceivable that that will not attract to it revenue implications. It is not just desirable that the Government should be flexible, but to make capital investment successful it will be essential that allowances are made for the revenue implications.
Baroness Mallalieu: The noble Viscount's intervention has made it unnecessary for me to speak at any length. Although I note that the noble Viscount seems to favour the balance being tipped in favour of capital expenditure as opposed to revenue, it is welcome to hear that he does not rule out revenue expenditure. I hope that in adding that caveat, he does not rule out the possibility that there will be occasions when the need for balance demands that greater revenue expenditure will be required in some areas. There is clearly no point in building magnificent new capital projects and then having insufficient lands either to staff or maintain them. I am glad that the Government appreciate that and appear to have slightly changed their stance.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned the Foundation for Sport and the

1587
Arts—and he was very kind to do so. As the Committee may be aware, I am deputy chairman of the trustees.
The noble Lord suggested, correctly, that the foundation is inclined more towards capital projects than revenue projects. However, our problem is that we do not have the same definition of revenue projects that the noble Lord suggests we have. We do not like spending money on core revenue funding—that is, the payment of salaries and so on, because we cannot be certain that in future we can maintain that at the same level.
What we are keen on—and what an enormous number of applications which we approve comprise—is the type of repair and refurbishment to which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred; for example, the resurfacing of tennis courts, all-weather surfacing of running tracks, and so on. I consider that to be capital expenditure because it is expenditure on works. The noble Lord regards it as revenue. However, we take the attitude that it is capital, although it achieves the result which the noble Lord seeks because it brings those facilities up to date and ensures their continuation.
The British Olympic Association was mentioned. The foundation gives money to that association. At present I am considering bids for the next winter Olympics in 1994. Indeed, we made a recent decision to give to the Sports Aid Foundation. Therefore, we are not as inflexible as the noble Lord may have suggested. For example, the trustees have decided to give £1.3 million towards the Sports Aid Foundation for the training and expenses of our top athletes so that they may take part in the forthcoming Olympic Games. I believe that it is merely a question of definition between revenue and capital. I hope that that point can be clarified. I was delighted to hear my noble friend the Minister say that the Sports Council, through the lotteries, will be adopting much the same attitude as we have.
Lord Howell: We have had a most useful debate. I am grateful to all who have taken part. I am especially grateful for what the Minister said. However, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, I agree that it would be helpful if we could clarify the definitions. As I was responsible for the noble Lord becoming involved in the discussion, I should point out that it has recently come to my notice—and I shall be writing to him on the matter—that there is a difficulty about definitions regarding exactly what sport is. I am astonished to find that the Foundation for Sport and the Arts has told the Croquet Association that it cannot have any money to establish a centre of excellence for croquet (available for a short time only on land donated by Cadbury in Birmingham) because someone has said that the betting Acts, which provide the money for the foundation, do not allow it to be used for non-athletic purposes.
If Members of the Committee have been watching Independent Television recently and have seen the bogus detective walking around—I forget in whose interests he is doing so —they will have noted that at
1588
one point he picks up a croquet hammer, bashes a ball very hard and knocks out his fellow detective. That seems to suggest that it is very much an athletic pursuit.
Wimbledon is the home of lawn tennis and croquet. It would be quite ludicrous if grant could be awarded for tennis activities but not for croquet activities. I hope that the Minister or the foundation will, at some point, try to clear up the matter so that the level playing field applies to croquet as well as to other sports. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am most grateful. I shall be brief. The foundation is at present limited to the definition of "athletic sports". However, we are re-negotiating our trust deed which will—it is to be hoped—allow us to contribute also to non-athletic sports. As I said, we are in the process of re-negotiating the trust deed.
Lord Howell: I am very glad to hear that. However, I am bound to say that if the Treasury wants to decide what is or what is not athletic sport, then the trustees of the foundation of which the noble Lord is deputy chairman should have told it to go and jump in the canal. It is not for the Treasury to decide what is or what is not an athletic sport, or to make a distinction between croquet and other sports. However, I shall come to the aid of the noble Lord. I hope that the matter that has been dragging on will be settled very quickly. Indeed, if he wishes to table any further Questions to prompt the Government, I shall be happy to join his campaign.
As I said, I am grateful to all those speakers who have taken part in the debate. I am especially grateful that the Minister has made it clear that, so far as concerns revenue expenditure, there will be no constraints. That rectifies the imbalance created by earlier statements. In those circumstances, while assuring Members of the Committee that we shall keep the matter under review when the Minister produces his guidelines, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 73 to 75 not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Control of distributing bodies by the Secretary of State]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 10, line 36, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Viscount said: The purpose behind Clause 24(2) is a desire to ensure that the distributing bodies do not act in a way which might give rise to conflicts of interest. That is in line with our stated intention that distributors should never be beneficiaries. A conflict of interest would arise if a distributor made grants to a body which it owned or wholly sponsored, or whose members were all appointed by the distributor, or, indeed, whose membership was the same as that of the distributor.
It would be quite wrong for there to be any question of bodies in the future, when circumstances may be different from now, being put in a position

1589
where they might be accused of feathering their own nests with lottery money. It is important to note that the power is only exercisable by order. I hope that Members of the Committee will accept that it is crucial that the Secretary of State should have some power to prevent that happening.
We took account of concerns expressed in this Chamber on Second Reading and in another place that the power, as drafted in the Bill, might be used in a much wider way and that our intentions for its use were not perhaps as clear as they might be. For this reason, we have tabled a new government amendment which sets out very clearly the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may prescribe a body or class of bodies which may not receive money.
This might happen if the distributor were a member of the proposed beneficiary, or if it appears to the Secretary of State that the distributor is in some other way able to influence the proposed beneficiary. This might be the case, for example, if a distributing body had representatives on the board of trustees of a charitable trust, and would be able to influence it in that way. Another example might be where members of the distributing body were closely associated with an applicant for funding. In these cases, or others in which a person might reasonably assume that there was a degree of influence over the benefiting body, the Secretary of State should be able to take a view on whether this might give rise to a conflict of interest, and take action to avoid this. I believe my amendment addresses the anxieties raised by this Chamber at Second Reading. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Gibson: I am grateful to the Government for taking over the amendment which I originally tabled. I regard their Amendment No. 78C as much better than the subsection which Amendment No. 76 seeks to delete. It is better because it focuses much more narrowly on the need, which the Minister assures me exists, to arm the Secretary of State with the power to prevent the distributing bodies from giving money to themselves or to bodies under their control. The subsection at present in the Bill would give him much wider ranging powers of prohibition and—if the Committee agrees —I shall be glad to see it go.
However, I am not wholly happy with Clause 24 even with the proposed amendments in this grouping, although I think all of them would improve the clause. I say this because I originally tabled Amendment No. 76 in order to obtain a debate on the extent to which the Secretary of State needs the powers which it is proposed to give him in the Bill. I feel that the way in which the Arts Council and the National Heritage Memorial Fund were first set up, and their powers defined, is preferable to the method by which Clause 24, even as amended, will control them.
Apparently, as the Minister explained to me most courteously before we began the Committee stage, as the distribution of the proceeds of the lottery does not constitute government expenditure, the Secretary of State will have no control of it unless the Bill specifically arms him with such powers. Clause 24 is supposed to do just that. I must say that after three
1590
weeks' reflection, I still feel that the whole of Clause 24 gives him rather more control than he ought to have. The question in my mind is: why should he have powers over the distributing bodies in respect of their lottery money which he does not have in respect of their statutory grants? In spite of the point about lottery money not being government expenditure, I still do not quite understand the answer.
I have looked up the two Royal Charters which incorporated the Arts Council. They made no mention of any special powers for the Secretary of State. All they said was,
"All moneys and property, however received by the Council"—
the Committee should note that is not necessarily government expenditure because the Arts Council can, and I believe has, received moneys which do not come from the Government—
"including any money voted by Parliament, must be applied solely towards the promotion of the Council's objects and no portion of it, except as otherwise provided by the Charter may be paid directly or indirectly to Council members".
In the case of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the same principle is secured under the National Heritage Act 1980 under which the eligibility of recipients of grants simply has to be consistent with the objectives laid down for the fund. In other words, the Act achieves its objectives not negatively by giving the Secretary of State powers to intervene, but positively by saying in effect that anything is excluded which is outside the scope of the fund as laid down by parliament.
I shall be glad if the Committee agrees that subsection (2) is to go. However, I find the whole of this clause less than satisfactory. Subsections (1) and (3) of Clause 24 allow the Secretary of State to tell the distributing bodies what to take into account in making grants. Why is it necessary to breach their independence in this way? The Royal Charters, or, in the case of the heritage fund, its Act of Parliament, state what those bodies can do. Surely that is enough when it is a case of dealing with lottery money, as is the case when dealing with government expenditure, particularly as, in the case of the Arts Council., its charter deals with money that does not emanate from the Government, as I have already said.
I hope the Minister can tell us what are the reasons for giving the Secretary of State powers over the distributing bodies which he does not have, and does not need to have, in respect of their existing grants, or in respect of other moneys received by them which are not government expenditure. Further., why cannot the reasonable objective of preventing unsuitable recipients from receiving grants be achieved by stating who or what is eligible—that is how it is done now—and then allowing the distributing bodies to act with their present freedom? I hope that the Minister can explain the matter. If I remain unconvinced, I can always return to the issue at a later stage.
Baroness Mallalieu: The anxieties which have just been expressed about Clause 24, even after the amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, are shared by those of us on this side of the Chamber.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his explanation of the Government's intentions., but I still

1591
query why it is that a Bill which is supposed to create an independent source of funds for sport, the arts and for the heritage should be so closely controlled by government in this way. It could be argued that if these were taxpayers' funds which were to be disbursed, the Government should exercise hands-on control. However, in this case the National Heritage Memorial Fund will be working closely with the department. With very few exceptions—I believe that I am right in thinking there will be only one—its members will have been appointed by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. That being so, since the Government are in essence choosing who will serve on that body, one would have thought that those chosen would be people who would be trusted by Her Majesty's Government to distribute the funds to suitable bodies.
The proposed amendment in the name of the noble Viscount does not have the merit of the simplicity of Amendment No. 78. I am grateful—although I express my gratitude rather grudgingly—for the explanation which the Minister gave, which goes some part of the way to allaying the fears which led to Amendment No. 78 being tabled.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: I should like to support warmly what the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, said. I am particularly interested in the National Heritage Memorial Fund and how its affairs will be conducted in the future when the national lottery is in operation.
I want to make it plain that, as I said at Second Reading, the success of the National Heritage Memorial Fund in the first 13 years of its existence —a success which is underlined by the fact that it has been chosen by the Government to distribute the heritage money from the lottery —is based on two factors. The first is the marvellous support which it has been given by the Government. The second is that hardly ever was any attempt made to interfere with how the money was spent. That is how matters should be run.
One of the objects in setting up the fund in 1980 was to take out of politics the questions of which house or which picture should be saved. That object has been successfully achieved during the past 13 years. If the Secretary of State is to have the power to direct how the money is spent, the whole matter will be right back in the political field. One may be quite certain that if anything goes wrong, the Government will get the full blame for it. Therefore, if they have any sense they will not take to themselves the right to direct how the money is spent.
I know that the position is more difficult now because much more money is involved. When the National Heritage Memorial Fund was set up, there was very little money to spend and people did not mind so much how it was spent. Now there is a great deal of money and the Government are more interested in how it is spent. The way to control the fund is this: the Secretary of State is responsible for appointing the chairman and trustees; if he does not like the way they operate, all he has to do is to appoint somebody else in their place.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 78A standing in my name. In doing so, I shall not detain the Committee for long.
The amendment deals with the powers of Ministers to make directions under Clause 24, and in particular the importance of their accountability to those whose actions they seek to direct. My anxiety stems from the apparent width of the powers which this clause would seem to give to the Secretary of State to direct where money shall and shall not be distributed. I was grateful to the Minister for making clear that the intention of the clause is to cover a number of administrative matters and not to seek to influence policies which properly lie with the distributing bodies.
I was also grateful for the assurance that there would be a fresh look at the wording to remove ambiguities. The purpose of my amendment is to tighten up that process.
An amendment was tabled in another place requiring Ministers to give affected parties the reasons underlying any proposed direction. What could be fairer than that? Nevertheless, the amendment was opposed. However, Ministers have amended the Bill to require consultation with affected bodies—and of course I welcome that.
However, why is it considered unreasonable to concede a duty to give written reasons to the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the Arts Council or whoever else may be the object of a proposed direction? I cherish the hope that the Minister will wish to go further and fare better than to say, as was said in another place, that such a course of action would be burdensome to Ministers. One letter to four, or at most five, bodies would hardly seem to be burdensome. Alternatively, it might be objected that it would set a precedent. I say to that, "Why not?"
My amendment makes negligible inroads into the structure of the Bill and, I venture to suggest, adds to the transparency of its operation. Put simply, I need to know why the Government believe that they are entitled not to explain their actions.
In fairness, I have had extremely helpful private correspondence from the Minister for which I am most grateful. I have been largely reassured. However, in moving the amendment, I believe that it is sufficiently important for a reply to be put on the record.
Lord Birkett: I support the anxieties of my noble friend Lord Gibson. Bodies such as the Arts Council, in their independence from government, have always been supposed to operate under the arm's length principle. All of a sudden in this Bill the Arts Council and other bodies will be in the position of being told what to do by the Secretary of State. For a long time I have maintained that the arm's length principle is a good one but that the arm is growing shorter. I ask my noble friend whether the National Lottery etc. Bill represents its final amputation.
Lord Swinfen: In the event of the Committee accepting Amendment No. 76, I shall not move Amendment No. 77. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to assure the Committee that between now

1593
and Report stage he will reflect on what has been said by other Members of the Committee and consider bringing forward further amendments to satisfy the House at that time. I have the feeling tonight that the Committee is not satisfied with the efforts of the Minister even though it is grateful for those efforts. I urge him to let the Committee know that he is prepared to consider the matter and possibly to go further at another stage.
Lord Annan: 1 support my noble friend Lord Gibson. I believe that the clause has a sinister ring to it. Civil servants in departments are always looking for chances to increase the powers of the Secretary of State because by so doing they increase their own powers. It is they who will advise the Secretary of State to interfere in the matter since the power is already there for him to do so by an ingeniously constructed clause in the Bill.
What is the need for such a provision? I can hear the civil servants saying, "Secretary of State, we must have a clause to stop these people feathering their nest". Whoever has suggested that any one of those quangos—the National Heritage Memorial Fund or the Arts Council--will feather its own nest? Indeed, how can they, when each year they produce a report showing exactly what has happened to their funds? Parliament is always able to debate that report.
The clause is unnecessary and sinister, and I very much hope that the noble Viscount will have further conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, to see whether they can do what in my view ought to be done; that is, have it totally deleted or very much watered down. The whole principle of those bodies being independent of the Secretary of State has been whittled away gradually over the past 10 years. One has seen this tendency, more and more, of the Government's desire to put into the grasp of the Secretary of State powers that really ought to be in the hands of the chairmen and trustees of the bodies.
Lord Lucas: In pursuing, as I hope he will, the laudable aims of the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and others, I ask my noble friend Lord Astor not to go so far that he makes himself unable to fulfil the assurance that he gave earlier to retain powers to persuade the Arts Council to do a great deal better than at present for film and amateur arts when it has the money from the lottery.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Just a moment. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, but I cannot conceive of civil servants saying to Ministers, "We must stop these people feathering their own nests". There is no need for it and no suggestion of it. I agree with the acquisition of power, but we should not put into the minds of this Committee that permanent civil servants talk to Ministers about other bodies "feathering their own nests".
9.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps first I may deal with the point raised by the amendment of my noble friend Lord Cavendish. It would require that the Secretary of State furnish a body with written reasons for any
1594
direction under this clause. Perhaps I may explain what we expect to happen under Clause 24. The Secretary of State may not give a body a direction without first consulting it. During this consultation period, the body will be able to consider and explore the reasons given by the Secretary of State for each direction. The directions will be given by letter and the Secretary of State is likely to reiterate his intentions for these in the body of the letter. Of course, Parliament is always able to require the Secretary of State to account for any direction given, just as it may over the use of any power.
I suggest, therefore, that my noble friend's amendment is unnecessary, since the Secretary of State may not refuse to account for decisions taken in the fulfilment of his duties. During the consultation process before a direction is issued the distributors will be made aware of the intentions behind each direction. If a direction appeared to be based on unreasonable grounds the Secretary of State could be asked by Parliament to account for his decision because the annual report of the distributor will contain the directions and will be laid before Parliament each year.
The Government cannot accept the introduction of a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to provide a formal list of reasons when this duty does not exist in other comparable uses of delegated powers. Secretaries of State are not required by statute to explain their reasons for taking executive decisions; they are required to behave reasonably, and they are held accountable by Parliament if such account is considered necessary. Therefore, the Government cannot see the special advantage of a statutory requirement in this matter. I hope that reply reassures my noble friend Lord Cavendish.
Perhaps I may turn to the other points about Clause 24. I said at Second Reading that I should consider Clause 24. I have considered it and have come forward with the new clause. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, said: "What is the difference between government expenditure and lottery money?" There is a big difference. The Government can decide not to fund one of the bodies for which they are responsible; they can withdraw the funds. However, once the Bill is passed the lottery money will flow through to those distributive bodies. The Secretary of State cannot stop it flowing through; it will arrive. What is more, the noble Lord will see from subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 25 that the Secretary of State can make an order to amend the percentages. But we have said that the Secretary of State will only look at that once in every Parliament. Subsection (2) (a) states that,
"no percentage lower than 5 per cent. is specified in section 20(3)".
So the Secretary of State cannot take away lottery funds as he can government expenditure. That is why there has to be some power. The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, said that directions would be given to the distributing bodies as to how to spend the money. That is not the point. The only time that the Secretary of State would have to act under this clause would be

1595
on the question of how they should not spend the money. Perhaps I may give the Committee some examples.
An example of a type of body which is too close to a distributing body and therefore should not be enabled to benefit from that distributing body's decisions is the Sports Council's trust company. That is because one of the members of the Sports Council's trust company is the Sports Council itself. Although we are confident that the Sports Council will accept that funding such a closely allied body would be improper, it is important for the future that the Government have the power to prevent that sort of arrangement from taking place.
There are other ways in which one body might have a material influence over another body as well as in the sense of owning it. For example, a distributing body may appoint some or all of the trustees of a charitable trust without owning it or sponsoring it and be able to, or be seen to, influence that trust. The Secretary of State should be able to consider where a distributing body has this sort of influence even when it does not own the body.
As I have said, there is no power in Clause 24 for the Secretary of State to get his hands on the money. Clause 24 deals with the general matters of propriety rather than the specific details of what not to spend it on. The reason why it is important to ensure that distributors cannot be beneficiaries or control them is that once the national lottery is running the money will pass statutorily to the distributing bodies without any government intervention except for rules on the drawing down of funds.
The aim of the national lottery is to allow funds to flow through to a wide range of applicants. For a distributing body to devote funds to its own close purposes rather than responding to those applicants would be a failure for all concerned. The Secretary of State will prevent a body from being a beneficiary only in the very restricted circumstances that I have outlined. I believe that the Committee will accept that the Secretary of State needs this power.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, asked: why not say who it should go to? That is one thing that the Secretary of State is not saying. The distributing bodies will decide where the money from the lottery will go. The only thing that the Secretary of State has to make sure of is that they do it with propriety. If they do not do it with propriety and it goes to a body over which they have some control, he must have a reserve power to act if necessary.
It is an absolutely crucial part of the way that the national lottery is set up that the operator must be entirely separate from the regulatory body and that the regulatory body, OFLOT, must be different from the distributing bodies. These must be three separate legs. It is crucial that the distributing body is never seen to benefit from the proceeds.
Lord Gibson: As I listened to the Minister I had the impression that we were shooting past each other. I should therefore like to reserve the right to come back at a later
stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 77 to 78A not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 78B:
Page II, line 9, leave out subsection (7).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 78C:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
("Power of the Secretary of State to prohibit distribution of money in certain cases
.—(1) Where subsection (2) applies, the Secretary of State may by order prohibit a body from distributing money under section 23(1) to a person specified in the order.
(2) This subsection applies if at the time the order is made—

(a) the person specified is a company of which the body, or a wholly-owned subsidiary of the body, is a member, or

(b) the Secretary of State considers that the body is able (whether directly or indirectly) to control or materially to influence the policy of the person specified in carrying on any undertaking or performing any functions.

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a)"company" means a company formed and registered under the Companies Act 1985 or the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 or a company to which the provisions of that Act or Order apply as they apply to a company so formed and registered, and

(b)"wholly-owned subsidiary" has the meaning given by section 736 of that Act or Article 4 of that Order.

(4) A body shall provide the Secretary of State with such information as he may require for the purpose of exercising his powers under this section in relation to the body.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Power to amend section 20]:
[Amendments Nos. 79 to 85 not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Power to amend section 21]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 85A:
Page 12, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the Secretary of State may exercise his powers under that subsection so as to remove from section 21 any body that has contravened or failed to comply with a requirement or prohibition imposed on it by or under section 24 or (Power of the Secretary of State to prohibit distribution of money in certain cases).").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 76. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 [Winding up of fund allocated under section 20(3) (e)]:
[Amendment No. 86 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 12, line 32, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 87 1 shall speak also to Amendment No. 108 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
The purpose of the amendment to Clause 27 is to remove the power of the Secretary of State to extend the life of the Millennium Fund beyond 31st December in the year 2000. 1 am concerned that unless that power is removed from the Bill the fund may continue indefinitely.
As the Bill is currently framed, the Millennium Fund will receive the same share of lottery proceeds as the arts, sport, the heritage and charities. That seems inappropriate given the lack of clarity which at present obtains in regard to the aims of the fund. The Conservative Party manifesto said that the fund would finance projects which celebrate the start of the next millennium and will be of lasting benefit to the nation. I cannot see how a street party can be of lasting benefit to the nation, which is something that was mentioned as possibly being funded.
Despite the Government's assurances to the contrary, there is a danger that the fund may provide resources solely for large prestigious projects. There is also a danger that, once established, the fund may provide resources for projects which, in its absence, the Government would have funded. For example, if the Government did not decide to mark the start of the next millennium with lottery proceeds, they would dedicate money raised from general taxation to that purpose.
If the Government do not wind up the fund at the end of the year 2000, we may find that they suggest other projects on which the money should be spent—other celebrations, other anniversaries—which, in the absence of the lottery, would have been funded from general taxation revenue or public subscription. I am not necessarily talking of this Government. There is some time between now and the year 2000 and there will be another government, no matter what colour. By law we have to have an election between now and then.
It is vitally important that the fund should be wound up at the end of the year 2000 and that the resources previously dedicated to the fund should be spread equally between the four other recipients. The Government suggested that they wished to keep the reserve power to extend the life of the Millennium Fund in order to provide for circumstances where projects already started with Millennium Fund grants required continued funding for their completion. However, it is not necessary to leave a power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to extend the life of the fund in order to achieve that objective.
Amendment No. 108 to Clause 38 allows for those circumstances; it gives the Millennium Commission a duty to,
"ensure that funds are provided to secure the continuation of projects after 3Ist December 2000, where this is appropriate".
The Millennium Commission will therefore be expected to do its job responsibly and ensure that it has built up sufficient endowment funds to meet ongoing commitments. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I rise briefly to support the amendment to which I have also put my name. Those of us who were not in favour of a Millennium Fund in any event would wish to see it drawn to an end as soon as possible. Any money that goes to the Millennium Fund is money that does not go to other causes. In the view of many of us, the sooner that that money finds its way to the other causes, the better. Any danger that it should linger on or require additional money in a
1598
few years is therefore to be deprecated. We hope that the Government will put a date on the ending of the Millennium Fund.
9.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My noble friend's amendment would remove any flexibility to ensure that the Millennium Commission is able to complete funding for one project or another. There is at present no intention of using this—otherwise the Bill would not contain the provisions winding up the Millennium Fund. But we do not know whether it might be necessary to do so, and to leave the Secretary of State with no means of preventing a project from becoming a folly, perhaps unfinished, unused and unfunded, would seem more than unwise. It would be positively wasteful.
The Millennium Commission will when considering a project wish to satisfy itself that there are sufficient funds for the completion of the project, as is proposed by my noble friend in his Amendment No. l08, but. the reserve power in Clause 27 is needed in case exceptional circumstances make it appropriate.
I should also point out that to continue funds going to the Millennium Commission beyond the end of the year 2000 would require the Secretary of State to consult Parliament. The order is subject to affirmative resolution so Parliament would have to consider explicitly any case to extend the Millennium Fund. I hope that, with that explanation, my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My noble friend goes some way towards satisfying me. I want to ensure that the fund comes to an end. I also want to make certain that. where a project has been started that is designed to reach fruition or completion after the end of this millennium, funds are put aside specifically for that project. That is what the two amendments are designed to do. I shall look at the matter again between now and the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
Clause 30 [Accounts of the Secretary of State and National Debt Commissioners]:
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 88A:
Page 13, line 44, at end insert:
("( ) Each account prepared under subsection (1) or (2) and each report prepared under subsection (3) shall he referred for scrutiny to a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: It will not have escaped the attention of the Government and indeed of the Committee that there is considerable anxiety as to how these moneys will be handled. Those of us. including myself, who initially were opposed to the whole idea of a national lottery were converted to it because of the desirability of having available to charities, sport, arts and the heritage moneys which are free of government control and which can be obtained from another source irrespective of the attitude of government towards the work that they are

1599
doing. This is particularly important in the case of voluntary organisations and charities whose major function is to take up issues which may well not be welcomed by government and may therefore lead to a limitation in government funding. It is the possibility of access to independent funds which has converted a number of us to support for the national lottery and for this Bill. But that whole argument falls if in reality the Government maintain a considerable amount of control over how these moneys are to be allocated and the Treasury has its hands on the money. It is to ensure that that does not happen that Amendment No. 88A, together with Amendments Nos. 91A and 110A, is being moved.
These are large sums of money and there must be proper inspection and proper control by responsible persons. But that does not necessarily mean the Treasury—far from it. That is why we are suggesting here that there should be an annual report to a joint committee of both Houses and that this should include the opportunity for detailed study of how the money has been handled, how it has been allocated and, very important indeed, how the Government have been handling over the years the allocation that they have made to organisations. It can then be seen whether there has been any reduction in government funding because of the funding that has been coming from the Treasury. We have all too much experience of the problems of additionality in connection with European funds to wish to risk it again in connection with the lottery.
It is for those reasons that we would like a report to be made to a joint committee of both Houses which can be examined in the thorough way in which such matters are examined by joint committees. That will give far better, and public, control over the moneys than if such control is in the hands of the Treasury. It also gets rid of the fear that the Government will take a high proportion of the money to themselves by one route or another and therefore undermine what is, in the eyes of many of us, the justification for having a national lottery. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: I support this series of amendments. I have grave misgivings about the whole Bill. It creates possibilities for patronage and influence of an unpredictable sort. The more parliamentary control that there can be over the result the better.
Viscount Astor: I hope to be able to explain to the noble Baroness that these amendments are unnecessary. First, the Bill already contains a high degree of parliamentary scrutiny of the activities of the Secretary of State; secondly, the amendments place a burden on Parliament which as well as being unnecessary is unacceptable.
Amendment No. 88A calls for the report of the Secretary of State on the National Lottery Distribution Fund, and the report on the investments of the fund by the National Debt Commissioners, to be scrutinised by a Committee of both Houses. That will duplicate the work of the Public Accounts Committee, who will already be able to scrutinise these essentially factual sets of accounts, as well as the
1600
Heritage Select Committee, who will have a proper role in examining all matters to do with the national lottery. If those bodies come up with any matters for concern in their deliberations, then the concerns will be able to be taken up in the usual way in both Houses. The reports will be laid before both Houses which represents, I believe, the right degree of scrutiny. It is far better to give Parliament the opportunity to act if it seems necessary than to force a parliamentary workload that is already overburdened to take on an additional and unnecessary task without discretion as to its necessity or desirability.
Amendments Nos. 91A and 110A call for the reports of the nine distributive bodies also to be scrutinised by such a committee. The amendments are unnecessary for similar reasons to those I explained earlier. The scrutiny machinery already exists and we would be placing an unnecessary additional burden on Parliament. It is intended that the National Audit Office will audit the accounts of those bodies and that the Comptroller and Auditor General will have full rights of access to, and inspection of, the lottery accounts, and that the Public Accounts Committee will be able to scrutinise fully the way in which that money is accounted for.
The National Heritage Select Committee (in the case of arts, sport, heritage and the Millennium Commission) will be able to consider the work of the national lottery in general and scrutinise the performance of the way those bodies have performed in their task of distributing the lottery money. The Home Affairs Select Committee will be able to scrutinise the work of the charities board.
So it is clear that the machinery for proper and effective parliamentary scrutiny already exists. With that explanation I hope that the noble Baroness will see that her amendments are not necessary.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I listened with care to the Minister's reply to the amendments as regards the safeguards that exist at present. But the latest information concerning the work of the Public Accounts Committee gives a clear indication that they do not fulfil the preventive function described. One has only to refer to the recent Public Accounts Committee report on the West Midlands Regional Health Authority and the one which is about to be unleashed regarding the appalling situation in the Wessex Regional Health Authority. There is also the matter referred to in the headlines of the Evening Standard tonight of what has taken place in the Welsh Development Agency.
I would take some comfort from what the Minister has said if those three incidents had been avoided, but the fact is that the Public Accounts Committee, as I see it, is not a safeguard. It can act only when such incidents are reported to it. Clearly, it only got to know about the cases to which I have referred once the horse had bolted. That is when the stable door was locked.
What the Minister has said tonight does not give me any comfort that Secretaries of State for various departments, who have asked for powers in this House and another place, and who have said that they should provide a safeguard and be the custodians of public

1601
expenditure, will actually provide that safeguard. They have let the side down. Given the three performances that I have quoted, the Minister has not assured me—I am sure that he has not assured other Members of the Committee either—that Ministers will be in a different position in future and that they will be able to prevent what has happened before from happening again in the future. What is needed is current scrutiny—not scrutiny once disasters have occurred. I hope that the Minister can be a little more forthcoming about that.
Baroness Seear: I do not think that the Minister will be surprised to hear that I was not at all satisfied by his reply. As the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, pointed out, leaving all this to the Public Accounts Committee is not a substitute in any way. I do not think that it is for the Government to try to protect Parliament from carrying out a duty of scrutiny. If Parliament decides that it does not want to do that, then that is what it has decided; but it is for Parliament to say whether it wants to set up a piece of machinery (on a joint basis between the two Houses) to carry out a proper examination of these reports, and to be able to go into them in detail.
The Minister underrates the anxiety, and indeed, the suspicion, which a great many of us feel about the way in which these moneys will be handled. If he wants to quieten that suspicion and to reassure us, he should accept the suggestion in the amendment, rather than reject it. Tonight is not the time to test the opinion of the Committee, so although I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment, I shall most certainly consider bringing it back at a later stage. However, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Annual reports by distributing bodies other than Millennium Commission]:
[Amendments Nos. 89 to 92 not moved.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Accounts of distributing bodies other than Charities Board and Millennium Commission]:
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Amendment of the National Heritage Act 1980]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 30, leave out lines 27 to 32 and insert:
("(6) In subsection (6) (d) (the Secretary of State acting in the discharge of certain functions is an "eligible recipient") the words from "acting" to "1979" shall be omitted.").
The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 94 and 131 are technical in nature but remove an anomaly which would have prevented certain monuments principally in Scotland and Wales from being able to receive any money from the lottery. Without these amendments, it would not, to take a purely illustrative example, be possible for the Secretary of State in Scotland to apply for a lottery grant for an additional capital project for, say, Edinburgh Castle, whereas it
1602
would have been possible for English Heritage in England to apply for lottery funds for such a project, say, at Dover Castle.
These are straightforward amendments which put right a genuine oversight. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [The National Lottery Charities Board]:
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 31, leave out lines 8 to 26 and insert:
("Committees
2.—(1) The Charities Board shall establish four committees for the purpose of exercising the Board's functions in relation to applications by charities for grants in respect of appropriate activities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1)—

"appropriate activities" means activities in relation to which the Charities Board consider it appropriate to delegate their functions to a committee established under that sub-paragraph, and

"charities" includes institutions such as are mentioned in paragraph (b) of the definition of "charitable expenditure" in section 41(1).

(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (1), any function of the Charities Board may be exercised by any committee of theirs authorised by them (whether generally or specially) for that purpose.
(4) A committee of the Charities Board shall consist of a chairman and two or more other members.
(5) Subject to sub-paragraph (6), all the members of a committee of the Charities Board shall be members of the Board.
(6) In the case of a committee other than one established under sub-paragraph (1), any member other than the chairman may be a person who is not a member of the Charities Board but is appointed to the committee by the Secretary of State at the Board's request.
Tenure of office
2A.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, a person shall hold and vacate office as chairman or other member of the Charities Board or a committee of theirs in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
(2) The Secretary of State shall not appoint a person to hold office as a member of the Charities Board or a committee of theirs for a term of more than five years.
(3) A chairman or member of the Charities Board or a person appointed to a committee of theirs by the Secretary of State may at any time resign his office by notice in writing addressed to the Secretary of State.
(4) A member of the Charities Board or a person appointed to a committee of theirs by the Secretary of State may be removed from office by the Secretary of State on the ground that—

(a) he has been absent for a period longer than three consecutive months from meetings of the Board without the Board's consent or (as the case may be) from meetings of the committee without the committee's consent,

(b) a bankruptcy order has been made against him or his estate has been sequestrated or he has made a composition or arrangement with, or granted a trust deed for, his creditors, or

(c) he is unable or unfit to discharge the functions of his office.

(5) If a chairman of the Charities Board or a committee of theirs ceases to be a member of the Board he shall also cease to be chairman.
(6) A person who ceases, otherwise than by virtue of sub-paragraph (4), to be a member or chairman of the Charities Board or a committee of theirs shall be eligible for re-appointment.").
The noble Viscount said: For the distribution of charities' share of the lottery proceeds, the Bill proposes a charities board of 16 members plus a chairman, appointed by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary has agreed that of those 16 he will appoint three on the nomination of each of the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. He will also appoint three in respect of England and four in respect of the UK as a whole. Each group of three nominees will form the majority membership of the national committees which the board will be required to establish.
The size of the charities board can be increased by order, but anything much bigger would be unwieldy as a central policy-making body. The committee responsible for any constituent part of the UK will be composed predominantly of those nominated by the relevant Secretary of State. They will sit on the charities board, and they will form a majority of the board members (that is, nine out of 16). Thus, the interests of the UK as a whole and of its constituent parts will be protected.
It has been suggested to us, however, by the charitable organisations that the board, as envisaged, will not be adequate for the volume of applications expected. That may be as many as 100,000 grant applications per year. The organisations speak from a wealth of experience of grant-making, so I understand the concern.
The amendment addresses the concern. It enables the Home Secretary, at his discretion but on application by the board, to appoint as members of any board committees other than the four national ones—for example, a committee for charities operating overseas, perhaps in the Commonwealth—people who are not members of the board itself. Their decision-making powers will be restricted to the committees upon which they serve; the committees will be required to have a board member as chairman, and there must be at least one board member at each committee meeting.
We believe that the amendment will enable the board to have whatever additional decision-making power it needs without giving rise to other problems. It will not affect the structure of the board, its size and composition, its duty to appoint national committees, its power to appoint other committees, and its ability to regulate its own procedure. It will be for the board to decide what committees to appoint, what decisions to delegate to them and what their relations should be with the national committees. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu: I speak to Amendments Nos. 101 to 103 which are grouped with Amendment No. 96 and which are in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I hope that the Minister will think that these are all helpful additions to the Bill. Amendment No. 101 is designed to place on the face
1604
of the Bill the Government's intention that the committees of the charities board shall have sole responsibility for dealing with applications for funds to benefit the areas that they cover. The last part of the amendment will make it possible for the board to delegate other functions to the committees.
The Rothschild Royal Commission Report on gambling published in 1978 recommended devolution of decision making to boards in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That was done largely upon the basis of the size and complexity of the task of distributing grants which, given that nearly 500,000 voluntary organisations are involved, is clearly a vast one.
The Bill partially recognises the principle of devolution in that it proposes separate grant-making committees for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; but what is at issue—it is an issue on the face of the Bill as it stands—is the degree of independence that those committees will be allowed.
Amendment No. 101 is aimed at securing some assurances from the Minister that the distribution committees proposed in those areas will have the powers to develop grant-making policies within the broad framework which is agreed by the National Lottery Charities Board. We understand that it is the Government's intention that the committees should have that degree of independence, but the provisions of the Bill would leave the way open for the National Lottery Charities Board to take all decisions centrally. If that turned out to be the case, the mechanism set up to distribute the charities' share of national lottery proceeds would not be sensitive enough to the needs of a voluntary sector as they apply separately in each of the different areas.
It is surely important that the national committees should have the independence to develop their own grant-making policies, because the voluntary sectors in those areas are different from one another. Funding decisions which are made at a nation level can appreciate and take account of those differences in a way that a centralised distribution system hinging on a central national lotteries board could not. Similarly, a central distributing board will not be able to see and to respond to the particular needs of its area in anything like as sensitive a way as a national committee could.
Another reason why it is important that a distribution system should be decentralised and each committee allowed the power to develop its own policies is that there is otherwise a danger that current patterns of funding will be replicated and that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will thus lose out. Those countries are already at a disadvantage because there are few charitable trusts based in or dedicated to funding voluntary activity in those areas. This bias in trust funding has been recognised in the sector and, as a consequence, some trusts such as the Baring Foundation have introduced what might be called positive action programmes to get funding into those areas.
It is recognised that the central UK National Lottery Charities Board will decide the broad policy parameters within which each of the nation

1605
committees will operate. For instance, the board will have to decide which categories of activity can best be funded centrally—for example, overseas aid—and how applications which cross nation boundaries will be handled. It will also need to establish guidelines in relation to good administration and so forth. However, the board will not be sufficiently close to the ground to decide what are the strategic funding priorities in each of those areas.
To sum up, the purpose of Amendment No. 101, which I hope the Government will accept, is to obtain a commitment that they intend that the committees set up to administer grants in each of those areas will have the power to develop their own grant-making policies within a broad framework established nationally. That is vital if the mechanism is to be sensitive to the particular needs of those areas.
Amendment No. 102 sets out the formula for the composition of the nation committees of the charities board. It retains the original provision of the Bill that three members of the board shall be on each nation committee while referring to the earlier amendment providing that one of them shall have been specifically appointed following a process of open selection to chair the nation committee. The Government have indicated that it is their intention that the three board members specified in the Bill as it stands shall be from the relevant nation. Increasing the membership is intended to ensure that the nation committee is large enough to carry out the necessary tasks and also that it will be as representative as is likely to be possible.
The amendment removes the Bill's provision that committees of the board shall consist of three or more members of the board. I understand that the Home Office has indicated that the committees provided are to serve as regional and policy advisory committees. Requiring them to consist of three members of the board is impracticable for two reasons; first, it significantly limits the number of committees which it would be possible to set up and, secondly, it prevents the involvement of people with relevant expertise.
Amendment No. 103 is intended to ensure that the National Lottery Charities Board consults the relevant nation committee before making decisions about awarding grants which would be of particular benefit to two or more of the four nations. It is generally agreed that one of the important functions of the National Lottery Charities Board will be to decide grants for projects where the activity to be funded is of benefit to the United Kingdom as a whole; for example overseas aid or medical research, or where applications are made for work which crosses boundaries. Where work is of benefit to only one nation in the United Kingdom the work will be funded by the relevant nation committee. The Government appear to envisage that the National Lottery Charities Board will set up specialist advisory committees to offer advice on funding for areas which it funds centrally because they are of benefit to the United Kingdom as a whole, as in the cases of which I have given examples, or where the charity is engaged in providing overseas aid.
The National Lottery Charities Board will also consider applications for work which crosses UK
1606
boundaries in the same way as it would be sensible for specialist advice to be obtained about areas such as medical research or overseas aid. Where the National Lottery Charities Board is funding work which crosses boundaries but which gives particular benefit, for example, to people in Wales and England, it would surely be sensible for the grant making committees in those two nations to be consulted about the appropriateness of the particular scheme to meet the needs of their areas.
The amendment would ensure that the National Lottery Charities Board will take the best possible decision when it is considering applications for work which crosses boundaries in that way and which is of particular benefit to two or more nations simply by requiring the board to consult with the relevant nations on the merits of those applications. I hope that the noble Viscount will riot consider that to be a startling proposition.
Viscount Astor: It may help the Committee if I reply to the amendment at this stage. The first part of the amendment would effectively establish a national committee as a separate board. The Government considered carefully the idea of separate boards for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales but rejected it because it ignored overseas issues. Some organisations operate nationwide or in more than one area. Some beneficiaries might provide in one area a resource which benefits all. Some might conduct research that benefits all. The board must be able to address those issues.
It must also have a policy overview and be able to decide, for example, when there is a need for consistency across the nation or when there needs to be a concerted UK response to an EC or UN initiative. For those reasons, the board needs to be able to regulate its own procedures. That includes deciding what are appropriate activities for delegation to the committees. National interests will be protected by the fact that the majority of the board are members of those committees.
The board and its committees will have the power to appoint expert advisers and these could be from the local voluntary sector. We recognise that there may be a need for more people with a power to take decisions and I brought forward an earlier amendment to that effect.
Those extra committee members will be appointed by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary at the request of the board. They will not be available to sit on the national committees, in order to ensure that the majority on those committees are appointed by the relevant Secretary of State and together comprise the majority of the charities board itself. It will be for the board itself and for the national committees to decide what other committees to appoint, what will be their functions and how they will relate to the national committees. For example, a national committee may decide that certain decisions should be dealt with by regional committees or that there should be a special committee for special types of application. The government amendment will provide that the chairman of any committee must be a member of the

1607
board and that the committee's proceedings will not be valid unless one of those present is a board member.
I turn now to Amendment No. 103. The procedures of the National Lottery Charities Board are for that body to decide. But it will of course, in appropriate cases, ensure that consultations take place with the statutory national committees (of which they are the members) on any application which benefits more than one of the countries of the UK. I remind the Committee that 12 members of the 16 on the board will be from the national committees. It will be in their interests to get their procedures right, and I have every confidence that they will do so. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I recognise that the Government are alert to the need to be sensitive to the different needs of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But listening to the noble Baroness's comprehensive and clear exposition of the amendments which stand also in my name, I fear that the Government have not gone far enough. There is a tremendous suspicion that the whole of the national lottery will turn out to be English dominated—and not just English dominated but London dominated. It will be metropolitan in its priorities.
Whether or not we pursue the matter this evening, the Government must look at the sense of these three amendments to see whether they cannot specifically recognise that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will wish there to be a substantial measure of strategic direction within their own territories. I have some parliamentary responsibility for Northern Ireland. I can assure Members of the Committee that it will not be adequate for Northern Ireland to say as and when they may be consulted. Something more is required.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 97 and 98:
Page 31, line 31, leave out ("and other members") and insert ("and any other member of the Board or any committee of theirs").
Page 32, leave out lines 22 to 37.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I must advise the Committee that I cannot call Amendment No. 99 because Amendment No. 98 has been agreed to.
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 100 to 103 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 32, line 43, at end insert:
("( ) No committee of the Charities Board may exercise any function of the Board at a meeting unless one of the members present is a member of the Board.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [The Millennium Commission]:
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 33, line 38, at end insert:
(" (c) one shall be nominated after consultation with the leaders of the minority parties other than Her Majesty's Opposition.").
The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 106. We have opposed the whole concept of the Millennium Fund and the Millennium Commission, but it seems that the Government are determined to have it. However, if they are determined to have it, there are two reasons why they should consider the inclusion on the commission of a representative of the minority parties. First, regularly at general elections in this country for some decades now one in four voters has not voted for either the Conservative or Labour Parties. Some account should be taken of that fact.
The second reason why the Government should consider the inclusion of a representative of the minority parties as well as a representative of the Labour Party on the Millennium Commission is that there are to be two representatives of the Government. At recent elections the Government received somewhere between 40 and 45 per cent. of the votes of the people of this country. As we were assured earlier by the noble Viscount, the commission is not meant in any way to be government-dominated. Surely, therefore, they could give effect to that non-government domination by having two representatives of the government and two other representatives; for example, one from the Labour Party and one from the minority parties.
I realise that giving such a speech from these Benches will seem to be self-interested. However, it is not directly self-interested; it is a plea to the Government to try to make the Millennium Commission as broadly representative of the people of this country as possible. In that sense, I hope that they will take on board the arguments that I have put forward. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: In establishing the Millennium Commission, we recognised that we were establishing a far-reaching and visionary body which would be of interest to the whole nation. We want the membership of the commission to reflect a wide spectrum of the experience, skills and opinion, besides those of politicians. Therefore, we thought it right that only two members out of nine on the commission should be Ministers of the Crown—that is right because the focus of the commission will cross the interests of a number of government departments—and also that that minimal political representation should be complemented by one member nominated by the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. Of course, it is a delicate political matter.
We have chosen to seek a nomination from Her Majesty's Opposition because the official Opposition has a particular and definable role within our constitution. It is a fact, however regrettable to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, that the official role is not available to the minority opposition parties at present. If it were to become so, the position could be reconsidered by, for example, the then Prime

1609
Minister in advising Her Majesty the Queen who appoints members to the commission on the advice of the Prime Minister.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: The noble Viscount certainly gives our party a substantial incentive to continue our advance towards the citadels of power, including the Millennium Commission. It is too late at night for us to press this amendment but it is a subject to which we shall return. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Grants in respect of projects]:
[Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 not moved.]
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Annual report]:
[Amendments Nos. 109, 110 and II0A not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clauses 40 to 42 agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 111:
After Clause 42, insert the following new clause:
Importation and exportation restrictions
(".—(1) In section I of the Revenue Act 1898 (prohibition on the importation of advertisements and notices relating to lotteries) as it applies in the United Kingdom, after "importation" there shall be inserted "from a place outside the British Islands and the member States".
(2) In section 2(1) of the 1976 Act (general lottery offences)—

(a) in paragraph (d) (bringing or sending lottery tickets or advertisements into Great Britain) after "Great Britain" there shall be inserted "from a place outside the British Islands and the member States", and

(b) in paragraph (e) (sending lottery proceeds etc. out of Great Britain) after "Great Britain" there shall be inserted "to a place outside the British Islands and the member States".

(3) In Article 132(1) of the Betting, Gaming. Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (general lottery offences)—

(a) in paragraph (d) (bringing or sending lottery tickets or advertisements into Northern Ireland) after "Northern Ireland" there shall be inserted "from a place outside the British Islands and the member States", and

(b) in paragraph (f) (sending lottery proceeds etc. out of Northern Ireland) after "Northern Ireland" there shall be inserted "to a place outside the British Islands and the member States".").

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 111, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 136. The new clause does no more than remove the border control on lottery material; in other words, bringing tickets and advertising material into the country via the ports and via the post. At the best of times this has not been a particularly effective method of enforcement. The real enforcement will be that, once in this country, the material cannot be used to advertise the lottery of another country. The prohibition on the promotion of foreign lotteries in this country, including lotteries which emanate from our European partners, will therefore continue to apply.
The only difference resulting from this amendment is that in relation to lottery material coming from a member state, the enforcement of the prohibition will rely exclusively on the inland controls and not on a mixture of border and inland controls. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 43 and 44 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Registration of societies]:
Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 36, line 25, after ("refuse") insert ("or revoke").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 112 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 113 to 116.
Paragraph 3A of Schedule 1 of the 1976 Act requires a local authority to refuse an application for the registration of a society if the Gaming Board has in the past five years refused or revoked the registration of the society under Schedule 1 A. This is designed to prevent a society, which has had its registration refused or revoked by the Gaming Board, from promoting lotteries instead under a local authority registration.
The scheme of the 1976 Act, which is amended by Part III of the Bill, is that a society must promote its lotteries under either a Gaming Board registration or a local authority registration, whichever is appropriate. There is, though, nothing to stop a society from maintaining a "dormant" local authority registration during the period when it is promoting lotteries under a board registration.
Amendments Nos. 112, 113 and 115 therefore extend a local authority's duty from refusing a registration in the circumstances which I have described, to including a duty to revoke a current registration. This will ensure that new paragraph 3A will operate in the way intended. Amendment No. 114 disapplies paragraph 3A where the board has refused or revoked a registration under this head. The local authority will clearly not need to know in these cases that a refusal or a revocation by the board has, in fact, occurred. Amendment No. 116 absolves the board of the requirement to notify the local authority. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 113 to 116:
Page 36, line 27, leave out from ("below") to end of line 29 and insert ("within the last live years").
Page 36, line 29, at end insert:
("( ) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply where the ground for the Board's refusal or revocation was that specified in paragraph 3(2) (e) of Schedule IA below.").
Page 36, line 30, after ("refuse") insert ("or revoke").
Page 39, line 28, after ("and") insert (", except in the case of a refusal or revocation on the ground specified in sub-paragraph (2) (e) above,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Frequency of lotteries]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 116A and 116B:
Page 19, line 31, leave out from ("that") to ("under") in line 32 and insert ("may be promoted").
Page 19, line 33, after ("months") insert ("on behalf of the same society or by the same local authority").
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 116A and 116B are drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48 [Rules for lotteries]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 20, line 10, leave out ("10") and insert ("20").
The noble Lord said: Although Amendment No. 117 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 118 and 118A I shall speak only to Amendment No. 117 as the other amendments concern a different subject.
The purpose of the amendment is to increase the limit on the maximum prize in a society lottery from £25,000 or 10 per cent. of potential ticket sales to £25,000 or 20 per cent. of ticket sales, whichever is the greater.
Research suggests that the national lottery could have a dramatic effect on charitable income from small lotteries. Charities in the Republic of Ireland have experienced a 60 per cent. drop in their small lottery income since the creation of the state lottery in 1987. According to a report in the Guardian, the Government's own GAH report suggested that the drop in small lottery income in the United Kingdom as a result of the national lottery could be as great as 50 per cent.
The Government are shortly to bring forward Amendment No. 118A which will increase the limit on the size of a small lottery from £500,000 to £1 million, which I welcome.
It has been argued during the course of debate on the Bill that the size of the top prize in the national lottery will be the crucial factor in determining sales. Surely, the same argument holds for small lotteries run by charities, sports clubs and community groups. As I believe I have heard my noble friend Lord Ferrers say on more than one occasion, what is sauce for the goose, is surely sauce for the gander. I therefore believe that the maximum top prize in a society lottery should be increased from £25,000 or 10 per cent. to £25,000 or 20 per cent. of potential ticket sales. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The amendments are grouped together. Perhaps I may take the opportunity to speak to my amendment, Amendment No. 118A.
Lord Swinfen: If my noble friend will forgive me, I said that I spoke only to Amendment No. 117. I warned our mutual noble friend Lord Astor at the beginning of proceedings that I would be dealing only with Amendment No. 117.
Earl Ferrers: I understand that my noble friend wishes to speak only to Amendment No. 117. However, the three amendments are grouped together. By putting down Amendment No. 1 18A we have gone a great deal of the way to meet the points which my noble friend has in mind. It was suggested that the prize limits should be doubled. I suggest to the Committee that it would be right to do that and not to go to the largest increase which my noble friend
1612
suggested. If that suggestion were to be accepted, the increase in prize money would be very substantial. It would mean that the maximum proceeds would increase from £180,000 to £1,250,000. It would also mean that the maximum annual proceeds would increase from £2,340,000 to £5 million and that the maximum single prize would increase from £12,000 to £125,000. I understand that my noble friend would like those increases. However, they are fairly substantial. If I might so suggest, it would be better if we have the ones that we propose.
Lord Airedale: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 118A. I do not understand how the provision will work. Amendment No. 118A amends subsection (6). As amended it would state that,
"The total value of the tickets…sold…shall not exceed £1,000,000".
The only way I can see that a promoter can be sure of complying with that requirement is for him to print no more than £1 million worth of tickets and hope that his sellers manage to sell them all. However, I believe that any promoter would say that that is not a recipe for running a successful lottery.
It is not an exact science, but in practice you try to estimate how many tickets you think each seller will manage to sell. Then you give him a surplus in the hope that he will be more successful than you expect and will compensate for the disappointment you may have in other sellers who do not manage to sell as many tickets as you expect. When the money and the unsold tickets come in at the end of the selling period, more than £1 million worth of tickets may have been sold and the promoter will be in breach of the subsection. But all that he has sought to do is to run a successful lottery and to comply with the law so far as he can.
I therefore hope that the Government will consider the matter again and seek to formulate words which will allow the promoter to run a successful lottery and comply with the law. As drafted at present, the subsection makes life very hard for the promoter. It will not lead to a successful lottery.
Lord Mancroft: Perhaps I may speak briefly to my amendment, Amendment No. 118. The purpose of my amendment was not to alter a principle but to make it easier for the operators of society or charity lotteries to reach the Government's allotted annual target. To reach that target 10 lotteries had to be run. Amendment No. 118 would not alter a principle. It seeks to make the position easier in practice.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers has brought forward Amendment No. 118A to which he has spoken. It supersedes my amendment. I say with gratitude that it is better than the amendment in my name. Amendment No. 118A solves the problem —it is a technical one—and allows the promoters of smaller charity or society lotteries to run them more satisfactorily.
I shall not attempt to get into the area that my noble friend Lord Ferrers and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, did of describing the figures exactly and how the provision would work, because it is almost impossible to describe it in such a way that those

1613
listening can understand it. Suffice it to say that those of us who were worried that the national lottery would swamp the smaller charity lotteries are extremely grateful to the Government for bringing forward the amendment. It answers our problems completely and I hope that the Committee will accept it.
I have not spoken to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Swinfen, which is slightly different. It is aimed at the same area of helping and protecting charity lotteries, but I am not absolutely certain that his amendment does that. Nevertheless, I conclude by saying that I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward Amendment No. 118A, which means that I shall not have to move my own Amendment No. 118.
Baroness Mallalieu: From these Benches, perhaps I may echo what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said. We very much welcome Amendment No. 118A and congratulate the noble Earl on introducing it.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful for those most generous remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. Perhaps I may try to address the point of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. He said that all the promoters wanted to do was to operate within the law. If the Committee agrees to Amendment No. 118A the promoters will be able to operate far more easily within the law because the proceeds limit will have been increased from £500,000 to £1 million. The prize limit goes up from £50,000 to £100,000. The noble Lord is worried that the promoters will have to print more tickets. Of course, that happens at present; people print more tickets and take a risk. That is part of the professionalism of running a lottery or any business. The point is that the limit will be £1 million and they must not go over the limit. If they do, if they take a risk and are wrong, then they breach the law.
Lord Swinfen: My noble friend has increased the size of the lottery that can be run by a society, which is very welcome. He has not raised, as I seek to raise, the prize money available to those who wish to participate in the lottery.
When we were discussing the national lottery, a figure of 50 per cent. of the proceeds was suggested as being available for prize money. I do not suggest that. I suggest a maximum of 20 per cent. It is a matter of making charitable lotteries as attractive as the national lottery to those who may wish to take a chance on them. As has been mentioned, charities fear that they will lose income to the national lottery. I should be grateful if, between now and the next stage, my noble friend would consider that. I shall also give his comments some thought because it may be that the wording of this subsection needs to be slightly changed to show that it is the total value of prizes that I am after, not just the value of one prize. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 118A:
Page 20, line 13, leave out ("£500,000") and insert("£1,000,000").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 21, line 6, at end insert:
("(16) The amount of the proceeds of a society's lottery or a local lottery appropriated for the provision of prizes and the amount of those proceeds appropriated on account of expenses (exclusive of prizes) shall not exceed in aggregate a prescribed percentage of the whole proceeds of the lottery.").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 121 and 122. Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 will enable the Secretary of State to prescribe a maximum proportion of the proceeds of a lottery which may be used for expenses and prizes. The effect of a maximum like this would be to guarantee a minimum proportion for good causes. If, for example, a maximum of 75 per cent. was prescribed, the good causes would be guaranteed at least 25 per cent. of the proceeds.
Amendment No. 122 would enable an order prescribing the maximum percentage of the proceeds which may be used for prizes and expenses and to make different provision for different cases or circumstances. There may be a case, for example, for prescribing a higher percentage for instant lotteries, which tend to return a higher proportion of stakes in prizes than for traditional draw lotteries, where the amount spent on the provision of prizes tends to be rather less. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 [Defence in respect of a contravention of section 11(5) of the 1976 Act]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment NO. 120A:
Page 21, leave out lines 7 and 8 and insert:
("(1) Section 13 of the 1976 Act (offences relating to societies' lotteries and local lotteries) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) (contravention of requirement of Act or of regulations made under it) for "or of any regulations made under it" there shall be substituted ", of any regulations made under it or of any order made under section 10 above".
(3) After subsection (2) there shall he inserted-").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak to Amendment No. 120B. These two amendments are consequential upon the provisions of Clause 47 of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 120B:
Page 21, line 20, at end insert:
("(4) In subsection (4) (defence in respect of contravention of section 10 etc.) after "contravention of" there shall be inserted "an order made under".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50 [Powers of the Secretary of State to vary monetary limits and to prescribe or vary fees]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 121 and 122:
Page 21, line 27, at end insert ("or prescribe the percentage referred to in subsection (16) of that section").
Page 21, line 38, leave out from ("(2)") to end of line 40 and insert ("for "subsection (1) (e) above" there shall be substituted "subsection (1) above may make different provision for different cases or circumstances and an order made by virtue of paragraph (e) of that subsection".").
The noble Earl said: I move Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 en bloc. I spoke to them with Amendment No. 120. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Removal of prohibition on the use of premises for the delivery of football pools coupons and stakes]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 22, line 33, after ("forecasts") insert ("(i)").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 124 and 125.
We now move on to Part IV of the Bill, a completely different area to all that we have been discussing so far. I have to say to my noble friend that there are four important issues which are covered in the series of amendments to Part IV of the Bill. My noble friend's amendment on roll-over is very important. With the best will in the world, I do not believe that we shall be able to cover the whole of the issue of Part IV of the Bill in the next 18 minutes. I really do feel that Part IV of the Bill, which concerns the football pools industry, a major industry in this country, deserves more than 18 minutes' worth of consideration at Committee stage. However, I shall commence on the amendments.
The Committee will already be aware that during the Bill's passage in another place several amendments were made to take account of the pools industry's right to compete fairly and equally for its existing markets with the national lottery.
From the earliest stages of the Bill—indeed, before it was even introduced—the pools were arguing that their product and the lottery were equivalent forms of long-odds, low-stake gambling which would be competing for similar markets. It was therefore vital that they be afforded the same treatment in the market as was given to the lottery. I am pleased that the Government have agreed to take account of the industry's case, and I am delighted with the distance that they have travelled to accommodate the concerns that have been voiced from many quarters.
Without the amendments the impact of the national lottery would have had serious implications for pools business and, consequently, the jobs of its many thousands of employees on Merseyside, and in Cardiff, Glasgow and London.
Furthermore, the £100 million that the industry currently contributes to good causes through the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and the Football Trust would also have been threatened. Most importantly for the Chancellor, of course, a downturn in pools business would also have meant a reduction in the £320 million received by the Treasury in tax revenue.
One of the amendments accepted by the Government to annul those fears dealt with the sale of pools coupons in shops. In short, whereas before it was illegal for pools coupons to be sold in shops, the
1616
Government now recognise that if lottery tickets are to be sold from those premises, so too should pools coupons.
Although technically illegal, it is widely known that pools coupons have, for a long time, been available from shops. In practical terms, therefore, the legalisation of the sales will now make easier the marketing of pools coupons which will be better able to compete with the sale of lottery tickets from the same premises.
While I fully support the spirit of the amendment, I still have a number of concerns in regard to the definition of "qualifying competition" in Clause 52; that is, the type of competition that is allowed on pools coupons sold in shops. The offending text in subsection (4D) (a) of Clause 52 reads:
"a competition for prizes for making forecasts as to association football games to be played on a Saturday, a Sunday or a day that is a bank holiday in England and Wales or in Scotland under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971".
While the Government have come some way in broadening the definition of a "qualifying competition" through the inclusion of association football matches played on Sundays and bank holidays, there is still the problem that the definition does not yet include events other than football —for example, major horse races and cricket matches. Currently, pools companies do, from time to time, use such non-football events on their coupons and, if the amendment is not accepted, will now be unable to do so on their coupons sold in shops.
It is absurd that the pools companies will only be allowed to sell in shops coupons which use football matches while on those coupons which are, for example, sold door to door, they will be allowed to use a number of different sports. The ludicrous situation will be created where the pools would be forced to issue two types of coupons; the first type for sale in shops, which would relate only to football matches, and the second, which would cover the rest of the business.
The Government should therefore consider carefully whether to continue with what I and the pools companies regard as a needless, and extremely petty, restriction. After all, it is already an established practice to run pools competitions on sporting events other than football.
I suspect that my noble friend will resist the amendment on the grounds that it may open a Pandora's Box of pool betting in unlicensed premises. With respect to him and the Government, that is nonsense. Does anybody believe that in 70 years of pools operations in this country it would not have been possible before now, had a market existed for it, to introduce the sort of pools competition the Government now appear to fear. The truth is that the market is limited. How can it be otherwise when the amount of disposable income is limited and 47.5 per cent. of pools turnover disappears in tax and in contributions to good causes even before the proportion available for winners is determined.
All I am seeking is the opportunity for the pools to have the right to continue to operate their business as they have done up to now. If the amendment is not

1617
accepted, it will mean that as well as introducing a national lottery into the United Kingdom, the Bill will also effectively take from the pools industry part of its established business. That can neither be fair nor sensible. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I can open the Pandora's Box because, although my noble friend is understandably concerned about the football pools, my concern is in regard to horse-race betting, the levy and horse racing itself. What my noble friend's amendments would do is allow pools betting, as already happens on, say, the Grand National, and that could be extended to other horse racing. That means that horse-race pool betting would be taking place in unlicensed premises. While the horse-race betting industry accepts that the lottery will come along, and that it will have an impact, it does not believe that it is right that that kind of pool betting should be allowed on unlicensed premises. I hope that my noble friend will resist the amendments.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said in moving the amendment. He made an extremely good case. As he said, it is a complicated subject and needs extensive discussion, in spite of the eloquent speech he made. It is unfortunate that tonight we are severely restricted by time. We are expected to finish our business in 11 minutes, which means that there is little time to argue the case. Although some time may be available in the spill-over, it is a very small amount of time indeed. On that basis, I support the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Brabazon. I do so in an individual capacity—that is why I am not speaking from the Front Bench. I have no doubt that if the issue is not taken tonight we shall be debating the matter at greater length at the Report stage.
Earl Ferrers: I agree with both my noble friend Lord Brabazon and my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. My noble friend Lord Brabazon thought that I would probably resist the amendment. He is quite right. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish hoped that I would resist it; and he is right. So we start off in agreement.
These amendments seek to extend the definition of a "qualifying competition". As it is set out in the Bill, the definition relaxes the law to football pools coupons only. The reason for that is simple. As my noble friend Lord Mackay suggested, if we allow pool betting on other sports to take place in newsagents arid other shops, it could potentially turn those shops into unlicensed premises and unregulated betting offices. We should be wary about going down that road.
We have some sympathy for the pools in their companies' desire that existing pool companies should be able to market their other existing pools competitions through retail outlets at the same time as their football competitions. We have therefore given careful consideration to these arguments. But having studied them, I am afraid that they serve only to reinforce our view that it would not be possible to
1618
amend the Bill to allow existing pool promoters to market all their other existing pools competitions through shops without opening up the possibility cif large-scale pool betting on a whole variety of sports —such as horse-racing and dogs: the Pandora's box as my noble friend referred to it —taking place in these premises. The effect would be to undermine the systern of licensed betting offices.
We see two particular difficulties with the amendments. First, I do not think that the well intentioned attempt to limit a pool promoter to 52 other qualifying competitions a year —in other words, competitions which are not based on football —willl achieve its purpose. This restriction could easily be evaded by a parent company setting up any number of subsidiaries, each of which may register as a pool promoter and run its so-called quota of 52 competitions a year.
The second difficulty which we have with the amendments is the definition of a,
"customary pool betting game or sporting event"
I appreciate that the phrase,
"of the same kind as or is broadly similar to",
has a precedent in the British Telecommunications Act 1981, but in this context we believe that it would be too expansive and vague. The phrase could, for example, open the way for pool betting on any horse or greyhound race to take place in ordinary retail outlets.
For those reasons I hope that the Committee will agree that the Bill would be better without my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I have listened carefully to my noble friend's reply and naturally I do not intend to press the amendment tonight. I should like to consider his reply. As I said in my opening remarks, there will be this anomaly in the difference between football pools and pools on other sports except that the only difference in the anomaly is that they will not be available for sale in shops. They will still presumably be available for sale by collectors going round houses or factories, as happens at the moment, so the concerns of my noble friend Lord Mackay will not be entirely satisfied. But that is what happens at the moment. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 124 and 125 not moved.]
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 126:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause:
Roll-over of prize money
(".—(1) Schedule 2 to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (registered pool promoters) shall he amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 13 (requirements with which the pool betting business of a registered pool promoter must comply) for sub-paragraph (e) there shall be substituted—
"(e) the total amount payable by way of winnings shall, in the case of each competition, be calculated in accordance with paragraph 13A of this Schedule;".
(3) After paragraph 13 there shall be inserted—
"13A.—(1) In any competition the total amount payable by way of winnings shall be the aggregate of—

(a) the total amount of the stakes in respect of entries in the competition, less the relevant percentage of that total amount; and

(b) any amount that has been duly carried over to the competition from a previous competition in accordance with any provision made under paragraph 14A of this Schedule;

less any amount that falls to be carried over from the competition in accordance with any such provision.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph "relevant percentage" means such percentage as may be determined by the promoter, being—

(a) the same percentage in respect of all his competitions which depend on the same events or on events taking place on the same day; and

(b) a percentage which is determined and notified to the accountant before that day."

(4) In paragraph 14—

(a) after "paragraph 13(d) or (e)" there shall be inserted "or 13A", and

(b) for "paragraph 13(e)" there shall be substituted "paragraph 13A".

(5) After paragraph 14 there shall be inserted—
"14A.—(1) Subject to any directions under paragraph 14B of this Schedule, the rules applicable to any competition may provide that if none of the bets in the competition qualifies for, or for a share in, the first prize—

(a) the amount of that prize shall be carried over to the next relevant competition, or

(b) part of that amount shall be carried over to the next relevant competition and the balance shall be applied as mentioned in paragraph 14(1) (b) of this Schedule.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph—

(a) "the first prize" means the highest prize that can be won, having regard to the outcome of the events on wl'ich the competition depends (and not any higher prize that could have been won had the outcome of those events been different),

(b) "the next relevant competition" means the next competition to be held by the same registered pool promoter under the same rules within the fourteen days following the day on which the result of the competition is determined, and

(c) the reference in paragraph (b) to part of the amount referred to in paragraph (a) is to such proportion of that amount as may be specified in the rules or as may be determined by the promoter in accordance with the rules.

14B.—(1) The Secretary of State may direct that any provision made under paragraph 14A of this Schedule—

(a) is not to have effect, or

(b) is to have effect subject to such limitations as are specified in the direction.

(2) The limitations that may be specified under sub-paragraph (1) (b) of this paragraph include—

(a) limitations as to the number of competitions from which amounts may be carried over, and

(b) limitations as to the period within which any such competitions may be held.

(3) Any directions under this paragraph shall be given in writing and may be varied or revoked by subsequent directions."
(6) In paragraph 15—

(a) after "paragraph 13(d) or (e)" there shall be inserted "or 13A", and

(b) for "paragraph 13(e)" there shall be substituted "paragraph 13A".

(7) In paragraph 20(1) (information relating to a competition which the promoter is required to include in a statement to the accountant) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—

"(bb) the amount (if any) carried over to the competition from a previous competition in accordance with any provision made under paragraph 14A of this Schedule;

(bbb) the amount (if any) carried over from the competition in accordance with any such provision;".

(8) In paragraph 21 (statement as to commission and expenses which the promoter is required to send to every competitor in a competition)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1) (a) for the words from "after deducting" to the end there shall be substituted "after making in respect of each of those competitions the deductions mentioned in sub-paragraph (1A) of this paragraph;", and

(b) after sub-paragraph (1) there shall be inserted—

"(1A) In relation to any competition, the deductions referred to are—

(a) a deduction of the aggregate of the total amount payable by way of winnings in the competition and any amount carried over from the competition in accordance with any provision made under paragraph 14A of this Schedule, less any amount carried over to the competition in accordance with any such provision, and

(b) a deduction of the amount of pool betting duty payable in respect of the competition."

(9) In paragraph 23(1) (content of annual statement to be sent by registered pool promoter to accountant and registering authority) in paragraph (b) for the words from "after deducting" to the end there shall be substituted "after making in respect of each of those competitions the deductions mentioned in paragraph 21(1A) of this Schedule;".").
The noble Earl said: This new clause fulfils an undertaking which was given by my honourable friend the Minister of State in another place to bring forward a government amendment which will afford the pools companies the opportunity to roll over prize money on terms similar to those which apply to the national lottery. The clause amends Schedule 2 to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara had given notice of his intention to move, as amendments to Amendment No. 126, Amendments Nos. 126A to 126E:
Line 53, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("twenty eight").
Line 55, after ("determined") insert ("or either of the following two such competitions (whether or not falling within that period)").
Line 59, at end insert:
("(3) If at any time it appears to the Secretary of State—

(a) that the effect of this paragraph or paragraph 13 above or both those paragraphs is to impose a prohibition or restriction on the carry over of prizes in a competition; and

(b) that that prohibition or restriction—

(i) does not apply to the carry over of prizes that can be won in a lottery forming part of the National Lottery, or

(ii) is more restrictive than the prohibitions and restrictions which apply by virtue of any enactment to the carry over of those prizes,

he shall by regulations make such modifications of this Schedule as he considers are necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing that that prohibition or

1621
restriction ceases to apply or, as the case may be, that it is no more restrictive than those prohibitions and restrictions.").
Line 70, at end insert:
("(2A) Where the Secretary of State gives a direction under this paragraph in respect of any provision in any rules applicable during any period to a competition promoted by a registered pool promoter, he shall also give directions to the same effect in respect of any similar provisions in any rules applicable to a competition promoted by another registered pool promoter in that period.
(2B) No direction may he given under this paragraph the effect of which is to impose a prohibition or limitation on the carry over of the whole or part of the amount of a prize in a competition unless a corresponding prohibition or limitation applies to the amount payable as the highest prize that can be won in a lottery forming part of the National Lottery.").
At end insert:
("(10) In section 7 of the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981 (pool betting duty) after subsection (4) (which provides that the expenses and profits taxable under subsection (1) (b) of that section are to exclude expenses provided out of stake money) there shall be inserted—
"(4A) Where any amount carried over in accordance with paragraph 14A of Schedule 2 to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 would not (apart from this subsection) be treated for the purposes of subsection (4) as provided for out of the stake money, it shall be so treated.".").
The noble Lord said: In view of the lateness of the hour I do not propose to move the amendments to my noble friend's new clause, but I shall wish to return to them at the next stage.
Baroness Mallalieu: In supporting these amendments there is a matter which I understand was raised by my noble friend Lord Howell at an earlier stage. It seems that by these amendments the pools promoters are receiving every consideration in this Bill. It is to be hoped that the Minister will perhaps be able to persuade them that their accounts, which I understand are still not published, and other matters, are placed in the public domain. It would be helpful if, in addition to having placed in the Library of this House, information about the effect of lotteries on charities and also on the Horserace Betting Levy Board, we could have similar information about the pools. It would seem, because of the consideration which they have received in relation to this Bill, the least that the pools promoters could do is to ensure that that information is provided not only to this Committee but also to the public.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may answer the noble Baroness. I believe that the pools companies are themselves best placed to provide information on their income. We shall of course be more than happy if they volunteer to share such information with Members of this Chamber and of another place. I shall certainly bear in mind what the noble Baroness said.
[Amendments Nos. 126A to 126E, as amendments to Amendment No. 126, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 126 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Pools promoters' dividends]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 23, line 28, after ("by") insert ("section (Roll-over of prize money) (4) and").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 126. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 126F:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause.
("Announcement of game of skill or competition
.—(1) The codes drawn up under sections 9 and 93 of the Broadcasting Act, 1990 (which provide for the control of advertisements broadcast on television and on radio) shall require that any advertisement or announcement concerning a game of skill or other competition (not being a lottery) shall state the expected percentage return to participants, determined in accordance with (2) below, unless the value of the prizes offered varies in direct proportion to the number of participants, when
the ratio (P) (N) below shall be the actual value of the prizes offered per participant.
(2) The "expected percentage return" shall be determined from the formula:
(P/N) * (100/S)
where
P is the lower of the cost of the prize(s) in the game to the promoter or their retail value to the participants.
S is the cost (or expected average cost) to each participant or participatory in the game, including the costs of postal or telephone communication.
N is the expected number of participants in the game, which shall be the maximum allowed number of such participants unless there is no such maximum, when it shall be the greater of

(a) the number of participants in the most successful game run in the previous year by the promoters, or

(b) the number of participants in the most successful game promoted in the previous year on the television or radio station concerned, or

(c) 10,000.").

The noble Lord said: I shall return to this amendment at Report, but for the moment the amendment is not moved.
[Amendment No. 126F not moved.]
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 128:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Control of broadcast advertisements as respects lotteries and pool betting competitions
.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), the codes drawn up under sections 9 and 93 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (which provide for the control of advertisements broadcast on television and on radio) shall not discriminate between advertisements promoting activities falling within different paragraphs of subsection (3).
(2) The code may impose different conditions in relation to such advertisements if—

(a) the conditions imposed in relation to an advertisement for an activity falling within one of those paragraphs would be inappropriate in relation to an activity falling within another of those paragraphs; and

(b) conditions are also imposed in relation to advertisements for that other activity which are of a broadly similar commercial effect.

(3) The activities referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a) a lottery forming part of the National Lottery for the purposes of Part I of this Act;

1623

(b) a lottery which is declared by section 3, 4 or 25(6) of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 not to be unlawful;

(c) a society's lottery or local lottery within the meaning of section 5 or 6 of that Act; and

(d) a competition conducted as part of the pool betting business carried on by a registered pool promoter (within the meaning of section 4 of the Betting Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963) or by way of sponsored pool betting.").

The noble Lord said: We now turn to the issue of broadcasting advertising. I have already spoken today —as well as at Second Reading—on the pools industry's right to compete fairly and equally for its existing markets with the national lottery. The pools, as the Committee will be aware, have fought hard to ensure that, following the introduction of the national lottery, they have the necessary freedoms to operate in the market place and to compete effectively with the lottery for their existing clients.
I have tabled this amendment, similar to those tabled in another place, in the same spirit of free and fair competition. It is vital that the pools are given the same rights to market their products as will be given to the national lottery. These measures are necessary, as I said in moving my earlier amendment, to protect the jobs of pools employees as well as the contributions, which I referred to, for good causes. I am not ungrateful, and I welcome wholeheartedly the amendments that the Government have brought to the Bill to ensure that the pools are given a fair deal.
The ability to sell and to market pools coupons in shops properly was a welcome initial step forward. And the Government's new clause on roll-over to be debated in due course seeks to give equal treatment on roll-over for pools and lottery. Furthermore, the decision to reduce the minimum age of pools customers to 16—in line with that which the Government have told us will be applied to lottery customers—and to allow the pools to sponsor television and radio programmes, are additional signs that the pools case has hit home. We have, I feel, almost reached the stage where the pools and lottery can both look forward to the 21st century with confidence. With a few further amendments to the Bill —including the one on advertising, which I am putting forward today—the pools industry can continue in its role as a major employer in high unemployment areas across the United Kingdom. It can continue to make the contributions to which I have already referred.
We all appreciate that the power of advertising in the mass media is immense. To allow the lottery access to that power while denying it to the pools industry would be grossly unfair. Indeed, given the Government's decisions regarding roll-over, the sale of pools coupons in shops and the minimum age for pools customers, I find it difficult to imagine any basis on which they can sustain this position.
Giving the lottery a right to advertise on mass-audience media when its direct competitor is not given the same freedoms is tantamount to market rigging. It is, for instance, undeniable that the hype associated with a television draw leads to increased last-minute ticket sales. Indeed, I am told that it is possible with some on-line games to purchase tickets
1624
up to 10 minutes before the draw. Such a powerful marketing tool would give the national lottery a huge and unfair advantage over the pools.
Of course, I welcome and advocate fully the principles of free and fair competition. There is no reason why the national lottery should not try to convince people who play the pools to buy a lottery ticket. That is only right. What is not right is that the lottery should be allowed to advertise its product—a product which is so similar to that offered by the pools - on media from which the pools are excluded. I hope therefore that the Committee and my noble friend will feel able to accept the new clause. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Birkett: The amendment ought to have included something about bingo clubs. They cannot advertise the size of their prizes—except for the national game - and they cannot advertise where one can play. I do not expect an answer from the Government about bingo clubs tonight, but perhaps my noble friends will consider the matter and write to me about it.
Lord Aberdare: I warmly support my noble friend's amendment. I think that I should repeat the declaration of interest that I made on Second Reading as chairman of the Football Trust. We get our funds either directly or indirectly from the pools companies and are therefore vitally interested in fair competition between the pools and the national lottery. I shall make my remarks as quickly as I can because time is moving on and my noble friend has put the matter very succinctly.
I, too, am most surprised at the Government's refusal to allow the pools to advertise on television and radio. It is obvious that television will be used by the lottery companies - and used very effectively -while the pools companies will not be able in any way to refute what they may say or to make any impact at all on what is the most influential of all media.
Giving the lottery a monopoly will give it a massive competitive advantage over the pools. All along the Government have told us that they do not wish to impede the pools' progress or to damage them. However, not allowing them to advertise on television is, in gambling terms, to load the dice heavily in favour of the lottery. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will take careful note of the amendment and possibly agree to it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As was the case with my noble friend's previous amendment, I would be happier if this amendment extended the level playing field argument to horse-racing. I trust that my noble friend the Minister will either resist the amendment or suggest that he will introduce a proper level playing field on advertising at a later stage.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I rise briefly to support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, which received knowledgeable support from his colleague the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare.
The case for the amendment has been made. I think that it will provide a level playing field. The noble

1625
Lord, Lord Mackay, seems to have become the hit-man tonight for the horse-racing industry. In my opinion, that is one of the industries in this country which has always been able to look after itself. He would do better to produce something of his own instead of latching on to other noble Lords' amendments. The amendment will level the playing field., and I give it my support. This issue is too big for this time of night. We shall no doubt return to it at a later stage.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friends Lord Brabazon and Lord Aberdare want the football pools to be afforded the same opportunity to advertise on television and radio as is afforded to lotteries. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish hoped that I would resist the amendment unless it applied also to horses, in which case there would be a level playing field. I merely tell my noble friend that horses do not run on playing fields. There is a perfectly good playing field at the moment because the arrangements for the broadcast advertising of gambling are well established. Lotteries may advertise on commercial television and radio, first, because they are at the "soft" end of the gambling spectrum; and, secondly, because they are promoted primarily to benefit good causes. Betting and gaming, on the other hand, are promoted for commercial ends. and are therefore prohibited from advertising in the broadcast media. That is a good distinction. We do not believe that it is right to change that arrangement.
One of the reasons why we do not think it is right to do so is because the Rothschild Royal Commission on Gambling addressed that question. What it says still holds good today. In 1978, the report concluded:
"We approve of the IBA ban on the advertisement of pool betting, even though it is now possible, and under our proposals will remain so, to advertise lotteries, including a national lottery for good causes, on radio and television. Considered as forms of gambling, there are similarities between the pools and lotteries, but the latter can be mounted only for good causes while the former are run for private profit and this justifies the lotteries' advantage".
That is what we have followed. That diktat still holds good, and it holds good for this Bill too.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation. Naturally, I do not accept his argument. If there is such a difference between the pools and a lottery, why have my noble friend and the Government conceded so many issues up until now? We are merely speaking of that level playing field. I say to my noble friend Lord Mackay that horse racing is a different kettle of fish altogether—if I may put it like that—because it is short odds gambling as opposed to the low stake long odds gambling of the pools and the future lottery. However, in view of the lateness of the hour, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 129:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Disapplication of s.I of Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976
. Section I of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 (Illegality of Lotteries) shall cease to apply to the conduct of a football pool.").
The noble Lord said: This is the season of the year when Members of the Committee may expect to find in their junk mail a letter from a football pool promoter advising them that they are much too busy to take part in the football pools week by week. So, says the promoter, why not have a standing entry to last, intact and identical, for the whole 42 weeks of the football season? In that way, for a modest weekly contribution, they will have the weekly thrill that they may win a sizeable sum without any further trouble.
The difficulty is that the legality of the football pools depends upon their being regarded as a game of skill, which they are. That is made clear in a House of Lords case called Singette Ltd. and others v. Martin decided in 197O, reported in [1970] 3 All England Reports at page 938. I shall not go into the judgment.. I propose merely to quote about 12 words from the headnote of the case which states:
"Football pool betting scheme—Necessity for element of skill in forecasting to comply with statutory requirements".
The difficulty is that if you enter a standing entry for 42 weeks, after about the second week you have no idea which teams will be taking part in the matches opposite the places where you have made your marks on the coupon. Skill has obviously gone out of the window and you are taking part in a lottery. You probably know that you are taking part in a lottery. The promoter will certainly know that you are taking part in a lottery. This is a wide departure from the law and it brings the law into contempt.
I obtained permission from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, to quote what he said about the rule of law. He said that the rule of law is really a gigantic confidence trick. It only works because people want it to work and because they believe in it. If the law is constantly flouted, as it is in this case. whether in relation to football pools, gambling, Sunday trading or anything else, that tends to bring the rule of law into disrepute. That is serious because nothing stands between us and anarchy except the rule of law.
Why has the law in this case been allowed to be flouted all these years? Is it something to do with the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is by far the biggest winner on the football pools? Every week the Chancellor has a magnificent win on every football pool. Perhaps Government thinking is: why disturb the bird which lays these marvellous golden eggs? It is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.
There are three things to be done about a law which is being flouted; you can enforce it, you can amend it or you can repeal it. The one thing which is inexcusable is to do nothing about it. This amendment seeks repeal, and I hope that it will be acceptable. What can it matter if a few people want to have a standing entry in a football pool throughout the season? It will not change the nature of the football pool at all. Every week the vast majority of punters will be exercising their usual skills to forecast the next. Saturday's matches. If a few people want a standing entry, why not allow them to have that without forcing them to break and to flout the law? I hope that the Government will accept the amendment and tidy up this very unsatisfactory state of affairs. I be,g to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, wants to remove the requirement that the football pools must take the form of a forecasting competition. The effect of such a change would be to alter the whole character of the football pools and, in effect, set them up as rival national lotteries. But whereas the national lottery will be promoted to benefit good causes, the lotteries run by Littlewoods, Vernon's, Zetters and so forth will be promoted for commercial gain.
The noble Lord said that the pools was a game of skill. I do not deny that there is not an inconsiderable element of chance in the football pools, but that is the nature of all betting. However, there is some skill and judgment; and the exercise of that must improve the chances of winning. That football pools may to some appear like a lottery is immaterial. The fact is that they are not lotteries. As the pools are a game of skill, they should be subject to a different regulatory regime from the national lottery and from other lotteries, which are of course a game of chance.
The pools companies have argued that they have no intention of denying those who want to exercise skill the opportunity to do so. That is as may be. But they also say that the character of the pools as a skill-based competition is an inconvenience. What they want is to market the pools not as a form of long-odds betting but as a lucky numbers game—a lottery. It is that proposition which we find difficult to accept.
I cannot advise the Committee to accept the amendment. The fact is that there is a difference between a game of chance and a game in which skill is involved. That is why the two forms of betting or gaming are covered by different regulatory regimes. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will agree that it would not be suitable to make that alteration in the Bill.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: How can it be a game of skill when you buy your weekly entry for 42 weeks or whatever it happens to be and you do not know which teams will be playing in the later weeks? You cannot, from your judgment, decide which team will beat which. How can that be a game of skill?
Earl Ferrers: The effect of the amendment would change the nature of the football pools. At present, they are a form of gambling in which skill is advocated. My noble friend is saying that if everyone fills in the same old form for 52 weeks each year there is no skill involved. My noble friend is trying to change the football pools into a lottery. I suggest that that is not the proper course to follow.
Lord Airedale: The gravamen of what I am saying is that the law is being flouted. I hope that the noble Earl will think about that. I will withdraw the amendment and consider carefully what the Minister said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Orders and regulations]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 130:
1628
Page 23, line 40, after ("25") insert (", 26").
The noble Lord said: I do not propose to move the amendment owing to the lateness of the hour. However, before we return to the Bill on Report perhaps my noble friend will reflect on whether or not Parliament should approve the powers exercisable by the Secretary of State under Clause 26.
[Amendment No. 130 not moved.]
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clauses 56 to 59 agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Repeals]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 50, line 25, column 3, leave out from ("section") to end of line 27 and insert ("3(6) (d), the words from "acting" to "1979".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 [Commencement]:
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 24, line 22, at beginning insert:
("(1) Subject to subsection (2B) below,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 135. The purpose of these two amendments taken together is to bring into force, with effect from the day on which the Bill receives Royal Assent, those aspects of the Bill which amend the provisions relating to existing lotteries governed by the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. The effect of that would be to enable charities and other voluntary groups to raise increased revenue from their own lotteries at the earliest possible opportunity. I hope that the amendments are acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 132A and 134A. My first amendment tackles the issue of the sale of pools coupons in shops. As I have already made clear, I am very pleased that the Government saw fit early on in the passage of the Bill to make provision in the legislation for that already wide-spread practice. I seek to make sure that that very sensible decision, based on practicality rather than bureaucracy, is implemented as quickly as possible—to be precise, within one month of the passing of the Act.
It is the case that the legislation on the sale of pools coupons in shops was introduced because the letter of the law sat so uncomfortably with established practice. The Government recognise that many thousands of retail outlets across the country have been selling coupons for years. Consequently, they decided to adjust legislation to accommodate that reality.
My right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Home Office has indeed recognised that the decision to legalise the sale of pools coupons in shops is based entirely on the need to bring the law back into line with reality. During consideration of the Bill in Committee in another place he said:
"By authorising the delivery of completed coupons and stake money only, but not the paying out of prize money, the new clause does no more than legalise existing practice".

1629
As that is the case, there can surely be no reason for a time delay between Royal Assent and the legalisation of the existing practice. Many thousands of shopkeepers receive a considerable income from the sale of pools coupons, and it would be most unfair to them if they were to be denied this because of a delay in implementing what we must all recognise as a very sensible change in the law.
The second amendment simply makes the point that fair and level competition on roll-over should, in line with government commitments, be brought in as soon as the lottery comes into effect. I hope that my noble friend can give me some words of comfort on my two amendments.
Lord Aberdare: Again, I should like to support the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara. I understand that there are about 20,000 retail outlets already selling such football pool coupons; and, indeed, they have been doing so for years. As soon as the practice is properly legalised, the better it will be. Therefore, there is no reason for a delay between Royal Assent and legalising the existing practice.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 133A in respect of which am slightly more impatient than my noble friend. However, the reasons behind the amendment are exactly as my noble friend gave; namely, that it seems only sensible if we are regularising the law that we should do so immediately we have the legislative opportunity. In addition, the proposed amendment would mean that Clause 52 would allow the football pools to negotiate with the betting shop industry to use betting shops as well as ordinary shops as an outlet.
Lord Birkett: I have tabled two amendments in the present group, Amendments Nos. 133 and 134. I put them forward only to prevent the football pools inventing a national lottery before the real national lottery is established. As I am quite sure that the Government do not want that to happen any more than I do, I shall not move my amendments.
Earl Ferrers: Clause 60 leaves the commencement date for the different provisions of the Bill to be determined by my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for National Heritage. While I fully understand and sympathise with the thinking behind the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, moved, I am afraid to say that for practical reasons it simply will not be possible to bring Part III of the Bill into operation as quickly as the noble Baroness would like.
In particular, a period of time will be needed to enable possibly up to 1,000 societies to register with the Gaming Board under the new Schedule 1A to the 1976 Act, inserted by Schedule 7 to this Bill. In addition, there are a number of consequential changes that will need to be made to the lotteries regulations of 1977. We are required to consult the Gaming Board and local authority associations about such changes.
1630
We shall also want to hear the views of the promoters of society lotteries. Again, such consultations will take a little time.
I know that any delay in bringing Part III into force will come as a disappointment to a number or charities hoping to benefit from the new monetary limits. But I hope that the noble Baroness will accept the reasons for that and my assurance that we shall do all we can to keep the delay to an absolute minimum.
With regard to the commencement of the provisions in Part IV of the Bill which relate to the pools, we propose to adopt the middle way between the approaches suggested, on the one hand, by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett (who does not propose to move his amendments) and, on the other hand, by my noble friends Lord Brabazon and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. It is our intention to bring those provisions into force as soon as the national lottery is, as they say, "up and running".
My noble friends Lord Brabazon and Lord Mackay have suggested that there is no case for delay in commencement of Clause 52. I cannot agree. Bringing the provision into operation one month after Royal Assent, as proposed by my noble friends, would give the pools an unfair advantage over the lottery. The pools companies would be able to expand their customer base by advertising the coupon collection service available in newsagents and other shops before the national lottery was functioning and was in a position to compete. Therefore, I think that it would be unfair. I hope that my noble friends will agree not: to press their amendments.
Baroness Mallalieu: I confess that I am disappointed by the answer given by the noble Earl. He must he aware that many charities, especially large ones. are already registered with the Gaming Board. I find his answer incompatible—although, perhaps, he may be able to explain—with a Written Answer that he gave to my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris, or 7th June of this year. My noble friend asked the Government:
"Whether they will provide an estimate of the number of charities that will need to de-register from local authorities and re-register with the Gaming Board in order to comply with the new provisions under the National Lottery etc Bill relating to society lotteries".
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, answered:
"Given the large increases in the threshold limits under the Bill, probably very few, if any".—[Official Report, 7/6/93; col. WA 44.]
I am not quite clear where the thousands that will cause the delay have arisen from. But given the lateness of the hour, clearly this matter cannot be taken further today and, with the leave of the Committee, I shall withdraw the amendment but may well wish to return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: Before the noble Baroness does that, I hope I may answer her question. The Written Answer I gave referred to a net increase in board registrations.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 132A to 135A nor moved.]
Clause 60 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
In the Title:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 136:
Line 6, leave out from ("amend") to ("the") in line 8 and insert ("section 1 of the Revenue Act 1898 and the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976: to amend").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 111. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past eleven o'clock.

  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL, 28th—29th JUNE
  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL, 28th—29th JUNE
  THORP: CONSULTATION
  THORP: CONSULTATION
  YOUTH TRAINING SERVICES: DEBATE, 23RD JUNE
  YOUTH TRAINING SERVICES: DEBATE, 23RD JUNE
  EC COHESION FUND
  EC COHESION FUND
  HIGHER EDUCATION DRAFT CHARTER: CONSULTATIONS
  HIGHER EDUCATION DRAFT CHARTER: CONSULTATIONS
  PENSIONS PAYMENTS INTO BANK ACCOUNTS: CHARGES
  PENSIONS PAYMENTS INTO BANK ACCOUNTS: CHARGES
  EC DRIVING DISQUALIFICATIONS: RECOGNITION AND IMPOSITION
  EC DRIVING DISQUALIFICATIONS: RECOGNITION AND IMPOSITION
  DUTCH BANKS IN UK: REGULATION
  DUTCH BANKS IN UK: REGULATION
  BANK OF ENGLAND: REGULATION
  BANK OF ENGLAND: REGULATION
  KONVER SCHEME: GRANTS
  KONVER SCHEME: GRANTS
  QUEEN VICTORIA SCHOOL: TARGETS
  QUEEN VICTORIA SCHOOL: TARGETS
  DUKE OF YORK'S ROYAL MILITARY SCHOOL: TARGETS
  DUKE OF YORK'S ROYAL MILITARY SCHOOL: TARGETS
  CLINICAL SPECIALTIES IN LONDON: REVIEW TEAMS
  CLINICAL SPECIALTIES IN LONDON: REVIEW TEAMS