Sitting of 27 May 1993

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

  Early-day Motions
  9.34 am
  Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is more with sorrow than with anger that I rise to put my point of order, of which I have given you prior notice. My views on abortion are well known. In the historic Protestant tradition, I totally oppose it, except where the life of the mother is in danger.
  On 26 April 1993, two early-day motions appeared on the Order Paper. One of those reckoned that it was a sad day when the Abortion Act 1967 was passed by the House, and to that I affixed my name. The other welcomed the Abortion Act and called for universal abortion on demand for women. On 19 May, I heard that my name had been appended in error to the second of those early-day motions. I received a courteous and prompt letter from the Table Office saying:
  "Due to an administrative error your name appeared in support of early-day motion 1863 (25th Anniversary of the Abortion Act 1967). I apologise for this error, and a corrigendum will appear in tomorrow's 'Blue Notices'."
  The corrigendum appeared, saying:
  "In the Notices of Motions given on Wednesday 19th May, on page 8662, the name of the Reverend Ian Paisley appeared in error in support of Early Day Motion 1863."
  There I thought the matter would have rested. But when I was in Strasbourg late on Tuesday evening, the political correspondent of the Belfast Newsletter, Mr. Pauly, rang me and asked, "Have you done a U-turn on your attitude to abortion" I said, "Certainly not." He said that he had received from the office of the official Ulster Unionist party in the House of Commons a fax claiming that I had done a U-turn, and containing comments by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) about my attitude and my supposed change of heart. I was appalled at that, and immediately got in touch with the Table Office so that it could fax me a copy of the letter that had already been sent.
  I have never wavered on the issue of abortion.
  Providentially, that all happened after the election was over. I do not know what effect it would have had if it had been an issue in the election. My problem, which I put to you, Madam Speaker, is that I do not know to how many newspapers the fax has been sent. I have received no written withdrawal from the hon. Member for Londonderry, East on the matter. I approached his leader and told him about the matter last night, and I regret that I have had to raise it.
  I ask you, Madam Speaker, what action a Member of Parliament can take in such circumstances, when his reputation can be seriously damaged at a crucial time?
  Madam Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman has now had the opportunity of putting the record straight, and I am pleased that he has been able to do so.

  Human Rights
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]
  9.38 am
  Mr. Graham Allen: There is no magical bit of paper that can somehow defend our rights, and certainly a written Bill of Rights, although essential, is not a panacea. It can become meaningful only in a wider democracy, in which its values are accepted and practised by public authorities and private citizens. In order to build that sort of democratic practice in our country we need to take a long hard look at our democratic institutions and fundamentally reform them, and in some cases replace them, so that government at all levels can legitimately carry the stamp of democratic approval.
  In essence, that means ending our long-unchallenged unitary system of government, in which all political power is decided in a winner-take-all general election, and establishing in our country for the first time a genuinely pluralist society in which many different centres of power are created, not dependent upon one another but each with its own electoral base and its own legitimacy, unafraid to challenge the monopoly of the over-powerful Executive in the United Kingdom.
  That is the only long-term guarantee of our rights, ending the Executive's ability to control the Commons, to appoint the Lords, to select the judges, to instruct every local authority and to ignore Europe—centralised powers that would make a Stalin or even a Thatcher salivate.
  Labour has crossed the great political watershed from unitarism—we no longer believe that we have the right to tell people what to do just because we are the good guys —to pluralism. There is a mature acceptance that people themselves should decide through democratic institutions what they want to do.
  Since the election of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) as the leader of my party less than a year ago, Labour has committed itself to an impressive review of our democracy. We propose a Bill of Rights, scrutiny of prerogative powers, free-standing local government, elected regional authorities, a Scottish Parliament elected by the additional member system, an elected second Chamber under a proportional regional list system, a European Parliament elected on the same basis, and a thorough reform of the way in which this place works, in addition to a referendum on how we should elect Members to this the first Chamber.
  Never again will an all-powerful Executive be able to control every facet of our political life. It is a frightening prospect for centralists everywhere, but an exciting one for democrats of all parties and at all representative levels of all parties. It is in that new context that the idea of human rights will find its home.
  We are very complacent about our rights in this country. We like to think that abuses of rights take place elsewhere, but not in the United Kingdom. The reality is painfully different. It is almost so painful that we do not like to talk about it or even to admit that abuses exist. In a country with no clear list of rights, it is quite difficult to assess what rights have been abused. In a society that places emphasis on class and hierarchy, it is often the place one occupies rather than one's rights vis-a-vis other individuals that preoccupies many and colours their view of any abuse.

  1025
  All that is now changing. Old certainties are breaking down, and old social structures and values have been dealt the death blow by Thatcherism, by the atomisation of society and by the exaltation of greed. A social and a spiritual vacuum has been created. We in this place need to put new values and new ideas into that vacuum. A central part of that will be to develop clearly understood and widely accepted rights and responsibilities for the modern British citizen.
  Such ideas are not alien to this country, as many would have us believe. We were the first founding signatories of the European convention on human rights, a convention incorporated into the legal system of most of our fellow European nations. I am proud to say that it was a Labour Government who signed the convention in 1951 and it was the Labour Government of Harold Wilson who gave United Kingdom citizens the right of individual petition to the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
  To the present Government's great shame, Britain as a country has since been found guilty of breaching the provisions of the treaty more often than any other member of the Council of Europe. Today, seven cases are proceeding against the Government in the European Court. One has been awaiting judgment for five years.
  One of the major flaws of the European convention's being interpreted in Strasbourg rather than the British courts is the time it takes for cases of human rights abuse in Britain to be heard. The time is currently five or six years, after a petitioner has exhausted all other means of redress under domestic law. Anthony Lester, a noted expert in administrative and constitutional law, has predicted that, in future, cases will take a minimum of 10 years to be heard, and perhaps as many as 15 if current trends continue.
  The consequence of the long wait and the associated expense is that only those with the backing of large organisations or with substantial personal resources can make use of the only guarantee of rights available to the United Kingdom citizen. That amounts to the creation of a two-tier system of rights in this country. Yes, our rights are guaranteed, but only the select few can enforce them.
  I make it plain to the House today that that is wholly unacceptable. An incoming Labour Government will incorporate the European convention on human rights into our law, so that cases can be dealt with speedily in the British courts.
  In the interim—the Conservatives pretend to be serious about human rights and about the delays—there is a need fundamentally to restructure the current two-tier, part-time court in Strasbourg and to replace it with a smaller, single-tier, permanently sitting court capable of dealing with the ever-increasing work load. That is the solution advocated by the vast majority of members of the Council of Europe.
  Unfortunately, a small minority of Governments, regrettably including the British Conservative Government, have already been guilty of blocking the reform process. The Conservatives' intransigence is now preventing a workable solution from being reached—a solution that would enable the court to resume its role as a Europewide guarantor of human rights and minimum standards.
  1026
  It is not surprising that the Government seek to frustrate the European Court. Between 1970 and 1978, 12 cases were commenced against the British Government. In the subsequent 12 years, 29 cases have been brought before the court. There are now more than 30 landmark decisions, as a result of which our Government have been forced to introduce new procedures to protect human rights. We were forced, kicking and screaming, by the European Court to change our laws.
  None of the decisions has been trivial; some have been fundamental. They include ending unfair press curbs, ending unjust restrictions on prisoners' access to lawyers, ending unacceptable restrictions on husbands of immigrants, ending ineffective judicial protection of mental patients and requiring new controls on telephone tapping. I say with a heavy heart that, in Europe's league table of shame, Britain has the worst record by far of receiving adverse judgments in the European Court.
  Ministers will, of course, point out that Britain's dismal record is in part due to the fact that we have not incorporated the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom law. We are unlike other countries, where people have a remedy for human rights abuses in their own country. If that is intended to excuse the violations of basic civil rights, it is a woefully poor excuse. It begs the question why we have not yet incorporated the European convention or similar rights into domestic law, as is the case for all our close European neighbours.
  We can incorporate such rights for others. In Hong Kong in 1991, we introduced the international covenant on political and civil rights. We can do it in Hong Kong, but, with this Government, we still find it difficult to do it in our own country. We are now the only country in Europe or in the democratic Commonwealth without domestically enforceable political and civil rights. Perhaps all the other countries are wrong. Perhaps we have found the answer, and perhaps everyone else in the world is wrong on these matters.
  Labour believes that, if people have rights and freedoms as individuals—we certainly believe that people have those rights—there is no problem about writing them down. If an individual's right as a consumer can be expressed in a citizens charter, why cannot his or her rights as a citizen be expressed clearly in a Bill of Rights? All schoolchildren should carry in their pocket or purse a list of their rights as individuals. They should grow with those rights, and knowing those rights, so that they can become full citizens of our society.
  The justification that is often offered by those opposed to incorporation is that, in Britain, every citizen is protected by rights and freedoms under the common law. But those rights and freedoms are ill defined and incomplete, and are not accessible to or understood by the average citizen. One needs a law degree to have even an inkling of the challenges that can be made, let alone of the detail of the rights. The extent of such rights is controlled by the judges and not by Parliament. That is unacceptable. The job of judges is to interpret and apply the law and not to make it.
  Some claim that incorporation would create a political judiciary: it would not. Many judicial decisions made today could be viewed as political, but are made outside the framework of a statute explicitly defining people's rights. Far from politicising judges, the incorporation of the European convention on human rights and a

  1027
  subsequent British Bill of Rights would enable the judiciary to make decisions free from political pressure, thus guaranteeing its independence.
  It is not as though our judges are incapable of deciding rights cases—indeed, many are themselves in favour of a Bill of Rights. The judiciary already makes decisions based on rights-oriented legislation, such as sex and race anti-discrimination laws, and there is no reason to suppose that it would be incapable of handling decisions once the European convention was incorporated.
  If the Government are wary of granting judges the right to make decisions on basic rights, why do they not revoke the right of individual petition by a British subject to the European Court of Human Rights, where European judges make decisions? Perhaps the Government lack confidence only in British judges.
  To suggest that incorporation would destroy the political impartiality of the judiciary is to display a shameful lack of confidence in those to whom we entrust the administration of the law. That suggestion is certainly odd coming from a Government who once sought to style themselves the Government of law and order.
  Labour has no such worries about incorporating the European convention on human rights, although we accept the need for changes in methods of judicial recruitment and appointment and for an improved continuing education programme for the judiciary I hope that the Lord Chancellor's Department will take those comments to heart.
  It is not as if the European convention is some wild, radical, untested code. It is a mature statement of rights that has been interpreted and applied for many years. The United Kingdom has in reality been subject to its provisions for more than 45 years, and its incorporation into United Kingdom law as a first step to a home-grown British Bill of Rights would merely ensure that all could quickly have the benefit of its provisions. It would make rights in the United Kingdom a matter for United Kingdom citizens and the United Kingdom courts, and would prevent the perpetuation of the notice that rights are some strange foreign European concept.
  Incorporation would not be particularly complicated. Parliament would merely need to pass an Act incorporating the convention into British law and giving citizens the right to have the rules enforced in court. In that context, I hope to be presenting to the House within the next couple of weeks a Bill that would make incorporation a reality.
  All Acts, previous and subsequent, would be stated to be consistent with the provisions of the convention. The exclusion of any Act from those provisions would require an explicit statement of intent. That would allow a Government—for example, at a time of national crisis—to pass legislation curtailing individual rights, but would also ensure that no legislation could be interpreted as breaching the convention unless that was specifically stated.
  Incorporation will take place speedily under the next Labour Government and will be just a beginning. We shall then need to examine—perhaps by means of an all-party commission—a home-grown British Bill of Rights. I suspect that that will have to be the subject of my next Adjournment debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  For the past 14 years, we have watched the Government ride roughshod over our rights. It is time that the balance was redressed. Our current constitutional system of checks and balances is in no way adequate for what is allegedly a
  1028
  modern democracy. We need to re-establish the fundamental pillar of democracy—the separation of powers. We need to consider once again the balance between the powers of the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary, and a Bill of Rights will be central to such a re-examination of political and democratic theory.
  Far too much power is placed in the hands of the Executive, without adequate restraint being exercised either by what is now a client House of Commons or by a House of Lords with a built-in majority in favour of one party. I take this opportunity to remind my hon. Friends that, although there is a tendency to regard the House of Lords as a quaint institution that has occasionally overturned minor matters of Government policy in the past 14 years, it defeated the last Labour Government 350 times.
  We need to examine that situation before we allow ourselves to let pass any commitments on an elected second Chamber. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition said a week ago; the second House should be elected under a regional list system on the basis of proportional representation. The sooner that happens, the less likely it is that the will of the people as expressed in the House of Commons will be subverted.
  Ministers have suggested that Parliament is best placed to protect the rights of the individual. At best, that is wishful thinking; at worst, it is worrying political naivety. We should remember the local government legislation, what happened at GCHQ, Zircon, the "Spycatcher" debacle, the broadcasting ban, deportations without trial: all are instances of the way in which individual rights have been diminished, ignored or abused. That list is in no way definitive; time dictates that I curtail it.
  The fact that all the abuses that I have mentioned have occurred under the Conservative Government should not be taken to mean that rights need protection only under an arrogant Conservative Administration, grown fat from being in power for too long. Our rights should not depend on who wins a general election.
  The rights and principles enshrined in the convention are far too important to be subject to the whims of temporary majorities—even Labour majorities—in the Commons or to unnecessary interference by public officials. Without the incorporation of the European convention on human rights, our citizens' rights cannot be guaranteed. That is the essential first step.
  In the country at large, there is a feeling that Britain's archaic and dusty formerly democratic structures are no longer capable of meeting the needs and aspirations of its citizens. Nowhere is that more obvious than in the lack of protection for our individual human rights. The time has come for fundamental change, and incorporation is just one part of Labour's radical agenda for the democratic renewal of Britain.
  Incorporation will come—either from a reluctant Conservative Government or early in the lifetime of a new Labour Government. Thereafter, we hope to build upon incorporation and ensure that we have a genuine well thought out British Bill of Rights, which I hope will command a consensus in the Chamber. If we can achieve that consensus and build human rights into our domestic law, our country will be far stronger and our democracy will find deeper roots—roots that will stretch to every citizen in the United Kingdom, who will then have a stake in defending and extending our democracy.
  9.59 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): May I first congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on his success in obtaining the first of this morning's Adjournment debates? There was a stage earlier this week when I thought that he and I might be debating immigration and asylum matters, as we have done on so many recent occasions. However, I am absolutely delighted about his choice of subject.
  I listened with some incredulity to his description of a pliant House of Commons. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past month or two with regard to the Chamber. I am aware of all his hard work off the Committee Corridor, but anyone who listened to the Maastricht debates or to some of our other recent debates would not consider this House to be a pliant House.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to complacency about rights, and I disagree with him fundamentally on that. I believe that we treasure our rights in this country. The basic difference between the hon. Gentleman's proposition and the view of this Government and of successive Governments relates to the supremacy of Parliament.
  The hon. Gentleman asked why some cases were referred to the European Court and why we were content with that procedure. Any decision taken by the European judges which requires changes in legislation here must still be considered by the House and agreed by this Parliament. That thereby maintains the constitutional position of Parliament and its supremacy.
  The hon. Gentleman has shown that he attaches great importance to the protection of the rights of the citizens of this country, and I cannot disagree with him on that. The possession of rights and freedoms by our people has been fundamental to our democratic traditions reaching back over the centuries. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we would ignore that at our peril. I suspect that the entire House would agree with him to that extent.
  However, it will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to learn that I disagree strongly with his basic proposition. In summary, his argument is as follows: that the rights of individual citizens in this country are being systematically undermined, that there are no adequate arrangements for the protection of those rights, and that that can be resolved only by what would amount to far-reaching constitutional changes.
  The hon. Gentleman made much of comparisons with other countries and specific examples of what he claims to be domestic human rights abuses, of which he listed a number. I will attempt to consider one or two of those later. However, it is worth placing the whole question of human rights in the United Kingdom in a proper constitutional context.
  Mr. Allen: I thank the Minister for his usual courtesy in giving way. He said that we treasure our rights in this country. Will he tell the House what those rights are?
  Mr. Wardle: They are the rights enshrined in our parliamentary democracy; I will seek to expand on that. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may feign surprise, but as he has been a Member of this House for some years, I think that he understands precisely what I mean.
  Contrary to the impression given by critics of the present arrangements, this country's approach to rights and freedoms is more permissive than that found
  1030
  elsewhere. The possession of rights and freedoms is assumed. It is not dependent on their enshrinement in statute or through some other constitutional device. That means that only through specific action by Parliament—this relates to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman in his intervention—can those rights be curtailed.
  There is an important and underlying principle here —that rights and freedoms are, in general, the property of individuals. They are not something to be bestowed by the state. We have heard criticisms that that approach to human rights in the United Kingdom is both ineffective and inappropriate to modern circumstances.
  I do not believe that those who argue in that way have begun to show their case. Nor have they convinced me of the argument, which inevitably follows, that the only certain way of protecting the rights of our citizens is through some form of Bill of Rights, perhaps incorporating the European convention on human rights, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, and possibly entrenched in a written constitution, as some have suggested.
  I express it in that way because many of those proposing such a measure tend to be less than clear about the form that it will take. The Government do not believe that one can guarantee rights by the enactment of broad propositions. This is more a question of political culture, as can be seen by the prevalence of human rights abuses in certain parts of the world which nevertheless can boast a Bill of Rights on the statute book.
  It is perhaps worth recalling that, in 1978, the House of Lords Select Committee on a Bill of Rights concluded that, in any country, whatever its constitution, the existence or absence of legislation in the nature of a Bill of Rights can in practice play only a minor part in the protection of human rights. That Committee also concluded that it had received no evidence that human rights were better protected in countries which had a code of basic rights embodied in their law than they were in the United Kingdom. In spite of the hon. Gentleman's assertion, I can see no reason to think that things have changed since 1978.
  Mr. Allen: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am good-natured. Although I am watching the clock, I will give way.
  Mr. Allen: I thank the Minister once more for his typical generosity in giving way for a second time.
  I agree that, to write down rights, as I said when I began my speech, is not a panacea, and it guarantees nothing. It simply provides a framework, which is helpful, and accesses rights to the ordinary citizen. I hope that the Minister will accept that.
  The Minister will have heard me say that I will be introducing a Bill which will incorporate the European convention. The Minister was right to say that such things are very often vague. Will he therefore, with his normal generosity, allow me to send him a copy of my Bill for him to peruse and amend, without of course committing himself to accepting it, so that we can have a less vague document before the House and have another productive and constructive discussion like the one that we are having this morning?
  Mr. Wardle: All I can guarantee is that, as usual, I will consider very carefully any representations that the hon.

  1031
  Gentleman makes. I cannot guarantee what the response will be, and he is aware that I am not in the business of making such promises.
  I want to make progress, because I want to answer the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's arguments. The political culture of the United Kingdom, with its strong system of law and parliamentary democracy, is soundly based. An essential part of that is an assumption and expectation on behalf of our citizens that certain rights and freedoms are theirs. Governments must seek to achieve a balance whereby the individual enjoys the optimum level of freedom.
  Clearly it is necessary for the Government to strike a balance between the rights of the individual and of society at large and on the conflict of rights between various groups in society. However, given the nature of our society, to restrict the rights of our citizens is not an easy matter. Any Government seeking to do that would need to satisfy both public opinion and, beyond that, Parliament itself. I find it strange that those who argue for a Bill of Rights are so ready to dismiss the role of Parliament in this important area.
  It is surely more consistent with our democratic traditions that decisions on crucial issues like this, which will affect the lives of many people, should be taken by those whom the people of this country have elected to represent them rather than placed in the hands of the judiciary, who after all are not elected.
  I also find it surprising that it is suggested that a Bill of Rights would somehow be more sensitive to the changing needs of our people than Parliament would be in fulfilling its traditional role of enacting legislation in specific areas. A Bill of Rights, after all, can only embody the values of the time when it was drafted. The whole purpose of a Bill of Rights and its entrenchment into law, by whatever means, is to offer some permanent benchmark by which the actions of Government and the freedoms enjoyed by citizens can be judged.
  However, public attitudes, and therefore the attitudes of society, are capable of change. We only have to consider how public opinion on a number of social and moral issues has developed over the past 50 years, 25 years, or, as some would say, the past decade. A Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom drafted 25 years ago would be most unlikely to reflect fully the aspirations and views of people today. However, any Bill of Rights that was subject to frequent amendment, if that were constitutionally possible, would surely defeat the object of the whole exercise.
  The hon. Gentleman referred particularly to the possible incorporation of the European convention on human rights into domestic law. I shall deal with some of the points that he raised about that.
  As the House knows, the Government are firm believers in and supporters of the European convention on human rights. The United Kingdom was closely associated with the convention at the outset, playing a major part in its drafting in 1950. We accepted the right of individual petition to the Commission in 1966 and agreed to be bound by the judgments of the court. We have been diligent in observing the court's judgments, as even our most diehard critics would acknowledge.
  It has been claimed that we compare unfavourably with other countries in the number of findings of violations being recorded against the United Kingdom, and that that demonstrates the need for more effective domestic
  1032
  protection of the rights of our citizens. But taken at face value, the available statistics in this field give a misleading impression.
  Other factors need to be taken into account. For example, the United Kingdom has accepted the right of individual petition since 1966, whereas a number of other countries did so much more recently—France and Spain in 1981, and Turkey as recently as 1986. Since it can take up to five years for an application to be decided by the court of Committee of Ministers, it is not surprising that fewer violations have been found in the case of those countries which came to the table more recently, as it were.
  The other important point that our critics choose to ignore is the difference in population size of the member states of the Council of Europe. If we had regard to violations per head of population, the United Kingdom would be ninth in the convention league table as at 30 April this year. Therefore, we regard as fallacious the argument that breaches against the United Kingdom demonstrate the need for incorporation, as some have argued.
  Mr. David Trimble rose—
  Mr. Wardle: I want to make progress. I have already given way and tried to be as generous as possible to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). I hope that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) will allow me to continue.
  It is true that the delays in resolving cases before the Commission and the court are unacceptable, and that the machinery needs reform. The United Kingdom is playing a full part in the current work that is being undertaken to find ways of reforming the machinery while maintaining the quality of jurisprudence.
  However, it is wrong to suggest that those delays bear uniquely on United Kingdom applicants, because, in the absence of incorporation, they have no opportunity to test their cases domestically. The fact is that, even where countries have incorporated the convention, their citizens can and do apply to the Commission in large numbers once they have exhausted their domestic remedies before their constitutional courts.
  Judges have a vital role in the enforcement, application and development of the abstraction that we call the rule of law. It is the Government's firm view that imposing on the judges a duty to interpret the convention, or broad principles in a Bill of Rights, would add an unwelcome new dimension to their current role. That new role would be to decide broad issues of policy.
  It is worth contemplating for a moment what that would mean in practice. A Bill of Rights would enable Parliament to pass a law, which could, the next day or next year, be struck down by a judge who, acting in good faith, took a different view according to his own perceptions of the public interest.
  Not only would that undermine the sovereignty of Parliament—it would bring the judiciary into the political arena. The more we draw judges into political matters, the more we shall create problems for them in terms of the general public's attitude and respect for them. The point is not that our judges could not do the job—our fears are that such a job would damage their reputation and standing.
  That is not to dismiss the important role that our judges can play in the protection of our citizens against the

  1033
  actions of Government. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North has drawn a picture of an Executive out of control, with no effective check on its actions. I have heard him talk about that before. The readiness of the citizens of the United Kingdom to seek judicial review of Government actions, and of the courts to entertain such applications, gives the lie to that argument.
  This is an important safeguard against the unreasonable exercise of discretion by the Government. But what it does not do, which their interpretation of a Bill of Rights would do, is seek to challenge the merits of the broader policy issues.
  I do not accept the proposition that these cases demonstrate that there has been some general erosion of human rights in this country. On the contrary, an objective examination of the record in recent years would show many areas in which rights have been extended. That has been achieved usually through Parliament, whose role the hon. Gentleman has lightly dismissed today. It is disappointing that there was in his speech, no recognition of the role of Parliament as he is such an active member of the House.
  We can honestly claim to have a more open Government than ever before. That is the result of measures that have been initiated in recent years. The Data Protection Act 1984 provides a good example of how Parliament can legislate to afford rights in specific areas —in this case, access by individuals to information held about them on computers. Legislation has also been enacted in respect of information held by local authorities.
  The Official Secrets Act 1988 cut back the information that is protected against disclosure by the criminal law. It replaced the previous casual provisions of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 with a narrowly targeted scheme that penalised only an authorised disclosure of official information which would give rise to a serious degree of harm to the interests of the country. More generally, the Government have demonstrated their commitment to open government, and have done more than any of their predecessors to open the processes of government to the scrutiny of Parliament.
  1034
  There are other examples of Parliament acting to enhance the rights of individuals. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was one such measure. Measures such as that—there are many more—are often ignored in any discussion on human rights in the United Kingdom. Yet, in terms of practical consequences, they have more direct relevance to the lives of our citizens than a list of broad principles set out in a Bill of Rights.
  Parliament devotes much care and attention to measures of this kind. In doing so, it properly exercises its role, for which its Members were elected, of determining how to respond to the changing needs of society. There is no evidence to suggest that the absence of some overarching Bill of Rights—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I call the Rev. Ian Paisley.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hesitate to raise this matter, but you will have noted that the Minister was unable to finish his brief. I wonder whether you will deprecate the fact that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) delayed the commencement of the Adjournment debate by raising a long point of order on an issue which we know he feels strongly about.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Madam Speaker allowed the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) because it was in order. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is doing exactly what he is complaining the hon. Member for Antrim, North did earlier—taking time out of the next debate.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Chair should rule that what happened earlier was wrong. My point of order did not last five minutes and effectively terminate unnecessarily early a debate that was taking place, which was of interest to a number of hon. Members.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That matter has already been dealt with.

  Ulster (Bombings)
  10.16 am
  Rev. Ian Paisley: In opening this debate today, I shall emphasise what was emphasised in a leader in the Belfast Newsletter yesterday. The leader said that the first thing that should be taken as read is our support for the security forces in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, those of us who have been discussing security in the aftermath of the bombings have been criticised and attacked by Northern Ireland Ministers as though we were attacking the security forces. I should like to record our support for the security forces. That cannot be challenged.
  The leader said:
  "There is simply no use in Ministers hiding behind a smokescreen of jingoism or patriotism. They are the last refuges of the incompetent and uncaring members of the Cabinet. In the context of Northern Ireland, official smokescreens, indecision, procrastination and a lack of care and courage in high places inevitably leads to more deaths of innocent people, and more destruction."
  I hope that the Minister will not tell us that, because we have raised these matters of grave concern, we are in some way undermining the authority and morale of and support for the security forces.
  On Wednesday 19 May, the Northern Ireland electorate went to the polls in a local government election. Many people, including Northern Ireland Ministers, wanted to see the party I lead whipped in that election. I am glad that my party increased its share of the Unionist vote by 2 per cent., and that in Belfast increased 3·28 per cent. in the total overall vote. I am satisfied, therefore, that I have a mandate to speak in the House this morning.
  Sinn Fein candidates ran in the election. It is a disgrace that the Government permit the IRA to use the guise of democracy to bring legitimacy to their organisation. Sinn Fein-IRA should be proscribed. The Government should have the moral courage to take that action.
  Of course, Sinn Fein now has further legitimacy from the talks being conducted by the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party and Sinn Fein-IRA. In the election, 77,984 people voted for Sinn Fein. Those people are by no means ignorant of the consequences of their actions. They sent a message to the IRA leadership that they found the campaign of violence, destruction and murder acceptable. The vast majority of people find it unacceptable. They want the Government to take action against the men of violence and the apologists for violence.
  On 20 May, the IRA showed where its preference lay. It was in the blitzing of Great Victoria street in Belfast. That bomb exploded at 8.30 am. It contained 1,000 lb of explosives. The Belfast Europa hotel, the Grand opera house, the Ulster bus station and the offices of the Ulster Unionist party were all seriously damaged by that bomb. Twenty people were injured. It is only a miracle that people were not killed. The cost of repairs to Belfast stands at about £6·5 million.
  Not content with that horrendous scar on the face of the city of Belfast, the IRA exploded a second bomb in Portadown town centre, a predominantly Protestant town, at 11.26 am on Saturday 22 May. It also contained 1,000 lb of explosives. Last year, the IRA attacked the Protestant areas surrounding Portadown, when it exploded a 1,000 lb bomb in Lurgan and a 2,000 lb bomb
  1036
  in Craigavon in 1991. A 60-year-old woman was seriously injured in Saturday's bombing by a piece of shrapnel. The cost of repairs to Portadown stands at £8 million.
  Mr. David Trimble: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would underline that misleading and inaccurate telephone messages were given about the location of the bomb in Portadown and that the behaviour of the IRA in that respect was consistent with an intention to cause considerable civilian casualties. It was only as a result of the good fortune that the police spotted the bomb long before the warnings that casualties were avoided.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I accept what the hon. Gentleman, who represents that area in the House, has said. When the votes were counted in that area, and one of the Sinn Fein candidates was defeated, from the agents of Sinn Fein around the table there came the words, "But we have a buster for this town." That buster was the explosion of the bomb.
  I understand that, when the Prime Minister spoke to Congressmen in America, he emphasised the close relationship between the IRA and Sinn Fein. If he is prepared to say that, in America, I do not know why he does not take instant steps here to have Sinn Fein outlawed.
  Not content with the destruction in Portadown, and undeterred by any security presence, the intensity of the bombing was stepped up. Once again, Belfast was the target for the illicit activities of those encouraged by the Sinn Fein voters. At 1.26 am, a 200-lb bomb devastated the Drumkeen hotel in Protestant east Belfast. The bomb also damaged the housing surrounding that business. I visited those houses early on Sunday morning, as I represent that area in the European Parliament.
  I spoke to a mother who told me that no warning whatever was given to those houses. She said, "My child cried to be taken to the toilet. I lifted him from his bed. When I got to the bathroom door, I was lifted by the force of the blast, and we both found ourselves in the bath. When I came out of the toilet afterwards to take my son past the bedroom where he had been sleeping, a large piece of glass like the head of a spear had pierced through the pillow where that young child had been lying half a minute before." So it was only a miracle that there were not terrible casualties in that bombing.
  It is the fourth time in 12 months that the IRA has bombed the Drumkeen hotel. Three people are in hospital as a result. A newly-wed couple had their wedding reception shattered to pieces by the explosion. The damage is estimated at £2·5 million.
  Sunday was once again desecrated by bomb No. 4, in Magherafelt town centre at 10.21 on Sunday night. A 300-lb bomb blitzed the centre, and 20 shops and offices in Broad street were destroyed. The bus station, which had been rehabilitated, was annihilated and the two main banks in the town are practically rubble. The cost is estimated at £5 million.
  That quartet of destruction costing £22 million in four days has been an attack at the heart of the Province. My colleague who sits on Magherafelt council and represents the Mid-Ulster constituency around which Magherafelt is spread—Magherafelt itself is in the East Londonderry constituency after the last border changes—is in America

  1037
  seeking business for the town. But what success can he possibly have in meeting companies when the heart of Magherafelt has been destroyed?
  I understand that it is estimated that last year investment programmes worth £10 million did not come about because of the absolute terror that the name "Northern Ireland" brings to people's minds. The current blitz reinforces those attitudes, and well Sinn Fein-IRA knows it.
  What then is to be done? Will we simply repeat, "Business as usual", as we must often do? Will we simply pay the higher insurance premiums? Will we see a cosmetic security presence for three weeks run down and retreat? If that is all we get from the Government, the IRA will be bombing as usual, in the business of terror as usual, and the security forces will be on a reactive course as usual.
  Over a year ago, the leaders of the official Unionists and the SDLP and I had a unique meeting with the Prime Minister, when we discussed the then deteriorating security situation. Once again, I put to the right hon. Gentleman the proposals contained in my party's security document, which calls for an offensive against the IRA. By that we do not mean what the Secretary of State has interpreted it to mean. He slanders us when he says that we want to remove all restraints from the security forces so that they can be let loose to break any law they like, as long as they get the IRA.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is an ambiguity in the statements of successive Secretaries of State that the full rigours of the law are being used against the IRA? In fact, the previous Secretary of State admitted that the Government were not using the full rigours of the law. We are calling not for the removal of restraints but for the forceful use of the law.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I accept that. It is wrong that the representatives from Northern Ireland have to answer to the people when the Secretary of State makes such a statement about security. The Secretary of State should face up to those people. He should try to explain why he is not prepared to follow the course that we are advocating. Instead, he puts up a straw man of his own making by claiming that we are advocating that the security forces should act exactly as the IRA does and kill, maim and bomb. That is not what we are suggesting.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to refer to my constituency and the terrible bomb at the Drumkeen hotel. Does he recognise that the people in that area view with utmost horror the response of the Secretary of State who, when asked after four days of bombing, whether he would change the direction of the failed security policy, said that he was quite happy and content with that present policy? People have no confidence in a Secretary of State who behaves in that manner.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, I accept that. That reaction has been fed to me by those people, because I visited all the affected areas. The present security policy is not succeeding. We should open our eyes to that.
  The Minister need only consider what has happened in this part of the United Kingdom to understand that the
  1038
  security policy has failed. I have a list of all the acts of terror that have been committed on the mainland since 17 December. Those who have been brought to court are just a mere handful of the culprits. That action has solved nothing. Matters have not been resolved on the mainland, but we in Northern Ireland are receiving the full brunt of the IRA attack.
  Unfortunately, I must tell the House that that attack will continue; it is not a one-off. It is encouraged by what Mr. Spring said down in Dublin when he was briefed on the talks that had been held between Gerry Adams, the IRA-Sinn Fein president, and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). Mr. Spring stated:
  "They know what they have to do to be part of the process. I believe that"
  the hon. Member for Foyle
  "is trying to get these people into the peace process by ending the violence, and I hope he succeeds in that."
  The Minister should tell us whether that is the policy of the Government. If Sinn Fein states that it intends to call a ceasefire and to stop the violence, will its representatives be invited to the table for talks? Will such a ceasefire make it clear that the IRA must hand in its weapons, its stocks of bombing material and completely repudiate violence? I want to know from the Government what their policy is.
  Those of us from Northern Ireland are aware of the mounting campaign of propaganda to get Sinn Fein to the table. What conditions would be set if, tomorrow, the leaders of Sinn Fein and the IRA said that there would be a ceasefire? It is not satisfactory to the people of Northern Ireland that the people who perpetrated all the acts of violence should be able to sit at the table simply by making a pronouncement that they intend to call a ceasefire and give up violence.
  The Unionist people are alienated, whether the Government like it or not. That is a fact, and the Minister must face up to it. Every day, that alienation is increasing, and every day that alienation is taking a turn down the road that we all dread. As a representative of the people of Northern Ireland, I would be failing them and myself if I did not warn the Government that we face a grave, serious situation.
  I have told the Government over and over again that they should decide whether they would prefer to talk to elected representatives or to people who are not elected but who are prepared to bomb, kill and main. I refer to people on the Protestant side, although I refuse to lend them the right of the name "Protestant".
  We are faced with a serious, gloomy, dark situation, to which the Minister must face up. The Government must stop alienating the Protestant people, and they can do so by dealing effectively with the IRA. They should spell out that any announcement of a ceasefire is not enough. It is not enough for people to pose and say, "We will give up violence." Those very men could then say at the table, "All right, if you don't go the way we want to go, we can turn it on again." How can anybody have peace in those circumstances? Those people need to bring forth fruits, meet for their repentance.
  It is dangerous for Mr. Spring to encourage the IRA in the belief that, if it announces a ceasefire, it will be able to join the talks. I trust that the Minister will rebuke the southern Minister and make it clear that that is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government. If that rebuke is not forthcoming, the people of Northern Ireland will be alienated still more.

  1039
  I do not understand why the business community of Northern Ireland should be held to ransom by a security system that stops all traffic from entering the commercial centres in the mornings and sometimes in the evenings. The security forces know the areas in which the bombs are made and from where they are transported, and I do not understand why they are not given the task of blocking the exits from those areas so that the bombs cannot be transported.
  Why should the law-abiding citizens and the business community of Northern Ireland be held to ransom? No wonder the ordinary man in the street believes that the policy after each bombing is that of locking the stable door after the horse has gone. The Minister must take that on board. The only way in which to deal with the problem is by blocking their exits from certain areas so that people cannot transport their bombs to anywhere they like.
  Did the police have certain intelligence on Friday evening that a bombing might take place in Portadown? That is generally said to be the case among the business community in Portadown. Was there a relaxing of security in that area as a result of a police directive some weeks ago? Is it the case that, on Saturday, the police in Portadown were hard pushed and reserves had to be called in from elsewhere which would not usually be used? Will the Minister answer those questions, which are disturbing the minds of many in the business community to whom I have spoken?
  What is the Government's attitude to the border? Will they seek to seal it off? It is to the Government's shame that, every time the Secretary of State attends an Anglo-Irish conference, the Government issue a statement saying that the relationship between the police and the Garda was never so good. They have said that at every meeting. It must surely be through the heavens by now. All the Irish papers today report that the relationship was never so good.
  Sir James Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman will recall that a number of police officers have been murdered by a sniper using a telescopic lens operating from the other side of the border who has not yet been apprehended.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman is right. But the Government's comment is that there never was better security and co-operation. The country of the south of Ireland hides the men of violence.
  What about Angelo Fusco, the IRA murderer? He has been sentenced to three life terms for murder. He is not in jail. He is free in the Irish Republic. He is not even in hiding. The local council pays him £140 per week in benefits for his wife and family and has provided him with comfortable furnished accommodation in Tralee, where he spends his days fishing, riding his imported American motor cycle and acting as a pretentious godfather of violence.
  Another convicted IRA killer, Paul Magee, was freed on bail by the Irish courts in April. Where is this co-operation? Nothing is said about those men at the Anglo-Irish conferences, or nothing is done, and the people in Northern Ireland are asking the simple question, "What on earth are the Government playing at?"
  Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the worst example of the lot is that the IRA headquarters issues its statements from an office in Dublin?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, I accept that wholeheartedly. I also accept that the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party used the same machine that is used to send out reports of the bombings to issue a report on his talks with Gerry Adams. The release was headed "Sinn Fein". I have a copy of that. The two leaders put out their information together in that way.
  Today I read more disturbing information concerning a republican business man in Northern Ireland who runs several lorries round Northern Ireland distributing the goods that he manufactures. He said that he has contacted the RUC and told it that, if any of his business transactions were delayed due to traffic hold-ups at checkpoints, he would sue the RUC for damages. Where are we getting to in our Province? I should like the Minister to say that such requests, if they can be called requests, will be met with the reply that, if we need to take security actions, we will take them irrespective of what happens.
  Terrorism in Northern Ireland has cost 3,056 lives, and IRA bombs have cost £1,000 million in two decades. Death and destruction have become a way of life. Today, Northern Ireland has a simple message to the House—enough death, enough destruction and enough ineptitude by the Government.
  10.14 am
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Mates): I have listened with great care to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I understand and share his anger and distress, and that of the other hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies who are here this morning, at these cowardly and cynical attacks. The sympathy of the House goes out to those whose homes and livelihoods have been wrecked and to those who have been injured, and we send our best wishes to them for a safe and speedy recovery. Were it not for the alertness and quick response of the security forces, to whom the community is so much indebted, casualties might have been much higher.
  I have seen for myself the damage caused in Belfast. I was due to go to Portadown on Tuesday but, as hon. Members will know, I was detained here for the debate on the Railways Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has visited Magherafelt. The terrorists of the Provisional IRA, like their loyalist counterparts, debase the causes by their barbarity and criminality that they claim to represent. But even by their standards, the attempt to dignify the shattering of the livelihoods and homes of hundreds of ordinary citizens, Protestants and Catholics, Unionists and nationalists, by describing them as attacks on economic targets is despicable in the extreme.
  Schools—secondary, primary and nursery—have been damaged, as has a home for the mentally handicapped and more than 300 private dwellings. Where do they figure in the terrorists' definition of legitimate or economic targets? We hear so much about the IRA's so-called concern for the unintended victims of their attacks. We hear of their hypocritical apologies. They disgust me and will disgust all Members of the House.

  1041
  Let no one be deceived: the terrorists cannot cloak their deeds in any false legitimacy, attempting to justify their actions as assaults on a British war machine. As on so many other occasions, including the bombing of 1,000 homes last September at Newtownbreda, they care not whom they hurt.
  The fact is that many ordinary people—men, women and children—are targets for the terrorists on both sides. The fact that those attacks have been deliberately timed to take place in the immediate aftermath of the local government elections serves simply to underscore two points—the terrorists' contempt for the democratic process and their misunderstanding of the British Government and the people of Northern Ireland.
  Terrorism will not prevail. I simply state the inescapable truth. The resolve of the Government and the people during the past 23 years has been tested by evil assaults from terrorists of all kinds. That resolve has not weakened, nor will it. Those who think otherwise mistake the character of the people of these islands. They particularly mistake the mettle of the people of Belfast, Portadown and Magherafelt. The fact that, despite the bombing, the traditional may fair was successfully held yesterday in Magherafelt is typical of the resilience and courage of the whole community in Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about Sinn Fein and the IRA and a ceasefire. I repeat what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said some months ago. A cessation of violence, for whatever reason, would be welcomed by all hon. Members. But simply to say that there will be a ceasefire does not give anyone who espouses violence the right to come to any conference table or to be accepted. That is the British Government's position.
  There would have to be not only a cessation of violence but a renunciation of violence as a means of achieving political ends. That is the sine qua non; that is the dividing line that has to be crossed by the men of violence before those who want to see change, or want to see life pursued by democratic means, will talk to them. Until that has happened and has been shown to have happened, there is no question that this Government or, I suspect, any other will deal with the men of violence.
  The work of clearing up and restoring the damage so wantonly caused is well under way. Following all four incidents, the emergency services and Government bodies —including the Housing Executive, Compensation Agency, civil representatives, social workers and social security staff—were quickly on the scene to help begin the process, by carrying out repairs and providing advice. That work is continuing, with the local authorities playing a vital co-ordinating role. Wherever we have gone, the people seem to have been very pleased with the way that the authorities have responded.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I share the Minister's tribute to the response made by different agencies, but can he assure us that, in speaking to his alter ego, he will ensure that money will be forthcoming to get businesses back in business? Above all, will he ensure that the security presence is not removed because of lack of overtime payments?
  Mr. Mates: I certainly give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance in respect of his latter point—that has never been the case, and never will be. As to his other
  1042
  point, we always do our best. However, the Compensation Agency is spending Government money, and the rules for the disbursement of taxpayers' money must be observed.
  I have made every effort, and I know that the Compensation Agency will continue to make every effort, to make interim payments as quickly as possible. The legalities arise with final payments, and sometimes they do get held up—but that is for reasons by which we are all bound, because we are paying out taxpayers' money.
  The security of the realm and the safety of its citizens are duties all Governments must make their first priority. It is the first priority of the Government in Northern Ireland, who set the policy and provide the resources. To confront and defeat terrorism is also the overriding concern of the Chief Constable, supported by the General Officer Commanding, who directs the operations of the security forces to achieve that goal.
  We each bear responsibility for it, in different ways; and so does everybody in society. We each have our part to play in protecting those most fundamental human rights —the right to life, and the right to live free from fear and intimidation and the destruction of one's home and livelihood. The threat to those rights comes from terrorism, and we are committed to overcoming that threat, from whatever quarter it comes.
  The security forces carry out and will continue to carry out a whole range of operations, including patrolling, checkpoints and searches, to disrupt and deter the activities of the terrorists. The House will know that the police and the Army continue to achieve very significant successes. To the beginning of May this year, 136 people have been charged with terrorism-related offences, and 84 firearms, 20 rocket and mortar launchers and large amounts of explosives and bomb-making equipment have been recovered.
  Let me give some specific examples. Since the middle of March, four bombs in transit, containing over 300 kg of explosives, have been intercepted, resulting in several arrests. More than 6,500 kg of fertilizer, used in the manufacture of explosives, have been recovered. A range of other weaponry has been seized, and several other murderous attacks by paramilitaries on both sides foiled, with the capture of republican and loyalist gunmen en route to commit murder. As a result, those charged since the end of March include two with murder, two with attempted murder, two with conspiracy to murder and possession, and two with possession of weapons or explosives.
  The publication this morning of the Chief Constable's report for 1992 provides further evidence of the excellent work which the RUC has carried out during the year. As the Chief Constable brings out in his foreword to the report, the RUC, with the Army in support, has continued to maintain the essential stability of the Province.
  Day in and day out, the security forces work ceaselessly not just to respond and react but to be a step ahead of the terrorists. They make real inroads into terrorist operations. They aim to deter as well as to detect.
  Much of that work is necessarily unpublicised, but it may give some idea of the scope of the operations if I say that, in addition to the numerous patrols of various kinds operated by the RUC each day, the Army undertakes hundreds of patrols in the Province day in, day out. Let no one doubt that many more prospective terrorist operations

  1043
  fail or are aborted than come to fruition. That may not be newsworthy, but it is vital to the safety of every member of the community in Northern Ireland.
  But let there be no suspicion that there is any complacency, either in Government or in the security forces. The Chief Constable keeps constantly under review the pattern of security force operations in the light of the prevailing security situation. He is not only responsible for all security operations but is also the Secretary of State's principal adviser on security matters, and the Secretary of State met him for a full review of the security situation earlier this week.
  The security forces will continue to receive all the support that they require from the Government. Sometimes, I get the feeling that Ministers can say that until they are blue in the face but will not be believed, so perhaps the House will be interested to know that the Chief Constable had this to say at his press conference to launch his report this morning:
  "When a terrorist outrage occurs there is often a reaction suggesting that the handcuffs should be taken off the police and the Army—that our hands should be untied from behind our backs. There are no restraints on the security forces save those imposed by the law and by the very nature of our democratic society. There is no political restraint stopping us from doing our duty or doing our best. What we have asked the Government we have received, and if more is needed at any time we shall ask for more and expect to receive it."
  I know that, coming from my lips, those words may be greeted with cynicism, but I hope that they are not greeted with cynicism when they come from the lips of the Chief Constable.
  There are no operational options from which the security forces are being held back for political reasons. The only constraint, as the Chief Constable said, is that they must operate within the law. The Government's security policy is clear: terrorism will be met with stern and unyielding opposition, by forces that act proactively as well as defensively. The operation of that policy by the security forces must be both within the law and effective, in the sense of leading towards a lasting peace, as well as affording immediate protection to people from terrorist attack, and bringing about the capture of terrorists and their conviction in the courts.
  That aim cannot be achieved, in any real or meaningful sense, by the use of measures which step outside the law, or which seek to impose, through draconian force, an artificial "peace". Even if such an approach were sucessful in creating a temporary calm—and that is open to question —it would not be a lasting one. The damage which such measures would cause to the integrity and credibility of constitutional politics, and of the institutions of the state, would be irreparable.
  To do so would not only be wrong—it would, I believe, be ineffective. Civilised society must deal with terrorism effectively and decisively—but within the law, or else the divisions which the terrorists feed off may simply be deepened. As I have said, we all have a part to play in defending our society and the lives of our neighbours.
  The Chief Constable has emphasised the importance of close co-operation between the police and the community they serve in isolating arid defeating the terrorists. The RUC does not, and cannot, operate at a remove from the community. If loss of life is to be prevented, we must use
  1044
  our sense of right and wrong, take our responsibility as citizens of a civilised society, and act upon it in support of the law.
  To quote the Chief Constable's report once more, recent events
  "point clearly to the pressing need for a positive, concerted, cross-community alliance against violence with unequivocal support for firm and impartial action by the police and Army".
  Co-operation with the police is the wedge that will isolate the terrorists.
  The Government for their part are committed to providing the security forces with the resources they need to undertake their difficult and dangerous tasks. In the past two years, the establishment of the RUC has been raised by 441 officers, the recruitment and training of whom has now been completed, while two reinforcement battalions of soldiers have been deployed in the Province for over a year and will continue to be deployed there for as long as they are needed, despite the many other pressures on the armed forces.
  But the resources that are needed go beyond manpower and equipment. The other side of our determination to defeat terrorism within the law is the need to provide the security forces with a legislative framework which gives them the powers they need to tackle terrorism effectively.
  While on the subject of legislation, it is appropriate to pause briefly to note that Lord Colville's report on the operation in 1992 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act was published yesterday. The debates next month to consider the renewal of that Act will provide an opportunity to consider Lord Colville's report and the recommendations in more detail.
  I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the great contribution that Lord Colville has made as a reviewer of the emergency legislation over the past seven years. His constructive and penetrating commentary and his contribution to the form that the legislation takes have been invaluable.
  Our response to terrorism must and does include a recognition that terrorism can be brought to a permanent end only if security policy and security measures are complemented and reinforced by effective political, social and economic policies and programmes. Terrorist violence cannot be dealt with in isolation, because terrorism takes place not in a vacuum but in a society on whose political divisions the terrorists try to feed.
  Our commitment to the defeat of terrorism, and to securing a just and tranquil future for the courageous people of Northern Ireland, is undiminished. I believe that the message is getting through to the terrorist godfathers on both sides that the security forces will continue to pursue them with unremitting resolution.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: We have heard all this from the Government before. They have offered Northern Ireland nothing new this morning. The Minister's deplorable reply will increase the distaste for his system of government in Northern Ireland among the majority community. We were hoping for a change of direction in security policy, but nothing new has been announced. The message for the people of Northern Ireland is that they must continue to suffer at the hands of the IRA, who are now winning the battle.

  Stobhill Hospital
  11 am
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about an important matter that affects my constituency. I thank the Minister for coming to reply on behalf of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Baroness Cumberlege; I also thank a consultant at the Stobhill hospital, Dr. Matthew Dunnigan, who helped me with my research, and Dr. Frank Dunn, who is a specialist at the hospital.
  Last Sunday, an impressive gathering took place in the grounds of the hospital, which is in my constituency. Six thousand people assembled at 1 pm. They had one thing in common: they were all protesting at the possible closure of Stobhill. These were not the kind of protesters who normally become involved in rallies and demonstrations; they were simply men and women who live in my community and the neighbouring constituencies, and who use the hospital.
  As I made my way to the demonstration, I was impressed by the number of friends and neighbours, including pensioners, who were heading for the hospital grounds. By any standards, it was a most impressive turnout. Those people spoke with one voice: they all said that they did not want the hospital to close. It was a massive gathering. At exactly 2 pm, they all linked hands and surrounded the hospital to show that they were not happy with what was proposed by the bureaucrats in the Scottish Office and Greater Glasgow health board. My thanks must go to Sam and Jeannette Watson for their excellent work in organising the demonstration.
  I do not want Stobhill hospital to close. Everyone in the north end of Glasgow, and the surrounding areas, has a high regard for it; and I have a close link with it. My son Paul was born there, my daughter Mary was treated there not long ago, my wife—also called Mary—was treated there, and 10 years ago I received treatment. I can testify to the hospital's dedication: it is first class.
  According to the Government, who have plucked an arbitrary figure out of the air, 1,000 beds must go in the Greater Glasgow area. The health board, however, seems determined to carry out the Government's wishes. As the Minister will know, every member of the board is hand-picked by the Government. Solid medical evidence from people who are highly regarded in the profession suggests that the loss of 1,000 beds will severely damage the health of local people.
  Dr. Matthew Dunnigan, whom I mentioned earlier, presented a paper to the health board. As he explains, it is proposed to close Stobhill and amalgamate its service with that of the Royal Infirmary. Even if the Government were to do that tomorrow, the hospital would be needed for five to 10 years. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
  There is talk in Government and health board circles of building a mega-hospital—an amalgamation of Stobhill and the Royal Infirmary. That would mean a reduced service for those who currently use the Royal Infirmary, which—in terms of discharges—is the second largest hospital in Scotland. Stobhill is the fifth largest. Those in the north end of Glasgow would be particularly affected by the resulting disruption. Moreover, although the amalgamation could not take place overnight, Stobhill would be expected to maintain its high standards despite the sentence hanging over it.
  1046
  Dr. Dunnigan states:
  "A combination of rising demand, current saturation of hospital bed capacity at peak demand and the absence of forward planning to provide compensating capacity in the community make it unlikely that there can be any significant reduction in Glasgow's bed capacity within 5 years and possibly within 10 years. However, Greater Glasgow Health Board … is under pressure from the Management Executive to announce plans to reduce bed capacity and to close two hospitals before funds are allocated for hospital redevelopment and rebuilding in the city.
  It seems likely that GGHB will announce a strategy for acute beds within the next few months, possibly in June 1993. No hard information on a final decision is yet available but it seems probable that GGBH will opt for option (c) of their discussion document 'Review of Acute Services and Maternity Services to the Year 2001'. This will result in an announcement of the closure of Stobhill General Hospital and the amalgamation of the Victoria Infirmary and Southern General Hospitals on a single site. Hospital services will be concentrated on three sites in the Western/Gartnavel complex, the Royal Infirmary and in a combined hospital on the south side of the City.
  As discussed in detail elsewhere, this scenario will not be in the best interests of Glasgow's hospital services and will run contrary to national trends in planning hospital services in the next century. The immediate result of a decision to close Stobhill General Hospital when circumstances permit will be to place a sentence of death over the Hospital. The Hospital is currently operating at full capacity and there is no prospect of Stobhill's present capacity being taken up … The combination of announcement to close the Hospital in the face of a continuing need for its services over this time scale will produce a potentially destabilising series of developments for the Hospital and its efficient functioning in relation to its catchment area.
  Once the closure announcement is made public, all staff will immediately, in their best interests, seek to obtain employment elsewhere as and when the opportunity arises.
  Employment will be easily obtained in shortage specialties such as Anaesthetics, Psychiatry and Geriatrics, and by highly trained senior technicians in laboratory specialties whose services are easily transferable. Hospital secretaries are in short supply and will also find it relatively easy to find alternative employment. Once the closure of the hospital is announced, suitable replacements will prove difficult to find, other than by locum appointments and poorly trained staff who cannot obtain employment elsewhere. Loss of staff and shortage medical and surgical specialties (already evident in the loss of a Senior Radiologist and an Anaesthetist) and natural wastage due to retirement, sickness and normal job turnover will make it progressively more difficult to find replacement staff in all categories. It would take only the loss of several key personnel in shortage specialties and laboratories to produce a situation in which the Hospital cannot offer an adequate or safe standard of care to its catchment area of 200,000. This potentially disastrous scenario is already the subject of widespread speculation in the Hospital.
  The Hospital's difficulties in finding staff replacements will be compounded by the advent of self-governing hospital Trusts. Before the advent of Trusts it would have been possible to offer long-term security and redeployment in the Board's Hospitals or within the National Health Service in Scotland. Since there will be few or no directly managed hospitals within a relatively short space of time this prospect may be removed with the coming of self-governing Trusts who will have their own priorities and will be unwilling to guarantee employment for staff outwith their own hospitals. Thus, the coming of trusts will increase insecurity in Stobhill Hospital's medical, nursing and ancillary staff and accelerate their desire to find secure employment outside the hospital as soon as possible.
  GGHB must ponder carefully the consequences of announcing the eventual closure of Stobhill Hospital while dependent on its efficient functioning for the next 5–10 years. The Hospital serves one fifth of the population of Glasgow and currently discharges 68 per cent. as many inpatients and 60 per cent. as many outpatients as the Royal Infirmary. The

  1047
  Royal Infirmary is totally unprepared to cope with this demand in the foreseeable future if Stobhill's capacity to manage is compromised by an exodus of key staff.
  A similar situation may be created by the announced amalgamation of the Victoria Infirmary and Southern General Hospital since rationalisation may be required at all grades of medical, nursing and administrative staff in the combined hospital. The prospects of staff losses with a failure to recruit suitable applicants will make the prospects for the effective staffing and management of all three Glasgow hospitals in the short and medium term highly uncertain."
  Dr. Dunnigan makes four points in summary:
  "Demand for acute hospital beds in Greater Glasgow Health Board continues to rise each year. On present evidence, based on trends analysis for acute medical and surgical specialties, the claim that 30 per cent. fewer acute beds will be required by the end of the century is difficult to sustain.
  At present, there is no evidence of significant under-use of acute hospital beds in Glasgow hospitals. On the contrary, bed capacity in most acute specialties is fully occupied at times of peak demand. With pressure on beds, difficulty in accommodating patients at such times is leading to patient inconvenience and distress and impeding their efficient management.
  District General Hospitals of moderate size such as Stobhill General Hospital (about 500 beds) provide optimum geographical and functional relationships with primary care and community services in catchment areas which do not exceed 200–250,000 and should not be closed. Stobhill hospital is currently working at full capacity with winter bed occupancy rates approaching 100 per cent.
  For a city of Greater Glasgow's size, tertiary (supra-area specialty) referral services and the University's clinical academic unit should be concentrated on a single site to reduce the present dispersion of the scarce resources on several sites in the city and create the potential for a 'centre of excellence' in post-graduate teaching and research."
  Dr. Robbie Robertson, the representative of Springburn health centre, supports Dr. Dunnigan's view. Dr. Robertson and his staff, including clerical and auxiliary staff and GPs, marched from Springburn health centre last Sunday to join the campaign at Stobhill. Dr. Robertson states that his centre alone has 30,000 patients, many of whom live in highly deprived areas, and there is an aging population in his catchment area. He has nothing but praise for the service that is given by Stobhill hospital to the health centre and GPs operating in the area. He says that laboratory specimens are lifted twice daily and that, if they reveal abnormal results, consultants will, if necessary, offer advice on the same day. There is a special coronary care hot line between the centre and the hospital, which has saved many lives.
  I mentioned the aging population. Geriatricians in Stobhill have a feel for the community. Consultants and GPs have an excellent relationship. Adjoining the grounds at Stobhill hospital is Hunters Hill hospice, an excellent hospice, with which the Minister will be familiar, that is run by the Marie Curie organisation. I have visited it several times, and it must offer the finest care in Scotland for cancer patients. It depends heavily on assistance that is given by Stobhill hospital. If it were to lose Stobhill, it certainly would experience many difficulties.
  The hospital, as the Minister knows, has 600 general beds and 174 long-stay geriatric patients. It serves 200,000 people in the north of Glasgow in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). It also serves the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) and for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg). It reaches out to widespread rural areas. It is also used to teach medical students from Glasgow university.
  1048
  There are pockets of severe poverty in my constituency. As the Minister knows, poverty leads to a higher incidence of heart disease, chronic chest complaints and, unfortunately, drug abuse, which can cause terrible side effects that only a hospital can seek to repair.
  I wonder about the Government's argument that there are too many beds, especially when one expert at Stobhill states:
  "On many occasions this last winter elderly patients with medical conditions have been transferred to surgical wards or even by taxi to other hospitals to make way for the winter peak of admissions. Consultant medical staff and hospital management have walked the wards together. They looked for patients who were in hospital but should be at home. They found almost none. On this audit, Stobhill needs the beds it has to meet the needs of a particularly needy population."
  The Tomlinson report on London stated that hospitals should be located where people live, not in the city centre but out in the community. In that case, why are there proposals for mega hospitals in Glasgow when the population has moved out of the centre and has been doing so since the 1950s? The Minister will know that his own constituency has expanded immensely, especially the districts of Newton Mearns and Giffnock, due to the arrival of people who formerly lived on the south side and in the centre of Glasgow but have moved out to the areas that he represents.
  In the old days hospitals were in the centre of cities because that was where the population lived. However, we are keeping hospitals there although the population has moved out. There is no economic argument for that, although economics is the case usually put forward by the Government. Every Minister, including the Under-Secretary, speaks about costs, but it is cheaper to keep and care for patients at Stobhill than at the Royal Infirmary or the Western Infirmary. The population of Bishopbriggs is expanding and the population in my constituency is increasing due to a great deal of redevelopment.
  There is a similarity between our previous housing problems and the problems that we are now experiencing in the health service. When Springburn had terrible redevelopment problems, it was known as planning blight. Shopkeepers would not invest in their shops because they did not know what would happen in the future. Young people moved out because the factor would not carry out property repairs as he did not know whether there was to be redevelopment. The young people moved to Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and East Kilbride. There was a general blight over the area because people were uncertain about its future.
  That blight is now coming to Stobhill because people there are uncertain. As Dr. Dunnigan said, if bright and talented people are uncertain about their present place of employment and are offered a more secure job in a hospital that is not the subject of such speculation, they will move on. The Minister knows that that can lead to difficulties.
  I cannot see the case for closing a hospital that is highly efficient and sits in the most beautiful grounds overlooking the Campsie hills. It provides a very pleasant environment for people in need of care and attention and in which to work. I mean no disrespect to the Royal Infirmary but, as the Minister knows, the buildings are old with little room for expansion. Any expansion would be expensive because of the historical nature of some of the buildings. However, there is plenty of room for expansion at Stobhill. I hope

  1049
  that the Minister will give me, the community and the dedicated staff of Stobhill some hope for the future because the speculation has led to a sad state of affairs.
  I also hope that the Minister will bear in mind the fact that medical evidence suggests that the loss of 1,000 beds in Glasgow would be damaging. There is also concern that the people making the decisions about the future of Stobhill are the political appointees of a Government who, admittedly, went to the people on the basis of cuts in public expenditure. Nevertheless, there is some distrust of people who have been appointed by the Government and who have the same political leanings. Perhaps it would be better if Greater Glasgow, like London, were the subject of an independent public inquiry into hospital and medical needs. Everyone in the community is worried about the hospital.
  My neighbour, Sophie Anderson, aged eight, was so impressed by the demonstration on Sunday that she sent me a poem for the debate. It is called "Stobhill Hospital" and reads:

  "Today we stand around Stobhill

  To try to stop it closing,

  We want to let the people know exactly

  What they're losing.

  I think it would be a terrible shame

  Because lots of people use it.

  We want the Health Board our plea to hear

  Keep it open, don't close it!"

  11.27 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Martin) on securing the Adjournment debate and on speaking with his customary knowledge and eloquence on a matter that is undoubtedly of great importance to his constituents. As Hansard will attest, he has asked about the future of Stobhill more than once during Scottish Question Time. I shall try to answer his questions but I hope that he will understand that I am not in a position today to make any announcements about its future.
  There is no formal proposal from the health board to Ministers about the future of Stobhill or any hospital in Glasgow. The board is conducting a review of its future requirements for acute beds and their distribution throughout the city. That process is well advanced but it will be a while before the board is able to put firm proposals to Ministers and some time thereafter before final decisions can be taken.
  However, I repeat my pledge to the hon. Gentleman that before any final decisions are taken my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State will be happy to discuss the issues fully with him and other hon. Members involved.
  Let me describe some of the background. The final decision on closures or major changes in the pattern of health services is a matter for Ministers, and I must re-emphasise that no decisions have been taken about Stobhill or any other hospital in Glasgow.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to investment and the use of public resources. It is perhaps worth emphasising that over the past 10 years or so the hospital capital building
  1050
  programme for acute services has been directed at building district general hospitals outside the main centres of population.
  The past 10 to 15 years have seen major hospitals in, for example, Dumfries, Inverness and Melrose—the list is quite long. The Princess Royal will be opening the new Queen Market hospital in Dunfermline at the end of next month and new hospitals are under construction in Oban and Campbeltown. I must resist boring the hon. Gentleman by continuing, there simply is not time to list all the new developments.
  Since taking office, the Government have spent more than £512 million on 91 major national health service capital investment projects in Scotland; 21 of those projects, totalling £86 million, were in Glasgow.
  As I have said before, that programme of creating new district hospitals outside the main centres of population is coming to an end. We now need to turn our attention to the main centres of population, where the acute hospitals are generally old and in an unsatisfactory condition. Our first priority for the remainder of the decade is to create modern and efficient acute hospitals in our main centres of population to produce a pattern of acute care which best meets the needs of our population.
  The hon. Gentleman and I agree that it is vital that we get the process right. I shall now respond to his more detailed points by setting out the factors that we need to take into account and explaining why we believe that the number of acute hospital in-patient beds will fall.
  There are four main factors which will influence the number of acute hospital beds that we shall need in future: first, the number of patients who need to be treated as hospital in-patients; secondly, how long they stay in hospital as in-patients; thirdly, the efficiency with which acute hospitals use the beds available to them; and fourthly, how medicine and surgery will be delivered in future. Those factors were at the heart of the hon. Gentleman's argument and I shall deal with them in turn.
  Since the mid-1970s, the number of patients treated by the acute services has increased from around 615,000 to nearly 870,000—the hon. Gentleman referred to the figure for Stobhill. That represents an average annual growth of 2·3 per cent. and that figure has not changed very much over the years.
  Increasingly, not all patients will be treated as hospital in-patients. Within the overall figures that I have quoted, there has been a marked shift towards treating patients as day cases. In 1975–76, only 8·3 per cent. of patients were treated as day cases. By 1990–91 that proportion had increased to nearly 18 per cent., and it will not stop there, as recent studies by the Audit Commission and the Scottish Office Audit Unit have predicted. They found that the use of day surgery is well below its estimated potential and concluded that up to 30,000 additional cases a year are possible for the 20 procedures covered by the study. That represents a 90 per cent. increase on current levels.
  We expect health boards and hospitals to expand considerably the use made of day case treatment and that it might be possible to increase the number of cases by at least 75,000 over the next few years. I believe that that trend will be generally welcomed. The shift away from hospital in-patient treatment or treatment by general practitioner is not about saving money; it is in the best interests of patients. It means that the medical or surgical treatment that the patient receives is less drastic. That reflects medical advances.
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: The Minister is making a lot of the increasing number of day cases. How does he know that the trend will continue? Has he carried out surveys about whether patients want such treatment and has he studied issues such as the higher rate of post-operative infection in day-case patients and the increased numbers that have to be re-admitted? If he is supporting the trend towards day cases, is he putting more money into care in the community?
  Mr. Stewart: As I have told the House, the basis of my case is the recent studies by the Audit Commission and the Scottish Office Audit Unit. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question, we have indeed substantially increased resources for care in the community. The shift to local authorities has been accompanied by considerable increases for care in the community.
  I now turn to length of stay. For some of the reasons that I have just mentioned, the average length of stay for those patients who have to be hospital in-patients has also declined dramatically. In the mid-1970s the mean length of stay for all acute specialties was 10·7 days. By 1990–91, that had fallen to 6·7 days and it continues to fall.
  In our planning we have assumed that length of stay will continue to fall, but at a slower rate than in the past. We have assumed an annual rate of 2 per cent.—a cautious assumption compared with the recent rate of more than 4 per cent. I accept that the figures that I am quoting are averages and will vary in different parts of the country. The hon. Member for Springburn was quite right to mention that there are problems of deprivation in some areas of Glasgow and that may well mean that planning has to assume a slightly longer length of stay than in other areas. However, that has been taken into account in our planning.
  I now turn to occupancy rates. Acute hospital beds have an occupancy rate of just over 70 per cent. With the move to hospital trusts and the associated increase in efficiency, it is reasonable to assume that that figure will rise to about 80 per cent. Again, that is an overall average.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Stewart: I want to answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Springburn, but I shall give way.
  Mrs. Mahon: The Minister said that there could be a dramatic increase in occupancy. Have the Government made any estimate of the number of staff that would be needed to cope with that increase?
  Mr. Stewart: First, may I warmly welcome the hon. Lady's intervention in a Scottish debate. Of course, the House will generally appreciate the fact that this is a United Kingdom Parliament, and we are all delighted that the hon. Lady, who represents an English constituency, has taken the opportunity to avail herself of her right, as a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament, to intervene in a Scottish debate. I warmly welcome the assertion from the Opposition Benches that this is a United Kingdom Parliament.
  Mrs. Mahon: I am half Scottish, actually.
  Mr. Stewart: Indeed, but the point is that the hon. Lady is here in the House as a Member of the Parliament of the
  1052
  United Kingdom. I pay tribute to her for asserting her right, as an English Member, to intervene in a Scottish debate.
  Secondly, in answer to the hon. Lady's detailed question, what I was saying did not have staffing implications. I was emphasising the fact that at the moment acute hospital beds have an occupancy rate of just over 70 per cent., and that, irrespective of staff numbers, we believe that increased efficiency could increase that figure to 80 per cent.
  When we consider medical advances, we sometimes assume that medicine and surgery will be delivered in the future in pretty much the same way as they are delivered now. That assumption seems increasingly questionable. Because of the advent of, for example, keyhole surgery, and the work of leading authorities such as Professor Alfred Cuscherri of Dundee university, patients recover much faster. The implication of that is that lengths of stay in hospital will fall quite sharply.
  What do all those factors, taken together, mean for I he planning of acute hospitals? Our best guess is that the need for acute in-patient beds across the whole of Scotland will fall by 3,000 to 5,000 by the end of the decade. I can reassure the hon. Member for Springburn that those figures have been discussed with many people in the medical profession. Of course, what I have said does not mean that fewer patients will be treated. We have assumed that the number of patients treated in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and elsewhere will continue to grow by between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. a year.
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: Does the Minister still maintain that 1,000 beds must be lost in the Greater Glasgow catchment area?
  Mr. Stewart: The figure of 1,000 or so was arrived at through various planning models. It has been discussed and generally agreed with many clinicians through the internal consultation process, and it is in line with the overall Scottish figure to which I have referred.
  In the two minutes or so remaining to me, I emphasise that the whole exercise is not about saving money—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) laughs, as part of her continued and welcome intervention in Scottish debates. But the exercise is not about reducing the scale of the national health service in the sense of treating fewer patients; it is about getting the size of the hospital sector right so that resources are not wasted on providing in-patient beds when they could be better used —for example, by providing day surgery facilities, by supporting the development of primary care, by providing high-technology operating theatres to allow minimal access surgery, or by doing a dozen other things that will provide a better service to patients than providing hospital beds that are simply not needed.
  The cost of achieving those better services will be high. We are talking about investment in new and improved hospitals in Glasgow, which will cost between £200 million and £400 million. The easy option would be to leave everything unchanged. That would save the Government money. It would not only be cheaper, it would avoid a lot of fuss and bother, but I emphasise to the hon. Member for Springburn that that would not be the way forward.
  Mrs. Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Clearly a major reshuffle of the high offices of state is taking place at this moment. I understand that the former Home Secretary is to become Chancellor—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That is in no way a matter for the Chair.
  Mrs. Mahon: I just wondered, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

  Night Flights (Heathrow)
  11.45 am
  Mr. Toby Jessel: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the question of night flights at Heathrow. This is part of a wider problem of aircraft noise. Aircraft noise is a curse and a pestilence. It ruins people's quiet enjoyment of their homes, especially in spring and summer, when they are more likely to have a larger proportion of their windows open. It interferes with people's private lives, with their telephone conversations and with their opportunity to listen to records or to television. It spoils their pleasure in their gardens; it interrupts the work of schools, hospitals, churches and offices. It can even interfere with people's sleep at night. That is the main subject of my debate.
  It must be said that there are some people who do not mind aircraft noise very much. But to a large proportion of the people living around Heathrow—perhaps 1 million people—it is a considerable nuisance. To many people it is a major nuisance. To some it causes actual suffering and even mental ill health, as has been shown in research by the West Middlesex University hospital. That is especially true of night noise disturbance.
  There are already 1,000 flights per day at Heathrow, so that at times aircraft come over every two minutes. It is not enough to say, as British Airways and the airports authority do, that there should be "no increase" in noise. The present noise level is unacceptable. My constituents and others around Heathrow require a substantial and permanent reduction in the volume of noise. It is not enough to say, as the consultation document says, that the noise problem should merely get no worse.
  People can look to courts of law for protection against other forms of noise nuisance, but in the Civil Aviation Act 1949 Parliament expressly ruled out that protection in the case of aircraft and helicopter noise. That being so, people can do no other than look to the Government and to Parliament for protection against the nuisance of noise which, in other cases, is enshrined in English law. The Government, therefore, have a special duty to have regard to the impact of aircraft noise on householders, as does Parliament.
  There is no subject on which I have had more letters from my constituents who are resident in Twickenham, Teddington, the Hamptons and Whitton. But it is not confined to my constituency. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) and many other hon. Members in west London will bear out what I say. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), a Minister from another Department who therefore will not speak in this debate but who is here today, is also lending his support by being present. He has his own channels by which he can make his views known, and I have not the slightest doubt that he has already done so with considerable force. His concern is shared by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), the Minister for Housing, Planning and Construction, and by all right hon. and hon. Conservative Members who are present.
  The Conservative Government's record in the field of aircraft noise has so far been really rather good. In 1985, the late Lord Ridley, then Secretary of State, refused

  1055
  planning permission for a fifth terminal at Heathrow. When the M25 motorway was built, he stopped the Heathrow to Gatwick helicopter link as some of us had asked. Over the years, some—I repeat, some—quieter aircraft engines have been brought in and, up until now, the Government have curbed any increase in the number of night flights. Lord Ridley and Lord Parkinson as Secretaries of State for Transport did so, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). All of them consistently refused to increase the quota for night flights above the average of 16 per night for the summer
  In the face of enormous commercial pressure, those Secretaries of State were absolutely right to be firm, resolute and strict in protecting the people on the western side of London from any increase in night flights. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, who will reply to the debate, will reassure me that the present Secretary of State will not weaken and will be equally strong in protecting the people. If he does not, I for one will take an extremely dim view and so, I believe, will my right hon. and hon. Friends and large numbers of people in all the constituencies on the western side of London.
  The peace, the quiet and the health of millions of people must be placed above commercial interests. It is absolutely intolerable to contemplate that thousands and thousands of people might be woken up at night for the convenience of a few hundred travellers in aeroplanes above. My constituents simply will not accept it. They are angry at the very thought of it. What they want is a total ban on all night flights except in emergencies. I hope that the Government will listen carefully, pay heed to what my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are saying and take a robust view. After all, there are only 16 night flights per night now and even if that number were doubled, with 1,000 flights every day, it would only increase the total number of flights through Heathrow by 1·5 per cent. Yet it would be doubling the number at night.
  If people wake up for any reason in the middle of night, perhaps because they have overeaten and are suffering from indigestion or because they want to go round the corner, they then go to bed again. They may have been worrying about something and then, just as they are drowsing off to sleep, an aeroplane—a so-called "quiet" aeroplane—comes over. That will wake them up again and they may not be able to get back to sleep for an hour or so. If they have read that the Government have allowed an increase in the number of night flights, they will blame the Government for the fact that they cannot get to sleep—and that will be a perfectly reasonable assumption for them to make.
  Millions of people throughout the country suffer from the effects of aircraft noise, but none suffer more than those on the west side of London. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be absolutely firm in resisting any increase in the number of night flights. Indeed, I hope that there will be a total ban on all night flights except in emergencies.
  11.55 am
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr.
  1056
  Carrington) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) are hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall be brief. I am grateful to you for calling me, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) for securing the debate, which is extremely valuable—indeed, crucial—to the people of west London.
  In referring to the interests of the people of west London, I shall bear my own constituents most particularly in mind. I am sorry to say that air pollution in Ealing is among the most serious in the country. Ealing is a beautiful place and is rightly known as the queen of the suburbs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful to my hon. Friends. Air pollution is serious in Ealing mainly because aircraft flying overhead pollute the atmosphere and because of the huge amounts of traffic that are sucked through my constituency because of its proximity to the airport, from which people want to catch aircraft to fly to various parts of the world. Add to that air pollution the serious noise pollution from which my constituents suffer by day—and which they could suffer by night—and the House will see why I am so keen to support my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent constituencies in west London.
  At present there is an almost universal ban on night flights and it is important that that should not be relaxed in any way. The Local Authorities Aircraft Noise Council, which represents all local councils in the areas surrounding Heathrow, is firmly opposed to any relaxation of the ban, but the consultation paper recently issued by the Department of Transport implies that, as most aircraft are now quieter, a relaxation of the present restrictions on night flights would be justified. It is certainly true that the latest generation of aircraft are considerably quieter than the earlier jets, and successive Conservative Governments must take credit for that. With the strong support of its members, the European Commission, too, has been heavily involved in persuading manufacturers to introduce quieter planes—indeed, that is one of the good things that the Commission has done.
  There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that people would be seriously disturbed at night if the present night flight ban were relaxed in any way, and such a relaxation would bring justifiable fury to my constituency. Why should the people of west London be disturbed in this way? The House will understand why I am so keen for the night flight ban to be retained. If there is anyone in the land who takes seriously the suggestion in the White Paper that people may not be disturbed by certain aircraft, I should like to meet him. I do not think that anyone who studies the question in any depth can take seriously the argument that aircraft can be made so quiet that they will not disturb people at night. That simply can never be true. However quiet aircraft become, people will always be disturbed by them. It is bad enough for that to happen by day, but it would be totally unacceptable for it to happen at night. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham in respect of a relaxation of the ban on night flights.
  11.59 am
  Mr. David Mellor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter today. He has been absolutely tireless in his pursuit of this issue in the nigh on 20 years that he has represented his constituency.
  Mr. Jessel: Twenty three years.
  Mr. Mellor: Well, there you are.
  My hon. Friend pursues this matter not through a fixation with the issue, but because his constituents demand it. It would be absolutely impossible for him and for some of us to represent our constituencies if we did not take the view that we do, so all-pervasive is the concern about the issue. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London will be aware of that.
  It is significant that we have gathered here this morning, not the usual lonely vigil of the initiator of the Adjournment debate, the Minister and the poor old Whip, but several other hon. Members because this is such a significant and substantial matter. It is particularly noteworthy that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) is present. Although he is a Minister and unable to speak in this debate, I know that he passionately believes that enough is enough in respect of Heathrow airport. That is the cause that we advance today.
  I can tell my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London—this is not empty piety on my part because I am not terribly good at empty piety—that I pay him a genuine tribute because this very week he has announced an extremely politically sensitive decision in my constituency when he rejected plans to expand the A3 beyond the Robin Hood roundabout although being under great pressure from the roads lobby to do that.
  My hon. Friend the Minister decided to reject the scheme because he knows full well that the political controversy which the scheme would engender does not make the project worth while. It is therefore a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Minister in the Chamber today because I am sure that the same considerations will weigh heavily with him when he broods on this particular matter.
  I believe that our case can be stated simply. Heathrow airport is one of the great airports of the world. Whatever the extent of the suffering that it causes to local communities represented by my hon. Friends who are here today, and by others who cannot be here, we all recognise the pressures on my hon. Friend the Minister from the airline companies, the British Airports Authority and others to ensure that Heathrow keeps that competitive edge.
  I recall Douglas Jay once telling me how Heathrow was set up. One afternoon towards the end of the war, a few civil servants decided that that marshy place on the wrong side of London should be Heathrow airport. How very differently things are done today, when we can spend 30 years deciding, through endless public inquiries, whether something should be built.
  Mr. Jessel: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those civil servants in that room after the war, who took that decision without reference to Parliament, could never have foreseen the massive growth in demand for air travel or the development of noisy jet engines?
  Mr. Mellor: I suppose that if they foresaw anything I would probably be a good deal less cynical about the whole process of decision making. Let us assume that they thought about things carefully, even if that assumption is misguided.
  The plain fact is that Heathrow exists. It is a great airport. We all use it and I have nothing against its excellent facilities. However, the communities of southwest London suffer intolerably because of the airport. The appropriate way to consider aircraft policy is to say that we all have the benefits of air travel and we should all share the suffering. We cannot have more suffering lumped on to the communities around Heathrow when Stansted was supposed to be London's third airport, although there is precious little sign of that, when there is Gatwick and when the regional airports are getting down on their knees to beg for more business.
  Night flights are a thorough nuisance. I live happily—or not as the case may be—in that part of my constituency that is overflown by aircraft coming in, so I am not raising an academic matter in the House. Every morning, I get it. If my humble home were big enough, any number of civil servants from the Department of Transport could come and share that night-time vigil so as to be acquainted with what it is like.
  I do not want to take up time that we do not have. It is clear that the Government, under pressure from the industry, are floating a proposition that is not acceptable or saleable and will have to be rejected. The proposition is that there is such a thing as a quiet or non-intrusive aircraft. That is nonsense. There are, however, quieter aircraft. I am grateful for the efforts that Governments have made over the years to prohibit the noisy clapped-out old 707s of emergent African dictatorships from coming into Heathrow. That has all been stopped—and a jolly good thing too.
  The mere fact that some aircraft are quieter than others does not mean that we live in the world of the quiet aircraft. There is no such thing as a quiet aircraft. The assumption which underpins the document produced by the Department of Transport is that, if further pressure is exerted on noisy aircraft, our communities will accept that two or three quiet aircraft are worth one noisy aircraft, and even erect a statue in the centre of Putney, Richmond or Twickenham to the beneficent Secretary of State for Transport who has given them three times as many quiet planes. That is nonsense and it would be helpful, especially in the Government's present state, if that nonsense were realised before rather than after any blood needs to be shed. On that basis, I make this genial speech today.
  12.6 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) for securing this debate and the speeches that have been made. The key point for my hon. Friend the Minister to bear in mind is that in no way has the case been made for any change in the present situation. A ridiculous and thin piece of research has been done into sleep patterns. If the Department wants to do something proper in that area, it could revisit that whole question and do a proper study over a long period. But nowhere to my knowledge has the commercial case been made by any of the airlines for any relaxation in the current regime. It would be interesting to speculate that, if the British

  1059
  Airports Authority believed that relaxation in the regulations was an absolute sine qua non before they began the procedure for terminal 5, they would not be spending tens of millions of pounds going through application and planning procedures for that development and all of the surface access that is needed.
  Hon. Members whose constituents are most seriously affected by the proposals want to see at least the maintenance of the existing regime. We would like to see monitoring equipment for landings put sensibly into position. In the past, the emphasis has been on monitoring take-offs, not landings. A lot of research needs to be done so that the Government can be satisfied that any proposals that they may bring forward in the future could possibly command an element of acceptance. These proposals would command no support whatever in our constituencies.
  I echo the appeal of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) that in the present state of affairs it might be wise for the Government to take the sagacious view of spending a little more time cogitating and working out what would be acceptable, bearing in mind the fundamental point that quality of life is important to our constituents and should be weighed at least equally with the commercial development of the airport.
  12.9 pm
  Mr. Matthew Carrington: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) on raising an issue of vital importance to anyone who lives in the west of London. It affects my constituents as much as those of all my hon. Friends who are present and many who would have liked to be here today to debate this important issue.
  My constituency is slightly further from Heathrow than other constituencies, but that is not to underestimate the disturbance caused by flights to and from the airport. The disturbance is serious. I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friends this morning. My constituents are worried about the proposals, especially the proposal to increase the number of night flights into Heathrow.
  It is clear that sleep patterns are seriously disturbed by night flights. They are disturbed by the current number of night flights. To suggest that quieter aeroplanes disturb less is perhaps true if windows are double glazed and it is not the summer months when windows are left open. Through great parts of the year, my constituents like to sleep with their windows open. They like to benefit from the fresh air and enjoy the pleasures of bird song in the early morning.
  A quiet plane going over in a background of relative silence in London at night is as disturbing to the sleep of my constituents as a noisy plane going over. Whatever the cause, if people are woken from their sleep, especially in the early hours of the morning, they find it difficult to go back to sleep again. So the suggestion that many more quieter planes equal one noisy plane is so ludicrous as to have brought into question the basis upon which the consideration document issued by the Department of Transport was produced. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will therefore review that document and consider whether it would be appropriate to reject its suggestions. I hope that he will also reconsider night flights into and out
  1060
  of Heathrow. As my hon. Friends have said, our constituents are perhaps prepared to tolerate the status quo, but that does not mean that the status quo is acceptable.
  Ideally, the current number of night flights into Heathrow, especially early morning flights, would be reduced. As has already been said, the expansion of Heathrow is unnecessary, given the alternative airports into which those flights could go. I should like the Department of Transport to give that serious consideration. I should also like the overall study to include overflying of our constituents by helicopters. Helicopter flights are a particular problem in my constituency, as in any constituency along the River Thames. Helicopter flights are as much a nuisance—indeed, sometimes more of a nuisance—as other flights. They are controlled, but they are not controlled as effectively as they should be.
  A great deal more could be said on this subject. I do not want to take up any more time because I want to give my hon. Friend the Minister ample time to answer the real anxieties of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends and to explain exactly how he intends to ensure that my constituents get a good night's sleep.
  12.13 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) on securing the debate. I have been left in no doubt whatever about the strength of feeling among my right hon. and hon. Friends on this important issue.
  If it is not too churlish, I should like to make one point at the start of my reply. We had excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham, for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and for Fulham (Mr. Carrington), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie). My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) is also in his place. Sadly, that is it. With the honourable exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), who has an interest in this matter as well as being a member of the Government Whips Office, not one Labour or Liberal Member is in the Chamber to discuss this important issue. I have heard about pavement politics, particularly from some Liberal councillors who make so much of their interest in such politics in some parts of the city, so why is it that not one of their representatives was able to be present for this important debate?
  Mr. Mellor: Had I thought that I had a minute or two longer in which to speak, I might have dilated on the point which my hon. Friend has properly raised. It is even worse than my hon. Friend suggests, as those of us with long memories will know. The late Stephen Ross, whose death saddened me because he was a nice man, although I did not agree with everything he said, helped to prevent the passage of an aviation Bill that we attempted to get through the House. That Bill was designed to restrict the number of flights into and out of Heathrow, but it was aborted because of the efforts of Liberal and Labour Members and, sadly, one or two Conservative Back Benchers. The Liberals speak with a forked tongue on this matter because they say one thing in Parliament while

  1061
  trying to assert other things in the affected communities, where they try to pretend that they are on the side of those who are concerned about the Heathrow expansion.
  Mr. Norris: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that information. Let us not dwell on that rather sad aspect of the debate, but let us concentrate on the substantive issue.
  I should set in context what the consultation exercise is all about. Five objectives lie behind the new proposals. First, they are designed to revise and update the current restrictions to take into account the types of aircraft that are flying today—or, if I may say so, tonight—and to encourage airlines to choose the quietest possible types of aircraft for their operations. That is the most important principle. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney is right, of course, that there is no such thing as a silent aircraft, but he was generous enough to acknowledge that technical progress has been made. It is therefore obviously important that, whatever regulations might be appropriate in the future, we should take into account that technical progress.
  It is also important to bear in mind that the need for the consultation exercise stems from the fact that, unless new restrictions are in place, the existing ones will lapse at the end of the summer season—technically, on 24 October. It is therefore important that that exercise should take place.
  The second purpose of the new proposals is to introduce common principles for arrangements for night restrictions at the three major London airports. The third objective is to honour our commitment in the 1985 White Paper, "Airports Policy", to establish further night restrictions at Stansted. The fourth important objective is to continue to protect local communities from excessive aircraft noise levels at night. The fifth objective is to ensure that the competitive influences affecting United Kingdom airports and airlines and the wider employment and economic implications are taken into account. That is the background to the consultation exercise.
  My colleagues who are present are experienced Members of the House and I am sure that they will understand what I am about to say. The underlying objective must be to try to strike a reasonable balance between the needs of the commercial operators at Heathrow and the needs and concerns of those who live around the airport and who are anxious about its operations.
  Let us be in no doubt that Heathrow is a major national asset. It continues to be the largest international airport in the world. In the past 12 months it has catered for more than 45 million passengers. Perhaps more importantly, it serves as the workplace for some 50,000 people directly and for at least 20,000 others indirectly in terms of facilitating passenger, freight and postal services.
  I believe that not only hon. Members but the vast majority of people, not just in London but in the United Kingdom, accept that Heathrow is of immense strategic importance to the nation. Against that has to be balanced the needs of the local community and the need to protect it from the excesses of night flying beyond the limit of that which is tolerable.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North started with the correct observation that noise is a pollutant. It is as much a pollutant as any pollutant. The purpose of the
  1062
  proposals is to encourage quieter aircraft, and that encourages those aircraft that are more fuel efficient and produce less particulant emission. Therefore, there is that incidental benefit to be derived from a better night noise regime.
  Mr. Jessel: No one questions the tremendous importance of Heathrow to Britain, to our national economy, to trade, industry, tourism and to London's position in the world. All of that is practically self-evident. But why cannot the work of the large number of people whose employment depends upon it be concentrated, as far as possible, by day and not at all by night?
  Mr. Norris: I was about to come to that precise point, which is obviously germane to the debate. Let us start with the straightforward proposition that I believe my hon. Friends will accept, which is that the vast majority of flights take place during day-time hours. We are talking very much about flights on the margin. The new proposed definition of night time runs from 11 pm until 7 am and the new quota system from 11.30 pm to 6 am.
  The purpose of that—the difference between the definition of night time and the quota regime—is to allow a buffer during which no noisy aircraft can be scheduled and therefore eliminate the risk that aircraft which would otherwise be scheduled close to the point at which the night quota regime came into effect might, for operational reasons, stray into the night quota regime, thus vitiating the purpose of having a quota regime in place. That is a sensible move. Harmonisation on the question of hours makes a great deal of sense.
  I am clear that we should be sure that those movements which are allowed to operate at night are justified in terms of their strategic and economic importance to Heathrow. My hon. Friend makes the perfectly fair point that we should apply some fairly stringent tests to any proposals for night flying.
  I am mindful of the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton on sleep research. I appreciate that neither he nor others in the House may have treated that work with the seriousness that it deserves. The research has been carried out by teams led by Professor Jim Horne from Loughborough university and others from Manchester Metropolitan University and the University of Southampton under the overall direction of Dr. John Ollerhead of the Civil Aviation Authority's department of safety, environment and engineering. It is a creditable piece of research into a most difficult subject.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham is right. One may wake up in the middle of the night because, as in my hon. Friend's case, one is suffering from dyspepsia. My other right hon. and hon. Friends may do so because, as they are all distinguished chaps, they are worried about the possibility of the telephone ringing the next morning—particularly on a day such as this—or of it not ringing, which might cause even more sleeplessness. Whatever the reason, it is difficult to get back to sleep, and in those circumstances even so-called quiet aircraft can be an absolute bane. I spend my week in central London, as do most right hon. and hon. Members, so I have some experience of night aircraft noise, although I cannot claim that it is particularly upsetting.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: It is an important part of our case that some people are such light sleepers that they

  1063
  wake up at the slightest sound, be it aircraft noise or anything else. We cannot put the whole of west London on sleeping pills.
  Mr. Norris: I believe that my hon. Friend is supporting me. If I am wrong, I apologise—but it would be characteristic of him, as a generous hon. Friend. to be supportive.
  Some people are extremely light sleepers and almost anything will wake them, but it would be unreasonable to take measures to control such an important activity as international flights into our major airport on the basis that every person in this city must be guaranteed uninterrupted slumber. I look forward to the day when every resident of the metropolis enjoys an uninterrupted night's slumber, but I doubt that I shall live to see it.
  It is important not to confuse annoyance with disburbance. We all get annoyed at different things. The research had the serious purpose of distinguishing between annoyance and disturbance. There is a threshold at which a person is awoken from his or her normal sleep pattern. When that level of noise is reached, we are in important territory that is quite different from the sort of background noise that is part of every major city.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney represents a most attractive part of London, but it is not immune from other noises—if only that associated with the festivities and general merrymaking that my right hon. and learned Friend has done so much to promote in his years as Putney's Member of Parliament.
  I will conclude with a serious point. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends accept that it is a question of striking the right balance. I make it clear that the proposal is not something new in terms of permitting night flying but relates to extending the controls over night flying which currently exist to protect residents. It is perfectly open to right hon. and hon. Members to complain that that control is currently not sufficiently stringent. I undertake to hear their comments in mind very carefully —but the Government, in acting responsibly, must bear in mind the balance of advantage which must lie between Heathrow's promotion as a vital part of our economic, tourism and business infrastructure and the rights and needs of local residents.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is most concerned about the representations that he received. I will certainly study them closely to ensure that proper weight is placed on all the arguments that my right hon. and hon. Friends adduced. They have left me in no doubt about the importance that they attach to the issue. Let us hope that, when the new arrangements are finalised, we shall strike the desired balance, benefiting all interested parties—enabling Heathrow to take its rightful place as the world's premier international airport, and allowing our constituents to enjoy a reasonable night's sleep.

  Fire Service
  12.29 pm
  Ms Kate Hoey: I am grateful for this timely opportunity to raise important issues relating to the fire service.
  No doubt the Minister was among the many Members of Parliament approached yesterday by a large lobby organised by the Fire Brigades Union and attended by many firefighters and ambulance and emergency rescue staff. I am grateful to him for representing the Minister of State, Earl Ferrers. He and I are much more used to corresponding regularly on immigration matters: I would guess that he receives more letters and representations from Members of Parliament than any other member of the Government. I am glad that he has been able to drag himself away from pressing matters in his office; no doubt they are even more pressing than usual this morning.
  I wish to concentrate largely on the turmoil surrounding the threat to the firefighters' pay review formula, agreed after the damaging strike of 1977. However, I shall also press the Minister on some of the technical issues that I raised in an Adjournment debate on the emergency services in London some 18 months ago. I hope that he will be able to demonstrate that some progress has been made, although I must admit to a certain scepticism which I hope that he will be able to overturn.
  The 1977 fire service strike evokes in all of us powerful memories of service men and women providing a vital emergency service, and of "green goddesses" on the streets of our towns and cities. The current dispute has brought us lively television footage of that period, dubbed with assurances that, if necessary, the Army fire tenders will be taken out of their mothballs and made ready for action.
  The 1977 dispute was resolved by the adoption of a nationally agreed pay formula: that complex formula, based on the upper quarter of the average manual worker's pay, was agreed fully by the employers and union negotiators. It had the tacit support of the Government of the day, and has remained in place ever since. It has cross-party support in fire authorities up and down the country; indeed, the Home Office working party report produced in 1990 and signed by Earl Ferrers went further by explicitly recognising that the fire service and the public had been well served by the formula.
  Since 1977, the pay year has run from November to November, following shortly after the annual publication of the Government's new earnings survey. For each of the past 15 years, the annual pay round has been settled amicably and speedily by application of the formula. I understand that industrial relations involving pay in this vital public service have remained second to none. Surely the Minister agrees that the morale of members of a service that is called routinely to deal with life-threatening situations is of paramount and obvious importance.
  Last year, the formula resulted in a pay rise of about 4·9 per cent., which is readily comparable to the increases paid to other sectors. In fact, that comparability is built into the formula. I hope the Minister will accept that, because the formula is—by definition—time-lagged by a year, any pay freeze imposed by the Government will affect firefighters' pay twice over. Should the pay freeze be lifted next year

  1065
  and the formula reintroduced, firefighters will still receive a rise of only 1·5 per cent. or less, as it will be based on current public sector pay round settlements.
  Where a comparable worker may have received, say, a 5 per cent. rise last year, 1·5 per cent. this year and—who knows?—3·5 per cent. next year, a firefighter will have received approximately 4·9 per cent. last year, 1·5 per cent. this year and 1·5 per cent. again next year. With the reimposition of the lagged formula, they will therefore be hit twice. Cannot the Minister accept that the easy and fair way out is simply to leave the pay formula in place and therefore let firefighters make their contribution to the Government's pay squeeze next year rather than this year?
  I shall not trouble to ask the Minister whether the Government plan to impose a pay freeze next year, as we have not yet managed to get a straight answer from his Cabinet colleagues, but perhaps I should try to seek an unguarded response from him as by the time the debate is over his new boss may feel differently about pay freezes than his present boss, who will be responsible for them. I hope that, if the new Chancellor has learnt anything from his responsibility as Home Secretary, it will be the dedicated and valuable work of firefighters.
  Are the Government seriously prepared to jeopardise the smooth running of this emergency service just to force down an independently worked out pay settlement from an expected level of between 2·5 and 3 per cent.? All this is being done merely so that the Government can impose their collective muscle on workers a year earlier than would otherwise happen automatically.
  I shall not allow the Minister off the hook lightly with a bland assurance that it is not for the Government to intervene in the independent pay negotiations between employer and employee. The Minister seeks to give a straight answer to a straight question, and I hope that he will continue that habit this afternoon.
  We all know perfectly well that the imposition of a 1·5 per cent. limit to the pay element of the standard spending assessment completely ties the hands of employers. A refusal fully to fund the independent pay formula rise in the SSA is effectively an edict from the Home Office that the formula must be abandoned.
  That attack on the pay formula has already damaged morale. The damage must be placed in the context of the increasing demands that are being placed each year on an already overstretched service. Calls rose by 64 per cent. in the 1980s, but staffing rose by only 2·5 per cent. Without digressing too far, I say only that, for whatever reason and doubtless against the advice of fire inspectors, the House is a firefighters' nightmare. As a royal palace, and so exempt from health and safety regulations, it is a terrible accident waiting to happen.
  Up and down the country, fire stations are being closed for reasons more to do with making cuts than with efficiently continuing the service assessed as being needed. In places, minimum standards of fire cover are arguably no longer being maintained. For example, the 890-bed Norwich hospital, formerly served at first call by three fire engines and a high-rise ladder, now looks set to be downgraded to be covered by only one fire engine.
  I understand that the Public Accounts Committee found our record for fire deaths per head of population to be the worst of any of our partner countries in the
  1066
  European Community. That appalling slip in such a critical league table is evidence that Britain has lost its place as a world leader in fire service cover, not because of a lack of commitment, courage or innovation by firefighters and fire authorities, but simply because of a lack of cash.
  I invite the Minister to tell me what progress has been made since I last raised certain issues in late 1991. I have given the Minister prior notice of my questions and I hope that he will be able to respond. First, what progress does he envisage making towards the adoption of the urban C risk category, tailored to the specific needs of a modern inner city? Secondly, will he make the welcome announcement of an exemption from the SSA of the increased revenue spending required by unavoidable pension liabilities? That would recognise the fact that the services provided in, for example, London may otherwise be cut by £2 million in real terms to cope with the 6 per cent. rise in pension costs for former officers.
  Thirdly, when will the Government get around to amending the Fire Services Act 1947, which restricts the fire service's duties to firefighting? We all accept that firefighters have so many other essential calls on their time, as I outlined earlier. At this point, I pay tribute to the firefighters in Northern Ireland, especially in light of the recent terrible bombings in Belfast, Portadown and Magherafelt. Anyone who saw the firefighters being interviewed would also want to pay tribute to their dedication in dealing with the many difficulties they face. They often work in the areas in which they live and have to deal with incidents which greatly affect their part of the community.
  I also applaud the region's Fire Brigades Union, which is able to bring together people from both sides of the community to fight the terrible atrocities. I of course pay tribute to firefighters in the rest of the United Kingdom, especially in view of the recent increase in terrorism. I hope that the Minister will join me in paying that tribute to them, not only for their commitment to saving property and life and for their dedication, but for the respect that they have accorded to the pay formula.
  In 1991, the service received more than 1 million calls. The incidents involved the loss of 861 lives, including those of two firefighters. Insurance costs for the damage involved exceeded £1 billion. Over and above the individual misery, it is estimated that the cash cost of treating a child with severe burns can be more than £200,000. Does not the Minister realise that the contrived savings which the Government are trying to make cost more in cash and human suffering than we should be prepared to pay? Our firefighters deserve more. They have the full support of the people of this country, but they need the full support of the Government.
  12.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): With the leave of the House, I shall speak again. As the House may be aware, I spoke earlier and shall be seeking leave to speak yet again before the day is over.
  I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) for her opening remarks. I must also point out that it is not for me to speculate on any rumours that may be flying around the Westminster and Whitehall grapevine about changes

  1067
  in ministerial responsibility, but before the day is through we shall no doubt learn whether her assessment of the situation is correct.
  I shall try to address some of the points that the hon. Lady raised, but it gives me considerable pleasure to be able to respond to a debate on a subject which the hon. Lady has addressed before, and I know that she takes considerable interest in the work of the fire service. Hon. Members will know that the fire service is not a subject on which I normally address the House, but it is well respected in the community.
  A few weeks ago, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary addressed a meeting of the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Association and made some remarks about the fire service. It was a private meeting and his speech was not widely reported, but it would riot be inappropriate to repeat to the House what he said on that occasion. He said:
  "It goes without saying that the Government, like the general public, has a high regard for what the fire service does and the professionalism and bravery which we associate almost as a matter of course with the men and women in it: in particular when they undertake fire fighting duties or expose themselves to danger in other kinds of emergency. They, and you, do a good job of which we can feel justifiably proud.".
  I should like to take this opportunity to endorse the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend and the praise offered by the hon. Lady. I should like to acid my endorsement to what she said about the fire fighting services in Northern Ireland.
  The fire service also has a good productivity record, as the Fire Brigades Union has not been slow to point out. In the period between 1980 and 1991, the number of fire calls attended by the fire service increased by 23 per cent., the number of false alarms to which the fire service has to respond increased by 109 per cent. and the number of special service calls, which include road accidents and a whole range of other non-fire situations, as the hon. Lady suggested, increased by no less than 128 per cent. All that was achieved with an increase of only 2·5 per cent. in the numbers of personnel. It is a powerful and eloquent statement of the achievements in productivity.
  There are, of course, reasons why the fire service has been able to achieve those apparent increases in productivity. The primary reason is that the disposition of fire service resources throughout the country is determined according to nationally recommended standards of fire cover which are determined by the risk presented by each part of the country. In other words, the same number of fire appliances may be needed in an area where there are two calls or 10 calls a day, but even if that is so, the work load on the firefighters has obviously increased during the period; we acknowledge that.
  The fire service is local authority service financed by central and local government, and, like other public services, it cannot be immune from change or from the need to ensure that it delivers its services in a most efficient and cost-effective way. My right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear on several occasions that he does not intend to recommend that standards of fire cover should be reduced, but that does not exempt the fire service from the need to examine itself and to consider, like all public services, whether the service which it delivers is being delivered in the most cost-effective manner and to the greatest benefit of the community at large.
  1068
  HM inspectors of fire service who advise the Secretary of State on matters of efficiency of the fire service are very conscious when they inspect brigades of the need to ensure that brigades are delivering their services efficiently and economically.
  There are a number of current issues of concern to members of the fire service which I should like to mention in responding to the hon. Lady. She mentioned pay and pensions, and I shall respond to both those subjects, but there are other issues too, and it would be helpful to touch on one or two of them to make sure that the Government have absolutely no hidden agenda for the fire service.
  One example is the effect of the current review on the organisation of local government in England and Wales on the fire service. There are fears that the reorganisation of local government areas will lead to wholesale reorganisation of the fire service in England and Wales.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear that he does not consider that the current review of local government is a suitable vehicle for any general reorganisation of the fire service in England, and he has made it clear to the Local Government Commission that he does not expect local government reorganisation to lead to any fragmentation of the fire service.
  If some of the existing counties are broken up, it may be necessary to resort to combination schemes to maintain the size of existing fire brigades, and there may be one or two cases in which some further reorganisation is necessary because of significant changes in the structure of local government in particular areas. But apart from that, we see no good case for reviewing the organisation of the fire service in England until the process of local government reorganisation is complete and the building blocks of the new local authority structure are clear. The position in Wales is slightly different, but I do not think that it would be helpful for me to reiterate the arguments set out in the White Paper on Welsh local government reorganisation, with which I know that the House will be familiar.
  I know that the level of finance available for the fire service is a matter of concern to chief officers and to elected members of the fire authorities both in the metropolitan areas and in the counties. But public expenditure is under pressure, and the fire service cannot expect to be exempted from that pressure. We know that, in some county areas, expenditure on the fire service has in some places exceeded the fire service element of the standard spending assessment. However, I think that we can say that there were fairly realistic settlements in 1991–92 and 1992–93, which helped to narrow the gap.
  In the current financial year, fire authorities have been provided with an overall increase of 3·1 per cent. over last year, a reflection of what can be afforded by central Government, and an amount in line with the increase in the support for local authority expenditure generally. There are pressures on the financing of the fire service, but they are no greater than those being experienced by other local or central government services.
  The hon. Lady raised the subject of fire service pay. Hon. Members will know that the Government have decided that there should be a limit on public sector pay in the current pay round and that pay rises for those working in central and local government—and indeed for hon. Members—should be contained within a maximum of 1·5 per cent. We have told all public sector employers that we expect them to have regard to that maximum in reaching

  1069
  any settlements in the current pay round, and funding for all services, including the fire service, has been determined on that basis for the current financial year.
  For the past 15 years, fire service pay has been determined according to a formula contained in an agreement between the firefighters and their employers, which links the pay of a qualified firefighter with five years' service to that of the upper quartile of manual workers' earnings.
  The Fire Brigades Union has asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) to give an assurance that its pay agreement will be honoured. I can only repeat to the House what my right hon. and learned Friend said to the union when its representatives came to see him on 17 March. If the Government's pay policy is to be applied fairly, there can be no case for making an exception for firefighters, any more than for police officers, doctors, nurses, or any other category of personnel.
  Ms Hoey: The Minister says that everyone should be treated fairly, but does he not agree that, in a sense, the members of the Fire Brigades Union would not be being treated fairly, because they would suffer doubly? If we return to the national agreement next year—presumably the Government would like that to happen—again, firefighters will not be in the same position as everyone else.
  Mr. Wardle: As the hon. Lady said, that is because of the timing of the pay round. I shall deal with timing in a moment.
  It is not the Home Secretary who determines fire service pay: the pay agreement is a matter between the firefighters and their employers. As the hon. Lady said, the next fire service pay settlement will be in November. The employers have wisely said that it is too early at this stage to say whether the firefighters' pay formula will produce a figure higher or lower than 1·5 per cent. in the current pay round. The House would not expect me to speculate on what may not be the effect of applying the pay formula in 1994.
  The Government have said that the objective of the 1·5 per cent. limit on public sector pay will be defeated if there is a series of catching-up settlements next year. How that will impact on the fire service in 1994 or, indeed, on any other public service can at this stage be no more than a matter for speculation. The hon. Lady talked about straight speaking. I shall not enter into such speculation.
  For the fire service to be considering industrial action now on the application of its pay formula in 1994 is both premature and irresponsible. It is quite unrealistic to expect local authority employers to commit themselves to pay levels in 1994 when no decisions have been taken on the level of public sector funding for any central or local government services for the next financial year.
  In my view, the union is asking for an impossible commitment from fire authority employers. It is plainly stirring up its members, for what must be political motives, to convince them that they are being singled out, unfairly treated or compared unfairly with other public sector employees. That simply is not the case.
  I hope that the union does not resort to industrial action, of which there has been some talk. Firefighters are well paid. It is quite right that they should be well paid for
  1070
  the job that they do. I hope that their sense of responsibility will remain with them if they are asked to consider industrial action at some point in the coming months.
  The hon. Lady mentioned fire service pensions. There is increasing pressure on the fire authorities caused by fire service pension liabilities. The fire service pension scheme, for which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is responsible, is not ungenerous, because it recognises, as if should, that the physical demands of firefighting will not permit firefighters to serve as long as is the case in some other professions, and that there are risks of injury or even death for which the scheme must provide. The firefighters' pension scheme is very similar to the pensions scheme for the police and the problems associated with the increasing pressures on the scheme are very similar.
  We have no immediate plans to examine or to revise the firefighters' pension scheme. The scheme for the police will undoubtedly have been looked at in the course of the current review of police responsibilities and rewards which is being carried out by Sir Patrick Sheehy. The Sheehy inquiry is not looking at fire service pensions, but we shall need to look at any recommendations that Sheehy makes on police pensions if it appears that those recommendations, if accepted, could also be relevant to the fire service. At this stage, it would be wrong to speculate on whether there will be any such recommendations, what they will be and whether they will be relevant to the fire service scheme. We shall have to wait and see.
  The hon. Lady mentioned special services, and also asked whether the Fire Services Act 1947 might be amended so that fire authorities have a duty to respond to special service calls. At present, they may at their discretion respond to such calls and they may charge the recipient for doing so, but they have no duty to respond to calls other than fire calls. We have no proposals to change the statutory basis on which special services are provided.
  The hon. Lady also referred to the urban C risk category and to a new definition for that. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has put to the Home Office proposals for the division of the existing C fire risk category into urban C and rural C, with enhanced initial responses in terms of weight and speed of attack. The proposals arise from concern about loss of life and injuries in property fires in areas of C risk, taken together with the fact that the national fire cover standards recommend an initial attendance of only one appliance at fires in areas of C risk.
  We have, of course, given careful consideration to the proposal, and we have looked at both the incidence of injuries and fatalities in fires in areas of C risk and the actual practices of fire brigades in responding to fires in those areas. The association's proposal would entail substantial additional resources for the fire services in England and Wales. Fire cover standards were reviewed in 1985 by the joint committee on standards of fire cover, and we have no proposals to conduct any further review.
  I know that the Fire Brigades Union has also attempted to link the issue of pay with closure or downgrading of fire stations. Let me make it absolutely clear that a fire authority wishing to close or downgrade a fire station must seek the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend. It is his practice to grant approval only when he is satisfied that national fire cover standards will be maintained. The national standards were agreed in the Central Fire

  1071
  Brigades Advisory Council, on which fire authorities and fire service employees are represented. However tight the pressures this year, all authorities in England and Wales have been able to set budgets that allow them to comply with the national standards.
  I have been able to speak on only some aspects of the fire service in this debate, but I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the subject. We regard the fire service highly, and we wish to see it maintained as an effective and professional organisation.

  Immigration Services (Prestwick Airport)
  1 pm
  Mr. Phil Gallie: Thank you for allowing me to raise this subject today, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to say that much has happened since I first sought to initiate the debate. There has been a considerable amount of contact between immigration department officials, senior officials and the management at Prestwick airport and that has been paralleled by my discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister. I thank my hon. Friend for agreeing to reply to the debate. Having listened to his comments in a previous debate, I congratulate him both on his productivity and on his efficiency: I understand that this is the third debate to which he has replied today.
  I should also like to thank my hon. Friend at this early stage for his recognition of the serious implications of the incident at Prestwick last week—a recognition of the importance of commitments made and which, it has to be said, failed at the first time of asking.
  The incident to which I refer occurred last Thursday, 20 May. An aircraft carrying 180 passengers—customers —from the United States was diverted to Prestwick airport. It was two hours before immigration officials dealt with the first passenger. It took immigration officials one and a half hours to get from Glasgow to Prestwick whereas others who were advised of the diversion arrived in just over 40 minutes. Clearly, something was seriously wrong.
  A doctor who had crossed the Atlantic for a 9 o'clock meeting in Glasgow was clearing immigration at Prestwick at that time—despite special arrangements made some time before, which failed to be recognised by staff in the Glasgow immigration office. The whole thing was a shambles. Those visitors to Scotland were not only inconvenienced but disillusioned. Business men were delayed and all concerned regarded the incident as a bad advertisement.
  To understand the incident, we must review the history of Prestwick airport. Before March 1990, Prestwick had gateway status: it was the gateway to Scotland from across the Atlantic, and from the United States and Canada in particular. At that time, there was a monopoly, albeit a monopoly that was in the ownership of the British Airports Authority, which also held monopolies over other central belt airports—at Glasgow and Edinburgh. Before March 1990 there was considerable passenger throughput at Prestwick and a full customs and immigration service was in operation.
  On 6 March 1990, the then Secretary of State for Transport, Lord Parkinson, who visited my constituency last week and was warmly welcomed, announced the inevitable: an end to Prestwick's gateway status following a court judgment in a case brought by Air 2000 in May 1989. The then Secretary of State suggested that that action was taken because competition must be allowed to flourish. I approved of that. But that competitiveness has depended to a degree on Government services and on Government regulations to which I shall refer later.
  At the time of that announcement, the then Transport Secretary said that Prestwick had to be allowed to compete fairly. As I have said, the BAA already owned Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. Inevitably with common ownership, there had to be rationalisation. Prestwick did lose out in the short term with respect to passenger transport as expected. It lost out with regard to

  1073
  transatlantic scheduled flights and charters. I believe that that might well be only in the short term and I believe that the charter operators realise that.
  To be fair, the BAA recognised the freight potential of Prestwick, but it did not maximise the opportunities. I am pleased to say that the circumstances changed again in April 1992 when Prestwick international airport, under the ownership of PIK Holdings Ltd., took over. That company was a combination of individuals involved in local and international business and local authority and enterprise company activities.
  Since then, that company has enthusiastically and determinedly taken steps to boost freight business in particular and to make inroads into passenger transport. In the latter case, there has been some success with services established to Jersey and to Viga in the former USSR. There are only glimmers of prospects for the future.
  The good news is that the airport is in profit, although it has been stunted given the excellent facilities that currently exist. Those facilities are enhanced by unusually good weather conditions. Prestwick is always open when other nearby airports are closed. For whatever reason, fog does not settle over Prestwick airport and that is a very important consideration. It gives Prestwick a major status as a diversion airport. That means that the airport must man all its services to cope at short notice with diversions.
  On Thursday 20 May, PIK certainly coped admirably, but with one exception. As I said earlier, it took one hour and 30 minutes for immigration personnel to get on site at Prestwick. In February of this year, the full-time presence of immigration services at Prestwick was withdrawn. In February and March, I received assurances from my hon. Friend the Minister and from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that all would be well when diversions occurred and that immigration services would be on site within the hour.
  The following points were pledged. First, that scheduled and charter flights would be covered. I have no complaints about that particular aspect. Secondly, that business and general air traffic passengers could be dealt with by remote. To date, I cannot complain about that.
  However, we then come to diversion flights which, I was assured, would receive top priority treatment with immigration officers on site within the hour; an early morning call by an immigration officer on a daily basis to confirm that there were no diversions liable at the transatlantic peak arrival period of 7 am; and that a remote information transfer system, dependent on electronic mail and fax facilities, would ensure specific passenger needs would be met as they arose.
  On 20 May every category failed the test. On learning of that early in the morning of 21 May, I contacted the Home Office and I pay tribute to the Home Office civil servant who responded most positively. On Monday and Tuesday, I had meetings with my hon. Friend the Minister. At the same time in Prestwick, senior officials met the airport management. I express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Minister for his extremely positive interest and response. A mutually satisfactory agreement has been reached. While it perhaps falls short of a full day time immigration service 365 days per year—which would be ideal but not sound in economic terms—it is not justified, given current passenger usage.
  1074
  We have reached agreement on the methods by which the needs of the airport can be met to cover diversions. It will ensure a daily presence at the critical times and that is most important. It goes further in an innovative and imaginative way with regard to the use of personnel from Customs and Excise for clearing general traffic at the airport. That says a lot for the co-operation between Government Departments and the flexibility and attitudes of staff at Prestwick for whom I have the highest regard.
  While eagerly awaiting my hon. Friend the Minister's comments on these issues, I take this opportunity to seek his much-appreciated support and assistance. In that regard, I refer to freight use at Prestwick airport. In Scotland, the key industry is the electronics industry. Major companies from across the international scene participate in the silica glen, as it is known. IBM, Digital, Compaq, Motorola and Prestwick Circuits are just a few. They have a key requirement for international trade. They must get components in quickly and on schedule and get added-value products out. That means jobs in Scotland and a boost to Scotland's economy and—as part of the Union—the United Kingdom economy. It is not simply value for the companies but provides such services for the nation.
  Prestwick has the opportunity to play a vital role in the European Community and beyond. Currently, we lose opportunities because of restrictive rules set by the United Kingdom Government. I am aware that major international electronic companies scratch their heads when they realise that freight liners flying into Prestwick can deliver components but cannot pick up products to distribute elsewhere, even though it is on the aircraft's run. There is something wrong with that. Of course, I am referring to the issue of fifth freedom rights.
  I would be obliged if my hon. Friend will pass on my comments to our mutually right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and suggest that he have a chat with the United States Transport Secretary, Frederico Fena, about a true open-skies policy in the United Kingdom, the United States and beyond. Such a policy should be imposed on Prestwick for advantage in the longer term. If the United Kingdom and the United States take that step, other nations will follow. That would be of great advantage to the United Kingdom manufacturers, United Kingdom airlines and, most importantly, Prestwick airport.
  If my hon. Friend passes on those thoughts, he will be a true friend of Prestwick. He has certainly advanced the interests of Prestwick in the past few days. Recently, Prestwick has been boosted by the Government's actions and, to some degree, local authority actions. There have been moves to upgrade access to Prestwick with regard to the A77 and M8 links and the M77 projections for the future. Moves are being made which could well result in a rail halt at Prestwick and trunk road status for the A70, improving access to Prestwick still further.
  There is an innovative idea to provide combined air and rail tickets for those who use Prestwick airport. I understand that the idea is unique in the world. We do not want Government regulation which stops such good ideas being used to Prestwick's advantage. I remind my hon. Friend again that fifth freedom rights and an end to current restrictions would certainly give Prestwick and the United Kingdom trade a great boost.
  The message that I hope to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister is a clear statement which all airlines can sign

  1075
  on to that Prestwick is open for business—quality business —and that there will be no future delays as a result of Government agency problems. Sadly, when I leave the Chamber today I will fly back to Glasgow. I shall be happy to return to Scotland, but I look forward to the day when I can fly from London to Prestwick airport. I look forward to my hon. Friend's words.
  1.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): With the leave of the House, I shall speak for the third time in today's debates. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend on raising this important subject today. I thank him for his strong and articulate advocacy of the interests of Prestwick airport and his general constituency interests. In the past year or so he has represented his constituency interests on several occasions in the most powerful and constructive fashion.
  I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about the immigration service and officials in the Home Department. I accept entirely his constructive criticism of the event which he outlined, which I shall deal with in a moment. Before I do so, I remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will have noted carefully what my hon. Friend has had to say.
  It may be helpful if I first explain the background to the decision to withdraw the permanent immigration service presence from Prestwick airport and provide immigration control coverage for that airport from Glasgow airport instead. Over the years, in particular since Glasgow airport was opened to transatlantic flights, there has been a decline in the volume of traffic at Prestwick.
  As my hon. Friend reminded me, the management of Prestwick airport has many plans to increase the traffic at Prestwick, but in recent years the volume has declined. For example, in 1988 more than 162,000 passengers arrived at Prestwick. Last year that number was just fewer than 10,000, of which more than 7,000 were European Community nationals. For some time, the only traffic has been business or military, apart from the occasional diversion of scheduled flights from other airports, which my hon. Friend described. Hardly any of the passengers on those flights need extensive examination under the terms of the Immigration Act 1988.
  The immigration service had run down staff levels at Prestwick over a period, but the point was reached at which the three immigration officers and one chief immigration officer who remained were spending little time on passenger work. The immigration service has a duty to provide its customers with an efficient service, but also a responsibility, of which I am mindful, to employ its resources in the most efficient manner.
  The levels of passenger traffic simply did not justify the retention of a permanent immigration presence at Prestwick, at least for the time being. PIK's traffic forecasts did not point to any significant increase in the immediate future. The immigration service could not justify the retention of four staff to deal with what amounted to one arriving and two embarking on commercial services a week.
  The decision was therefore taken earlier this year, as my hon. Friend reminded the House, to transfer the four officers to the immigration office at Glasgow airport, which carries out a greater volume and range of
  1076
  immigration work, and provide immigration coverage for Prestwick from that office. As my hon. Friend is aware, that decision does not affect Prestwick's status as a designated airport under the Immigration Act 1971. That status means that the immigration service is bound to provide coverage and it has assured PIK that regular services will be covered. I should mention that Prestwick is not the only designated port of entry in this country where the immigration service does not maintain a permanent presence. Southampton, Liverpool and Teesside airports are all designated ports at which immigration cover is provided from neighbouring offices. It depends on the regular volume of traffic.
  Mr. Gallie: I accept what my hon. Friend says, but none of those airports has the diversionary role of Prestwick.
  Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend has anticipated precisely where I have reached in my speech.
  I am aware of Prestwick's role as a diversionary airport. The majority of diversionary traffic which it receives is from Glasgow. Last year only six flights were diverted to Prestwick from either Heathrow or Gatwick. Prestwick was not previously staffed on a 24-hour basis and many diversions arrive out of hours. It is, of course, difficult to cater for infrequent and unpredictable occurrences. Not all diversions require the physical attendance of an immigration officer, but when required, the immigration service promises that an officer or officers will be sent as quickly as possible.
  On the morning of 20 May the immigration service at Glasgow was first notified by PIK of the possible diversion of two wide-bodied aircraft from Glasgow at one minute past 7 in the morning. At quarter past 7, it received confirmation that flight NW34 from Boston would divert to Prestwick. Two immigration officers were immediately despatched by road to Prestwick.
  The shortest distance between Glasgow and Prestwick is about 35 road miles, which normally takes, with reasonable driving conditions, about an hour. The officers expected poor traffic conditions and fog on the usual route, with which my hon. Friend will be familiar, and accordingly decided that, on balance, they would be quicker and safer to take the longer coastal route. Unfortunately, that assessment proved to be wrong and their journey was hampered by heavy local traffic. They did not arrive at Prestwick until shortly before 9 o'clock when they immediately began clearance of the flight's passengers. Clearance was completed by 9.30 am.
  I understand that, initially, the passengers were kept on board the aircraft awaiting the arrival of the immigration officers. The Northwest Airlines station manager has confirmed that he boarded the aircraft as soon as it came on stand at Prestwick and announced to the passengers that he intended to keep them on board. He took that initial decision because he still had to assess whether to disembark at Prestwick or part refuel and continue to Glasgow. He also wished to confirm, the immigration position. At no point did the immigration service suggest that the passengers should be held on board the aircraft.
  At 8.40 am an officer from PIK telephoned to complain that the immigration officers had not yet arrived. He asked if he was expected to continue holding the passengers on board the aircraft. He was advised that there was no need for this and that the passengers could disembark, provided that they were kept airside until seen by an immigration

  1077
  officer. That practice has been followed on previous occasions, when passengers were able to wait in comfort in a transit lounge, until the immigration service was ready to act.
  I regret that the passengers on NW34 were delayed longer than would normally be expected in the circumstances. The immigration service is reviewing its procedures for responding to diversions in future. The Glasgow office car is to be fitted with a radio link. Meanwhile, an instruction has been issued to all staff travelling to Prestwick to take a mobile telephone. Officers have also been instructed to report immediately any delay. Communications will, therefore, improve.
  The immigration service has always made it clear that it cannot guarantee immediate attendance at Prestwick for diverting flights without at least some advance notice, but the improvements should ensure that the system is better managed and reduce the scope for error. I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern, however, that the level of immigration coverage at Prestwick should not be detrimental to the airport's development.
  I am pleased to say that there have been some useful discussions this week between the immigration service and senior representatives of PIK which should ensure prompt coverage of diverted flights arriving in the early morning, the usual time of arrival for flights diverted from the trans-Atlantic routes, and generally improved communications, with the aim of securing a reasonable level of service with a reasonable level of resources. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to accept this explanation and apology for what happened.
  This is a good opportunity to make some more general remarks about the immigration service. It is an encouraging sign of economic recovery that the number of passengers arriving at our ports and airports has increased substantially in the past year. I am now taking a countrywide view in which I know that my hon.Friend will be interested. That must be good news for Prestwick airport and for all other airports and seaports as well as the airlines and ferry companies which operate the services.
  The growth is significant. Just over 54 million passengers arrived in the United Kingdom last year compared with some 46 million in 1991, an increase of about 16 per cent. Heathrow remains by far the busiest international airport in the world and Gatwick is the third largest. The position of the United Kingdom as a destination for travellers, a base for overseas business men and a hub for airline transfer traffic to destinations all over the world is of great economic importance and a matter in which we should take real pride.
  The debate reminds us that it is not only London and the south-east that are welcoming overseas visitors. Airports in other parts of the United Kingdom are expanding and adapting to provide more and better services. Scotland has seen substantial growth in traffic, Birmingham opened a second terminal a couple of years
  1078
  ago and Manchester opened a splendid second terminal in only March this year which I look forward to visiting shortly. We all wish such enterprises well. They provide jobs, status and prosperity to the local area and bring in much needed overseas business.
  It is particularly encouraging to note that the number of foreign visitors to the United Kingdom is increasing rapidly. There were some 6·5 million foreign visitors to Britain last year compared with 5·7 million in 1991. That figure does not include EC nationals who are not counted by category but who might well double the figure of 6·5 million. Tourism and leisure is Britain's largest industry, employing 10 per cent. of our entire work force. How important it is then that all concerned should make every effort to attract visitors here.
  At a time when we are facing increasing competition in tourism from many other countries it is essential that the immigration service can respond to the upturn in passenger numbers. The travelling public must be given a high quality of service but, at the same time, we must ensure that nothing is done to diminish the effectiveness of our controls against illegal immigration.
  I also hope that hon. Members who have taken their cars to the continent, returning through Dover's eastern docks, will be aware that the world's busiest international ferry terminal shows a marked improvement in the time taken for people to pass through immigration control. The introduction of car channelling at Dover's eastern docks last year, based on EC and non-EC passport lanes, resulted in only 2 per cent. of all arriving cars waiting more than six minutes, whereas during the same summer peak period in the previous year 10 per cent. of all cars were waiting for more than 18 minutes. That is a considerable achievement on which I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the local immigration staff and managers.
  The processing rate at Dover can now reach 1,000 cars an hour. It is all the more creditable that immigration officers managed at the same time to detect more forged documents in all that traffic and in the first quarter of 1993, in the south-east district, they detected 215 forged documents which were presented at immigration control. That is an increase of 25 per cent. over the same period last year. It is essential to preserve the effectiveness of our immigration controls, whether at sea ports or at airports, at the same time as improving their efficiency.
  Improvements in the quality of service offered by the immigration service are not confined to reducing delays at airports and ports. I am pleased to be able to report that the public inquiry office in Glasgow, which deals with applications for extension of stay, was reopened last month. That is another subject on which my hon. Friend has made representations to me in the House.
  The office was closed for some time, but improvements were made to the premises and it is open again—providing an improved service to customers, with staff specially recruited for the work. I hope that that development will be welcomed by people in Scotland, and I look forward to seeing that facility myself fairly soon.

  Public Transport (London)
  1.29 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for this opportunity to initiate a short but important debate on public transport in London. I understand that not many yards from here, a Whitehall shuffle is going on. Ministers are going to Downing street with one job and coming out with another. This debate is about shuffling the people of London around, and I venture to suggest that the same principles apply in both cases.
  It is no use shuffling people around if the policies are not right and unless everyone ends up going in the same direction, on the right track. I hope that today we shall touch base across the Floor of the House and identify the breadth and common nature of concern felt by those of us who represent not just London constituents but those who visit and work in London that we must get a grip on the way London's public transport is organised and run.
  My first point is not a new song for me. We must end the uncertainty about the Jubilee line and at last get that line and its extension going ahead. Earlier today, I was briefly optimistic that an announcement might be made in the midst of all the other activity over the road. Yesterday, an unstarred question was tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), asking the Prime Minister
  "if he will make a further statement on the Government's commitment to making a contribution to the Jubilee line extension."
  I telephoned the Department of Transport, but someone there said, "The reply will not come from us—that question is to be answered by the Prime Minister." For a moment, I thought that the Prime Minister would say, "Done—you've got it today." Sadly, that was not the case. The Prime Minister's reply, given just a matter of minutes ago, was:
  "The Government, and I personally, remain committed to the Jubilee line extension as a major addition to the infrastructure of docklands and of London's transport. We have earmarked public funds for the line. As soon as negotiations with the companies involved in the financing of Canary Wharf have been concluded satisfactorily my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport"—
  whoever he or she may be now—
  "will authorise the start of construction and the first tranche of those funds will be made available. The line will then be built within an estimated 53 months."
  I pause, because this last sentence is important:
  "The draft funding agreement specifies that swingeing penalty payments will come into force if the line is not completed seven months after that."
  We are very near, but not quite there—and it is about time that we were. I hope that the Minister can say how many centimetres from the line we are, and how we are to get from here to there without tripping again.
  My second point is really a response to events since the last general election. I welcome the appointment of a Minister for Transport in London and that there is a Cabinet Committee for London. However, London does not have a co-ordinating forum in which to discuss transport issues. I will not argue today—because I know that I would not receive a response—for a regionally elected, democratic body, but that is what I want and it is something for which my party argues. The Government do not endorse that proposal. I argue instead for an alternative which I hope that the Government will find
  1080
  acceptable, and which I believe all right hon. and hon. Members will consider something better than we have now.
  My suggestion picks up on a request made only this week by business leaders in the capital. I refer to the establishment by the Minister of a body that I shall call for the sake of today's debate the capital transport forum, which would meet regularly to bring together representatives of both Houses, local government, statutory undertakings, users and the business community.
  I hope that we start to discuss the strategic development of the transport service, rather than relying on announcements about crossrail one week, about the Jubilee line the next week, about travelcard the week after that and about potential British Rail changes the following week. With the best will in the world, I do not believe that that is the way to run a system. The railways, the buses, the tubes, the river and the roads are all part of the whole, and should be seen as such.
  I know that others want to speak about specific issues; let me make some general points. I believe that the future of London's transport has reached a crucial and critical point, and that there is a danger of a crisis of confidence in the system and its continuation, because of the projected reduction in capital from the public purse owing to public expenditure restraint. That, by definition, will inhibit investment. In 1991, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission stated that, if the capital was to have the decent, modern metro system that it needed, we should have to spend about £750 million a year. We are nowhere near that level of commitment.
  I do not dissent dogmatically from the idea that it is possible to seek partnership funding for certain projects, but I do not believe that it is possible to plan on the basis of partnership funding that is not secure. We cannot announce project X, Y or Z as agreed, firm and secure when there is no guarantee that the money will be forthcoming. The Jubilee line was the best and, indeed, the first example of that—an example that has prompted the concern that some of us feel about private money coming into crossrail and other parts of British Rail. At present, there is no guarantee of funds.
  I do not object to the range and number of initiatives that are currently in hand, but they do not add up to a coherent whole. Too many appear to be the result of dithering or muddle: certainly that is the impression gained by many Londoners, including constituents who have written to me on the subject. In the past year, I have received more letters from constituents about transport issues than I received in my previous nine years in the House.
  The Government say that they intend to introduce legislation in the next Queen's Speech to deregulate buses in London. There are serious and justified doubts about the benefits of deregulation, based on evidence. I was present during Transport questions on Monday, when Ministers tried to rebut that suggestion; their arguments do not stand up. Since 1982, bus patronage outside London has declined by 25 per cent. in the metropolitan areas and by 18 per cent. in the shires. In London, it has increased by 10 per cent. During that period, bus deregulation applied in the areas outside London, but not in London. In 1991–92—the last full year for which figures are available—bus patronage in the country fell by a further 4·5 per cent., and it has fallen by 10 per cent. over the past two years. In London, it has fallen by only 2·5 per

  1081
  cent. over the past year, and by 3·3 per cent. over the past two years. Again, deregulation has applied only outside London.
  The Government will say that people are using public transport less, but that is generally true both inside and outside the capital. I believe that deregulation poses the risk of a substantial reduction in the number of people who travel on London's buses.
  Interesting cost-analysis comparisons can be made between deregulation and the continuation of tendering. Let me stick my neck out: I accept that tendering has cut costs significantly. I believe that, to date, the figure is 15 per cent.; that has been confirmed by the Department of Transport, although I gather that, according to London Regional Transport, it may be nearer 30 per cent. Its prediction—it is important to separate the two—is that by 1998, without the distraction of deregulation but with 100 per cent. tendering, we could go from a £30 million deficit to a £10 million surplus. If it is possible to achieve that, we should seize the opportunity with both hands. Our bus network could break even without deregulation, and surely that should be our aim.
  I beseech the Government to change course on deregulation now, and that is different from privatising and selling off bus companies in London. Serious concerns have been expressed about the continuation of loss-making services and overcrowding on profitable routes.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and other hon. Members that we need to upgrade our underground system, and some lines more than others. The Northern line from Barnet to Southwark is such an example. In its present state, people will not be encouraged to use the underground.
  During the Easter recess, I went to speak to a conference in Mexico. I had never visited Latin America previously, but the underground system in Mexico City was a delight. It was clean, efficient, well lit and fast. We need such a system.
  I want to allude to the controversy about concessionary fares and travelcards. There is a genuine and valid fear that the present concessionary fares schemes will not continue after deregulation or privatisation of British Rail because it is a matter for negotiation with London boroughs. At the very least, it will be extremely difficult because of the additional number of operators who will be part of the negotiating process. There is a severe risk, although it has not been alluded to as such, that we shall lose half fares for children, which form an important part of the system. Yes, it could be imposed on the boroughs, but unless we are clear that that principle is accepted by the Government we are at risk. In the week when the Government did a U-turn —or gave clarification, to be more generous to them—about the railcard, I hope that a similar guarantee will be given about the future of the travelcard. We must not have continued wranglings between British Rail, London Transport and the Government. We must have a guarantee that the travelcard and concessionary fares, including children's fares, will continue.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is his debate, but it is on London's transport. I have a letter that was signed by the Minister only yesterday on the issue of travelcards. He says:
  1082
  "In the forthcoming legislation … all operators in London—rail and tube as well as bus—have the right to participate on fair terms in any multi-modal or multi-operator ticketing scheme."
  That sounds okay, but it offers only the opportunity for many of the operators to participate and denies present owners the right to issue such a ticket, which may not exist in future. He goes on about stored value tickets, which are a different thing and would be a step backwards.
  Mr. Hughes: I hope that the Minister will deal with the hon. Gentleman's valid point. There is no doubt that concern is being expressed across London. For example, I was with pensioner groups yesterday and I know that it is not a party or borough-based matter. It is a London-wide matter.
  I wish quickly to talk about rail and tube and the two projects that have hit the headlines. I have made the point about the need for the Jubilee line extension to go ahead. We have been plagued by uncertainty and businesses are going under because of the blight of not knowing whether the extension will go ahead. Having got so far, however, it would be madness not to ensure that all the people concerned deliver the goods so that we can get on with it. Not only is it holding up interests such as development of the parliamentary buildings but it is affecting the link between Waterloo and London Bridge, the link to docklands, the east Thames strategic plan and the link to Stratford. Many strategic objectives will be attained, and if docklands is not to be the white elephant that it could still be, the sooner the Jubilee line extension is announced the better. We must be at a minute to midnight, but we must get over the line. I sincerely hope that we will not back off that.
  In declaring their support for crossrail, the Government have not thought through the way in which it links with the channel tunel rail link. It affects east London and is a good example of how the strategic view of the Paddington-Heathrow line, crossrail and the channel tunnel rail link need to be co-ordinated, otherwise we risk finding a simplistic or wrong solution even if we pay a great deal for it.
  I shall conclude because I wish to leave the Minister plenty of time to respond positively. I hope that we shall receive reaffirmation of the Government's support for a riverbus, eventually—as I have heard the Minister say in private—as an integrated part of London's transport system. At the moment, the scheme is guaranteed only until the end of the year, and then only because of the private sector. We need to move quickly to decongest our roads through the schemes that the Government have now accepted, such as road pricing and other systems being piloted in the boroughs.
  We need a fair decision on taxis and minicabs. The issue, which I know presents some difficulty, has been sitting on the Minister's desk for months. I hope that we can reconcile the different interests for the benefit of the passengers.
  Lastly, we need a cordon sanitaire—a phrase used in a letter to me—around London to protect the centre from helicopter flights other than for the emergency services. That is preferable to having each application dealt with separately and then knocked on the head. It cannot be good for the quality of life in the capital to have helicopters flying in and out and overhead.
  Transport could be the issue which determines what happens in next year's local elections in London. If the

  1083
  Government score own goals, they will be in worse trouble because of their policies. I hope that the Minister's experience since the general election will mean, first, that he will keep his job when the reshuffle is sorted out later today, whoever his Secretary of State may be, and, secondly, that he will give all those who share his interest in getting it right the opportunity to sit around a table regularly to put their arguments, to win the case and make London a city in which we do not shuffle around but move around with a common objective—the prosperity of our city.
  1.46 pm
  Mr. John Marshall rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman begins, may I ask whether he has received the assent of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermonsey (Mr. Hughes) and the Minister?
  Mr. Marshall: Both have agreed that I may speak because both will hear words with which they can agree.
  As a Member of Parliament representing a London constituency, I welcome the Government's commitment to the deregulation and privatisation of London's buses which, I believe, will lead to greater investment and innovation, both of which are needed in our capital city.
  My main reason for speaking is that I represent Hendon and many of my constituents use the Northern line daily. The line is celebrating its centenary, but its passengers are not celebrating. The trains are frequently ancient, frequently graffiti-ridden and, all too often, they are less frequent than they should be. The stations are uninviting, security is inadequate and there is a clear need for massive investment if the line is to be adequate for the 21st century. I hope that the Minister for Transport in London will assure the House that the Government are strongly committed to modernising the Northern line and providing an adequate system for my constituents and the many others who travel on it.
  1.48 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister will need the leave of the House.
  Mr. Norris: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, I had forgotten the pleasure of speaking earlier this morning. How remiss of me. It was indeed a pleasure although not under your Chairmanship—perhaps that is what caused my momentary lapse of memory. With the leave of the House, I shall speak again. I know that the packed House is keen to make progress but I hope that the hundreds of hon. Members here will allow me to say a few words.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey must be congratulated on securing the debate. He and I have had a number of discussions about transport in London. I recognise his genuine interest in the matter and, although we do not always agree, he sets out his arguments fairly. I am also pleased to acknowledge the interest of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is also an assiduous correspondent of mine on transport issues—and long may he continue to be so, provided that it is as a member of the Opposition while I am a Minister.
  1084
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) also intervened. Before addressing the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, let me say that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South is immensely assiduous in pressing the case for early improvement of the Northern line, and he has every reason to do so. I should draw his and the House's attention to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the Underground, which specifically drew attention to the fact that, by management action, London Underground has been able substantially to improve the quality of service on the Northern line, which no longer deserves the tag of "the misery line" that it once had. That in no sense diminishes the importance of an eventual programme of improvement and refurbishment on the Northern line and I hope that, with London Transport, we can embark on that as soon as practicable.
  My concern about the otherwise excellent speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was that he covered so much ground. He managed to cover a new forum for London, the Jubilee line, crossrail, bus deregulation, river bus money, taxis and helicopters. That is my list and it seemed about enough.
  Mr. Spearing: What about travelcard?
  Mr. Norris: I had travelcard under the context of bus deregulation. That is about enough to keep us going from now until about 10 o'clock this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I know that you will allow me only another 10 minutes, so I will have to pick some large bones out of an extremely complex fish.
  I believe that the hon. Gentleman needs and deserves some explanation, first on the Jubilee line. He quoted from the answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to a question literally a few minutes ago. There is no doubt, and that answer underlines it, of the Government's commitment to their contribution of what is essentially, and always has been, a joint venture. It is a developer contribution project in which the developer, originally Olympia and York, recognised that the extension of the Jubilee line linking Canary Wharf with somewhere that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food knows too well—the Ritz, Green park and all stations thereafter—would substantially enhance the value of that development, not just by a few millions, but by hundreds of millions of pounds.
  It was not an act of charity but one of sensible and careful negotiation when Olympia and York agreed to make a substantial developer contribution, in addition to that of the taxpayer, to the creation of the new line, which has real benefit for the hon. Gentleman's constituency and for all areas of docklands through which the new extension will pass.
  I find it immensely frustrating that we are not already digging that line. However, I do not believe that I am alone in that. It is equally frustrating not only for London Transport, but for the creditors of Olympia and York and for the many peope of docklands who would welcome the arrival of this valuable amenity. I can say to the hon. Gentleman only that our negotiations are continuing, and that my own view is that good faith is crucial in these matters. If one can actually see expressions of good faith on all sides—and I do—I very much hope that we shall be able to bring the negotiations to a speedy conclusion.

  1085
  I sought a metaphor which was neither sexist nor sizeist, but I am driven none the less to the old phrase that the opera is not over until the fat lady sings. What I believe is meant by that aphorism is that one can never say that something is done until it is done. I am sorry that that is unsatisfactory and recognise that it echoes words I spoke to the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber some months ago. Suffice it to say that, with good will, progress is being made.
  I would make one more point and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept it. There is, of course, another way. I do not believe that he is counselling it on me as it would be a variation from his original position, but there are those who counsel on me abandoning the idea of a private sector contribution and going ahead with the line. They must understand that that is suggesting that we let the taxpayer pay an extra half a billion pounds—I ought not to overstate the case; it is £400 million—because we are not prepared to pursue the developer contribution which is a reflection of the development gain from which that project will benefit. I believe that it is my job, and the job of Her Majesty's Government, always to protect the interests of the taxpayers—the interests of those who can ill afford to find the taxes that they are currently charged. I see no merit whatever in simply and easily passing that extra burden on to them.
  Mr. Spearing rose—
  Mr. Norris: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have only six minutes left.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the subject of bus deregulation. I am sorry that he and I are likely to disagree in the months to come about its merits or otherwise, but we may as well get some things clear now. If we consider the different rates of decline in bus patronage inside and outside London—those figures go back to the second world war—we see that there has been a consistent decline, related more than anything else to the development of the private car, and to its increased ownership in the population and the ease with which it can be used by commuters to travel to work. The figures are interesting because they show a fairly steady decline outside London where, with some notable exceptions, there is still no great difficulty in parking fairly close to work. People come in from outlying rural areas and they can park in the centre of town.
  If people have the choice, they generally use their own private cars, even if that is marginally more expensive, because of the convenience, the safety and the ability to control one's own travelling temperature, noise level, type of music, and so on.
  Significantly, in London the rate of decline in bus patronage has been lower, for no better reason than the fact that in London what matters is not what one pays for one's car, or who is paying for the petrol, or even the city congestion charge; as every Member of the House, including yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, knows only too well, what really determines whether one uses a private car in central London is whether there is somewhere to park when one gets to the centre of London. Of course, in
  1086
  central London there is much less chance of that. It is no accident, therefore, that 86 per cent. of those who come into London to work every day do so by public transport.
  When we consider what has happened under deregulation, let us first set entirely to one side the initial fares hike which resulted from a rapid reduction in subsidy by some local authorities faced with capping problems. That happened to coincide with deregulation. However, as the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to acknowledge, deregulation itself has produced a sharp reduction in operating costs and an increase in bus mileage. The effect on fares is arguable, because of the relationship between fares and local authority support, but it is interesting that over the past four years fares have gone up faster in London, where fares have been controlled by the state and by a nationalised industry, than outside London, where fare increases have been lower. That has been due in no small measure to competition in the marketplace, which has held fares down.
  I have three minutes left in which to say some important things to the people of London, via the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry to have to say this, but if, for whatever reason, scare stories are put about, I must rebut them. First, we have committed ourselves to supporting unprofitable but socially desirable services, and that support is to be provided by the central bus authority, which is now sometimes referred to as the London bus executive. The body will subsidise those routes, as happens now with subsidy and support of unprofitable routes.
  The concessionary fares arrangements will continue. Of course, there will be a new pattern for negotiation, but they will continue to be funded by the local authorities. As before, it will be for local authorities to determine what should be the rate and what should be the pattern, and who to include and who to exclude—children, elderly people, and so on.
  The hon. Gentleman knows what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in relation to the travelcard during the passage of the Railways Bill about the franchising director's ability to direct appropriate franchisees to enter what would effectively be a travelcard scheme. I assure him that I am in no doubt whatever about the importance of travelcards in London. London is my city, as it is the hon. Gentleman's. I have used the travelcard for many years and I know that I shall continue to do so. I have no doubt that our arrangements will ensure that travelcards continue.
  I am sorry not to have had the time to respond on other matters. On the point about a forum, we have a multiplicity of forums available to us. I hope that we shall not descend to the level of a talking shop. I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
  Just for the record, expenditure in real terms was £249 million when the Government came into office. It was about £300 million in real terms in the last year of the Greater London council. This year, excluding the mega-projects, the figure is more than £500 million and that level of investment is continuing.
  I am sorry not to have been able to answer more of the hon. Gentleman's questions. I shall, of course, write to him if he wants urgent answers. I look forward to more, inevitable debates on this important subject. I understand the importance of the issue.

  Poultrymeat Industry
  2 pm
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for being present to debate what I consider to be an important subject, not only for my part of the world, but for the United Kingdom consumer and for the United Kingdom poultrymeat industry.
  I have a constituency interest relating to a successful concern known as Sun Valley Poultry. It hides its light under a bushel, as it does not advertise on television in the same extrovert manner as other poultrymeat producers, but it is a success story. The poultrymeat industry as a whole is a success story. The figures show that in 1981 it accounted for 21·9 per cent. of total meat consumption; in 1991, 10 years later, it was 30·1 per cent. and the figure is still increasing. I admire Sun Valley for the way in which it has developed its business, and for the way in which it has survived and continued to perform steadily throughout the recession. It is a success story without doubt.
  The national poultrymeat industry employs some 50,000 people and a further 150,000 people depend on it for their jobs. Almost as importantly from an agricultural point of view, when agriculture is under distinct stress, the industry is a massive consumer of feed wheat. Considering the amount of cereals grown in Herefordshire, my farmers are greatly indebted to Sun Valley and to the poultrymeat industry for enabling them to grow a crop for which there is a market. They are very effective, as is Sun Valley, and that success is reflected across the country.
  Having shown that the industry is such a success story, one might ask why I should raise the subject at all. Normally, the purpose of Adjournment debates is for a grievance to be raised, not for a success to be praised. However, there are important reasons for raising the matter this afternoon. On the positive side, I am raising the matter because I want the industry to be able to build on its success. There are storm clouds around, to put it mildly. In 1988, only five years ago, imports of poultrymeat into this country comprised 7 per cent. of consumption. By 1991, imports had gone up to 18 per cent. By 1992, if one extrapolates beyond 15 September, we see a figure of 20 per cent. Even after the devaluation effects, we find that imports are sustaining a level of 18 per cent.
  If we have a success story, we should be trying to create a climate in which the industry can deploy the results of that success. We should build up our exports and be positive in the Community, rather than being seen as an export opportunity by fellow members of the EC. It is right that we should ask why it is not happening in that way. Why are we sustaining an import level of 18 per cent. when, given how successful we are, we should really be a net exporter?
  A straw in the wind—a straw in the storm, perhaps —was the decision by Cargill to locate its new plant just south of Orleans in France. As the House knows, Cargill is the owner of Sun Valley Poultry. It is very big internationally in the poultrymeat and cereals market. It is a multinational company and it knows its business. It has decided to put a plant down in France even though the expertise that led it to purchase Sun Valley Poultry in the first place lies here in the United Kingdom. Why?
  1088
  The answer lies in a letter sent to me by one of my constituents, which I have passed to Ministers. Apparently, the vice-president of Cargill reflected to a study group of United Kingdom farmers visiting Minnesota that Cargill was a world trading organisation but that—and here is the crunch—
  "nowhere in the world had Cargills encountered so much self-destructive bureaucratic red tape, which was rapidly strangling the United Kingdom poultry industry."
  That is the view from outside and it has made capital investment move out of this country into another country. However good a European I may be, I feel that the home team is being deprived of an opportunity and that we ought to address ourselves to the reasons why.
  Without doubt, the answer lies here in the United Kingdom. Nowhere in the Community is legislation as rigidly and nitpickingly interpreted as it is here. There is no reason why legislation should not be interpreted and followed, but, if it is not, once again, one must ask why. I know full well that my hon. Friend the Minister has been engaged in a consultation exercise with the poultrymeat industry with the objective of getting rid of unnecessary regulation wherever possible. The poultrymeat industry has responded with a long list of niggling points. I emphasise that I shall not go through them all today.
  I want to make absolutely clear the commitment of the United Kingdom industry to quality. In his letter to me on 19 January, my hon. Friend the Minister referred to his reluctance and, indeed, determination not to compromise
  "the high level of protection at present afforded to consumers of United Kingdom poultrymeat".
  In that, my hon. Friend and the industry are on entirely the same wavelength. There is no way that the industry wishes to compromise its standards. In fact, it has been ahead of the legislation for 20 years. It has not waited for legislation but has got on with the job. The industry is also fully committed to the implementation of the Food Safety Act 1990. I make that clear because it is easy to misunderstand the poultrymeat industry.
  Poultrymeat inspection has to be the first handicap that the industry faces. I congratulate Ministers at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on having used the United Kingdom presidency of the Community last year to secure a new poultrymeat hygiene directive. In a letter on 23 March, I was told:
  "We will be announcing in due course our plans for implementing this new Directive."
  Having been told that the directive is being worked out and implemented, I am concerned to discover that it will not come into force this year or next year. In fact, it will not come into effect before 1995. That is an extraordinary length of time when we consider that we continually face the threat of imports. We should not doubt the fact that French producers look to the United Kingdom market whenever there is an opportunity.
  If the poultrymeat industry is at least a generation ahead of the red meat industry, why must we wait for the red meat industry? As the mechanisms are already in place for the poultrymeat industry when they might not be for the red meat industry, why can we not establish the necessary arrangements to enable the poultrymeat industry to get on with the job, on an equal basis with its Community competitors, without having to wait until 1995?
  The local authorities involved face difficulties. I am given to understand—that is probably the best way to put it—that they are not receiving advice from the Ministry

  1089
  about what they should be doing. They are therefore reluctant to compromise their arrangements. Indeed, the agendas of many local authorities are different from that of the industry.
  For example, Hereford city council has a major responsibility for poultrymeat inspection. I am pleased to say that even now, at 2.10 pm, the local authority is discussing with Sun Valley the arrangements that it might be appropriate to establish. I am pleased that that is happening. That has come about as a consequence of prodding from the company, from me and from my hon. Friend the Minister.
  However, certain local authorities are not rushing to sort out the problem. They take a view, like Hereford city council takes a view, that there should be a policy of no redundancies. That is not necessarily the industry's view and it is not necessarily the correct view. We should consider the industry which should be served.
  I should like confirmation from my hon. Friend the Minister that the arrangements for the poultrymeat industry will go ahead flat out to remove the handicap from United Kingdom producers in terms of the poultrymeat inspection costs. My hon. Friend the Minister is as aware as I am that the problem is urgent. The charging directive is not being implemented evenly throughout the Community. It is cost neutral in the United Kingdom and, as such, I am given to understand that it works out at twice the standard figure set out in the directive.
  The French, however—and I must always look across the channel because that is where the immediate threat is —are talking in terms of only 64 per cent. of standard charges. Germany, Belgium, and Holland take a standard view and pick up the difference if there is any. Spain, which is quite capable of looking to our shores to place products, implements the charging directive only in certain regions. In Ireland, the cost is below standard.
  Furthermore, the directive is not even implemented in Italy, Greece, Luxembourg or Portugal. I have been assured by industry representatives—a view wider than simply that of Sun Valley—that the product in Italy is good. The inspection is good, but it is not carried out with the same bureaucratic cost as it is here. The product is not necessarily bad because it does not have the same inspection costs. It is simply cost advantaged.
  I want now to consider the Medicines Act 1968 and press my hon. Friend the Minister on the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and its terms of reference. Under the 1968 Act, drugs or vaccines should comply with safety, quality and efficacy requirements. However, I find that the requirements in other countries apply only to safety and quality. Surely it is for the industry to determine what is effective in terms of cost efficacy; it is not for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. The VMD can say whether something is safe and has the right quality, but, if it has a lot of cost, producers can make up their minds whether to use it.
  At present, the United Kingdom industry is at a disadvantage in terms of Marek's disease and has had to stampede the Ministry to take steps to overcome the problem. The Minister has responded by giving the vaccine an animal test certificate, but it does not have anything more than provisional approval. With regard to
  1090
  Gumboro disease—we are talking about losses of broilers of 1 per cent. plus a year—the VMD is reluctant to clear the hotter vaccines that are more effective and in use in the Community at present.
  With regard to infectious bronchitis and the chick anaemia virus, there is always a delay. At the same time, our competitors are able to get a better crop by using vaccines that our producers are not permitted to use. Similarly, we find that the Zoonoses directive is not in place. What pressure is being brought to bear on Community countries to put the directive in place? Sometimes we are two years ahead and that involves costs which our competitors do not have.
  Those matters are important in the single market. My hon. Friend the Minister was dismissive of the report by David Gosling and published by the Templeton Fellowship. We have a price disadvantage. The Ministry estimates that to be 3·5p and the industry estimates it to be between 4p and 6p. The report cannot be neglected. The market for whole frozen birds is driven purely by price. It does not matter whether birds are marked grown, produced or whatever in England or Britain—price rules the consumer in that sector. Two items of product can be side by side on a supermarket shelf with one labelled "grown in Britain" and the other "import". The imported product does not necessarily carry the same cost as the United Kingdom bird. Different vaccines are used and that is not necessarily wrong. Different qualities of inspection are used and that is not necessarily wrong, provided the product is up to the mark. However, the price differential cannot be ignored. I make a strong plea to my hon. Friend to get the matter sorted out.
  2.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate on an industry about which he knows a great deal and in which he is a formidable representative of the interests of an important corporation in his constituency, which, as he rightly said, provides in knock-on terms a vast amount of prosperity in the farming community of Herefordshire. The poultrymeat industry is unassisted in a way which many other parts of the industry are and it deserves every credit in sight. My hon. Friend made a forceful case on the industry's behalf and I propose to deal with that.
  The poultrymeat industry is a significant sector of our agricultural industry—indeed, it can serve as a model for other sectors. Since the second world war, poultrymeat has moved from being an occasional treat for the consumer to part of our everyday diet as the volume of production has grown and prices, relative to other foods, have come down. The industry has also been highly innovative in introducing a wide range of value added and convenience foods based on poultrymeat, which has also improved the consumer's lot and range of choice. My hon. Friend was right more generally to praise the size, breadth and scope of what is an extremely important industry in our agricultural infrastructure.
  As my hon. Friend said, the United Kingdom industry earned more than £100 million in exports last year. We also benefit from thriving ancillary industries, especially our producers of breeding stock who are world leaders. British poultrymeat companies are also venturing abroad

  1091
  to increase their sales or engage in joint ventures. All that has been achieved without the market support mechanisms that are available to other agricultural sectors.
  Of course, the industry—as my hon. Friend knows better than most of us—has not been immune from the difficulties that all businesses have experienced in the past couple of years. But just as the economy generally is looking up, so, too, are the prospects for the poultry industry. Imports, which have been a growing competitive threat in the past year or so, appear to have fallen back in recent months.
  Increasingly, the multiple retailers are stocking British chicken and other poultrymeat marked as such. Feedstuff prices have also risen in sterling terms, due to devaluations in the green pound, but market prices have firmed considerably since Christmas so that margins are currently healthy.
  We also have the first benefits of the CAP reform package to look forward to in July when, as my hon. Friend knows, the prices of feed grains will fall by about 25 per cent. This will mean a significant fall in the price of poultry feed and, I hope, an improvement in profitability for a hard-pressed industry.
  We are concerned to create the right environment in which the industry can flourish. My hon. Friend rightly lobbied vigorously in his speech for that to happen. We accept the importance of everything that he sand. For example, the poultry industry continues to benefit from our research and development programme, with particular emphasis on animal health and welfare matters.
  My hon. Friend's remarks about Cargill moving to open a factory in Orleans, I understand largely to supply chicken for McDonald's, is indicative of the itinerant nature of a sophisticated industry.
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: The point is that the French market is currently being supplied effectively from Hereford. Why on earth should I see it go to Orleans?
  Mr. Soames: I agree with my hon. Friend. My point was that we have to create the environment to make it simply not worth Cargill's while to do so. But Cargill is a major international corporation. It is an extremely successful, well-run company. It will rightly make a shrewd commercial judgment based on several factors. I take my hon. Friend's point that the environment in Britain must be in every way conducive to Cargill not only to remain in Britain, but to enhance its investment and open other factories here.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Soames: No. The hon. Gentleman must forgive me. This is an Adjournment debate.
  As my hon. Friend will know, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is actively taking forward the Government's deregulation programme by looking to see where legislation is either unnecessary or excessive. He can be assured that we shall seek to make appropriate changes, where this is found to be the case.
  There is a commonality of interests, as my hon. Friend rightly said. Our aim is to protect the rights and proper concerns of the consumer as well as those of the industry, which wants only to produce a high standard product. As he knows, we have to bear in mind the need to protect the consumer and others. So there are some areas in which the
  1092
  industry has to, and indeed does, accept a degree of regulation. I know that that can be seen as a problem by the industry. My hon. Friend forcefully mentioned Cargill's vice-president's remarks about regulation in Britain. But clearly in these cases the Government and industry need to work together to seek solutions to these problems. We spend a great deal of time listening and taking an interest in how we may better create a proper environment for the growth of businesses.
  Two areas of particular concern that my hon. Friend mentioned are the meat hygiene inspection arrangements and the approval of veterinary medicines. The control dealing with poultrymeat hygiene lays down the responsibilities of the industry and the Government. That ensures that poultrymeat is produced under hygienic conditions and is inspected before it reaches the consumer.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford will know that the old EC directive on poultrymeat hygiene, dating from 1971, was replaced last year by a new directive as part of the single market programme. The United Kingdom played a leading role in negotiating what I believe are significantly improved requirements, which were welcomed by many when the directive was agreed last Christmas. Under the old directive, every bird was required to receive an official inspection by a trained poultrymeat inspector. In the United Kingdom we have abided by this requirement, but I believe that it has not always been so scrupulously observed by our competitors on the continent, as my hon. Friend said.
  The new directive, however, recognises the central role that industry plays in ensuring the safety of its product. Trained members of company staff will be able to carry out on-line inspection, under the supervision of an official inspection team employed by the local authority. I noted what my hon. Friend said about Hereford city council and perhaps we can have a chat about that on another occasion. Suffice it to say that my Department is, as my hon. Friend is aware, in touch with that council.
  I hope to receive very shortly the detailed recommendations of a working group, on which the industry and those responsible for enforcement were represented, on how the new arrangements should operate in practice. I hope that it will be possible to take much of what they recommend into account. When we draw up our proposals, we will ensure that their opinions are included in the directive. We will, as my hon. Friend requested, press ahead with the new arrangements with great vigour.
  I understand that there have been anxieties, both in the industry about the continuing burden of inspection costs, and among poultrymeat inspectors and local authorities over the reduction in jobs which will occur in those plants where company staff assume responsibility for inspection work.
  I am anxious that we should proceed with care—my hon. Friend must allow this to happen, if he will—taking account of the discussions that have already taken place, to produce detailed proposals. Those will provide a basis for producers to begin the training of their staff. They will also provide an opportunity for local authorities to discuss with their own employees, the Government and the industry how the new arrangements will be phased in and the numbers of official inspection staff who will be required in the future.
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: Can we be certain that when our arrangements are put into operation equivalent ones will be enforced in other European countries?
  Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend has my unequivocal guarantee that that will be our aim in all the talks. There is no point in having the single market rules unless they are enforced across the Community. He may be assured of our determination to see that that happens.
  My hon. Friend also spoke about production costs being cheaper in other EC member states. He will be aware that the industry has made estimates of that sort, despite the difficulty of comparing like with like. We do not take lightly the figures that were given to us, but they are rather on the high side and include costs that are not due to Government regulation. Nor do they take account of all the costs in other member states, such as French social security charges. They take no account of the action that we have taken to eliminate the differences, such as the recently agreed directive on Zoonoses, to which my hon. Friend referred, which harmonised the testing of broiler breeding flocks, or the work that we have done on meat hygiene inspection.
  My hon. Friend also referred to important issues relating to veterinary medicine, Gumboro disease and other diseases. I share his concern about the losses that those diseases can cause and the distress to the birds that can result. There is a view in the industry, however, that there are wonder vaccines out there waiting to be taken up—in some cases they are apparently already available across the channel—and that only our licensing system stands in the way. Unfortunately, that is not true and, as is so often the case in life, it is rather more complicated than that.
  For more than 20 years, the need for drug companies to meet the internationally recognised licensing criteria of safety, quality and efficacy has proved its worth. That is recognised in the harmonised licensing arrangements applicable in the Community from 1 January 1993. They require that no veterinary medicines may be marketed in a member state unless a licence has been issued against those criteria by that member state. Animals and producers alike have benefited from the knowledge that licensed veterinary medicines are of good quality, safe and do the job that they are supposed to do.
  By their nature, vaccines are more hazardous than other medicinal products and it is therefore essential that we establish the benefits under United Kingdom circumstances to set against any potential risks. For
  1094
  example, with Gumboro vaccine real safety fears still exist —the products being tested are not called "hot" vaccines for nothing. If we get it wrong, we may find that the birds' immune system is irreparably damaged—the vaccine organism spreads in large quantities to unvaccinated birds on neighbouring farms, which would make matters far worse—and that birds are subject to other harmful effects.
  Not everyone agrees that those risks are worth taking. Representations have been made recently by poultry experts to the effect that Gumboro disease can be controlled by the correct administration of less virulent vaccines, together with good husbandry conditions, and that hot vaccines should not be licensed.
  Nevertheless, the Veterinary Products Committee, the independent scientific body which advises Ministers, considered last week whether the existing small-scale trials with hotter vaccines should be expanded. My right hon. Friend is considering the committee's advice on this question and expects to make an announcement very shortly.
  Believe me, we understand the industry's concerns. Staff at the Veterinary Medicines Directorate are committed to assessing any applications where a disease problem is known to exist as quickly as possible, and have demonstrated that in practice.
  I cannot accept any criticism of the slowness of either the directorate or the licensing system. The issues involved are not straightforward and need careful consideration. There are limits to the short cuts that can and should be taken.
  The Government are in no doubt, as I hope that my hon. Friend is aware, about the importance of the poultrymeat industry in his constituency and throughout the country, whether as an employer, or, as my hon. Friend eloquently said, as a major consumer of cereals. Certainly it represents a significant part of the economy.
  I am confident that the industry, as it has proved in the past, has the expertise, commitment, drive and entrepreneurial flourish to continue to build on its achievements. As the economy revives, and with the forthcoming fall in feed prices, the opportunity is there to do all this. We, for our part, will do all that we can to ensure that this opportunity can be taken.
  In the time remaining to us, may I say, on behalf of the great unreshuffled, what a pleasure it was to have this opportunity to debate these matters with my hon. Friend. I hope that Cargill will go from strength to strength in Herefordshire.

  Legal Education (Funding)
  2.30 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I had a few words with the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department earlier today and he told me that the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education would be replying to the debate. It may be that, following the previous debate, the Lord Chancellor's Department is chicken, but the subject I wish to raise is of great interest to the Department for Education and the Lord Chancellor's Department.
  It is a commonly held perception that entrants into the legal profession come from a financially privileged background. Historically. that is true, but that damaging imbalance was addressed during the latter part of this century with welcome results.
  I am a solicitor by profession and, by happy coincidence, if a little stage managed, I am wearing the Gwynedd Law Society tie today. I am proud to wear that tie as a past president of the society, but I come from anything but a financially privileged background.
  I hasten to say, however, that I do come from a privileged one since I was brought up to respect all members of society, irrespective of colour, creed, religion or one's place in the peculiar class structure that is perpetuated in the British. Isles. I was taught that there is good and bad in everyone and, if nurtured, the good will prevail. That thought has helped me immensely during my years in practice.
  My late father was a police sergeant who left school at 15. I recall many an occasion when he told me, with a degree of touching embarrassment, that he had no formal qualifications because his parents could not afford o keep him at school. That angers me. I find the notion offensive. That unfortunate chapter in my late father's life made him determined that his children would receive a full education, come what may. My late father and my mother ensured that I went to university and law college, for which I am eternally grateful to them.
  The problem that I wish to highlight in this debate is the absence of mandatory grants for students attending vocational courses to quality as solicitors and at the Bar. When I attended law school in the mid-1970s, the situation was far from rosy. Even in those days, grant funding was somewhat hit or miss.
  As I have mentioned previously, my Machiavellian nature got the better of me and between university and law school I married a young teacher. In all honesty, I am not that ruthless. That was 20 years ago and that teacher is the ever-caring mother of my children and a long-suffering wife since I entered the hurly-burly of this place. Seriously, however, I know that without her salary at that time I should never have been able to enter the legal profession and I would have harboured a great sense of loss as a result.
  Two weeks ago I tabled an early-day motion on the subject. It states:
  "That this House notes the findings of a survey by the College of Law into students' funding and finance on the Law Society's final course 1992–93 at the College of Law showing that 48 per cent. of the respondents have less than £25 per week to spend on food, books and incidentals; further notes that the percentage of students receiving final course funding from local authorities has declined from 64 per cent. of students in 1989–90 to 24 per cent. of students in 1992–93;
  1096
  believes that cutbacks in local authority discretionary grants to final course law students enforces students to either self-finance their coursses or seek sponsorship from firms in the middle of a severe recession; further believes that local authority discretionary grants were and are vital to ensure that prospective law students from less well-off family backgrounds can embark on final law courses; recognises that the demise of local authority discretionary grants to final course law students may lead to a narrowing of the social class base for prospective members of the legal profession currently at law colleges; and calls on the Government to make increased funding available to local authorities to ensure that such discretionary grants are paid to final course law students."
  That early-day motion bears 72 signatures drawn from all Opposition parties. A similar motion tabled recently by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) was also well supported by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House.
  There are numerous arguments for mandatory grants. Over the past three years, discretionary grants for solicitors' final examinations have fallen more than 70 per cent., and currently 80 per cent. of students have to self-fund, using their own, their parents' or their firms' resources. As a result, students incur large debts.
  The Trainee Solicitors Group recently surveyed institutions offering solicitors finals courses to determine levels of student debt. The group circulated 3,500 questionnaires and received 2,201 replies—an extremely large response, and indicative of student concern. Of those surveyed, 709 had debts of more than £5,000, with 145 having debts of between £5,000 and £7,500, and 147 had debts of more than £10,000. Only 61 respondents had no debts.
  Another argument in favour of mandatory funding is that the current situation denies access to justice. Without adequate finance, students will be unable to practise in non-commercial areas of the law, typified by work qualifying for legal aid. Firms which practise in such areas are unable to offer salaries high enough to service or pay off large loans. Consequently, fewer new solicitors will practise in such firms, and the workload of those who remain will increase, leaving them less time to concentrate on each case. The public will have fewer firms from which to choose, and less attention will be paid to their individual cases. In my view and that of the TSG, that will deny the public access to justice and to their rights—and we cannot tolerate that in a democratic society.
  The prospect of large debts will make it more difficult for those of modest means to enter the profession. Without independent finance, many students will be unable to secure the loans that they require in order to undertake professional courses and may in effect face a pre-qualification test. The legal profession must be representative of the public that it serves, but a financial pre-qualification will promote the mediocre rather than the best.
  I ask for equal treatment with other professions. Doctors, architects and veterinary surgeons are guaranteed payment of their university fees during training—but not lawyers, whose funding ends after their undergraduate studies, as a consequence of the Education Act 1962. Under that legislation, all undergraduates were guaranteed payment of their fees, but postgraduate work was made the subject of discretionary local education authority grants.
  Barristers' and solicitors' finals after graduation, therefore, do not qualify for mandatory grants. That

  1097
  militates in particular against ethnic minorities and those who want to enter the profession in maturity. Recently, the TSG lobbied Parliament and I was privileged to be one of the Members of another place who addressed that group. It is clear that the Council for Legal Education and the College of Law are desperately concerned about the issue, and rightly so. The tendency to draw lawyers from privileged backgrounds will be not only perpetuated under the current system but accentuated.
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is working hard to appoint the judiciary from across the social spectrum and among ethnic minorities. However, it is painfully clear that its efforts are bound to fail in the prevailing circumstances. The pool from which it can draw members of both branches of the profession has already been subjected to a process of selection, in that many potential entrants simply cannot afford to undertake legal training.
  A gentleman from the Crewe area wrote to me recently, saying that he was desperate. He had obtained a master's degree in law, and had arranged to take articles with a local firm of solicitors. However, although a sparkling career doubtless lay ahead of him, he could not afford to attend college, and was therefore unable to proceed any further. I find that appalling, and I feel that I owe it to that person, and to the tens of thousands of others who have been denied their vocation in the same way, to raise this all-important shortcoming in the grant system.
  Martin Wedge of Brighton is 40 and married with a small baby. He spent 15 years as a British Telecom engineer before obtaining an upper second-class law degree at Sussex university. Sussex county council refused him a grant, and the banks refused him a loan. Having failed to fund his final course, he returned to his job, but has recently secured a new job in the industrial relations department of a local firm. He writes:
  "Sussex County Council has a rule that anyone above the age of 22 who has received the mandatory first degree grant should not get any further money. I wouldn't mind if the position was the same all round the country but it's down to where you live. I didn't manage to get articles, though I applied to 30 medium-sized firms … I wanted to be a solicitor specialising in helping people with their industrial relations problems—giving the benefit of my expertise. I feel that I myself haven't failed, but the required financial help wasn't forthcoming. Out there there are other people who, like me, have put in a lot of time and effort. Not to get help at this last stage is a bit hard to take. Perhaps there could be a four-year package whereby the whole degree including the College course was included in the grant."
  My local authority, Gwynedd county council, has a policy of paying £792 per annum towards tuition fees or 50 per cent. of the fees, whichever is the higher. It also pays a maintenance grant of £1,500 per annum, means tested on the basis of parents' income, with a £200 weighting allowance if the college is in London. The council tells me that it is constrained owing to a lack of Government funding. I have a sense of déjà vu when I utter those words. I could relate a hundred case histories involving people who, having excelled at university and obtained excellent degrees, wished to become lawyers and could not do so. The position is intolerable and unacceptable; the Government must think again.
  Why should entrants to the medical profession be treated differently? Why should not lawyers have a guaranteed four years of grant funding? What is the rationale that prevents that? Is the Treasury once more
  1098
  wreaking havoc on the lives of thousands of people in the British Isles? If so, it behoves the Minister to tackle the Treasury and put paid to this gross injustice.
  We in Wales have a highly developed sense of social justice, as well as a high regard for the benefits of education. We are always ready to make sacrifices for our children. I remind the House that no less a parliamentarian than Mr. David Lloyd George came from an ordinary background, and was in no way financially privileged. The sacrifices made by his family, particularly his brother, ensured his entry into the profession and, ultimately, the House. I had the privilege of serving as an articled clerk with Lloyd George's nephew—I nearly said, "My father knew Lloyd George", but that would be rather misleading.
  I am making a serious point. I am sure that many parents are willing to make sacrifices, but, owing to severe cuts and other financial pressures, they simply cannot do so. That angers me. Parents whose children are set on a legal career, but whom they must deny that opportunity, are heartbroken and demoralised. This is clearly a retrograde step. We are back in the days of my father's youth. God forbid that legal education should be denied to the poor and open only to the well off. If that is where we are heading, the legal system will soon be brought into disrepute. The administration of justice will falter, and the rule of law itself will be threatened.
  I ask the Minister to re-examine this serious problem in the interests of many thousands of people in the British Isles. If the Treasury is not forthcoming, I urge him to tackle it on the matter because that is his responsibility and that is what he is here for.
  If, after liaising with the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Minister concludes that he cannot deal with the problem, he will be doing a grave disservice to the public at large. I urge him to discuss the matter with the Lord Chancellor's Department and I sincerely trust and hope that he will be able to find an answer to this extremely serious problem.
  2.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): I congratulate the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on his good fortune in the ballot and on the clear and forceful way in which he put his arguments. He has recently been active in the subject of financial support for law students and he has now had a reasonable chance to expand on his concerns.
  Before I get into my reply, perhaps I can clarify two points. First, although I am answering for my Department, we have been in close touch with the Lord Chancellor's Department and I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to its attention.
  Secondly, and perhaps rather unusually from these Benches, I must properly declare a personal interest in the subject because my elder daughter is currently taking a law degree course. However, because it is her second such course, as I shall explain in a moment, she is not personally eligible for a mandatory award. She intends to go on into the legal profession.
  I begin with the legal position and record, for the hon. Gentleman's benefit, as he has already acknowledged, the fact that a number of other hon. Members have recently shown a considerable interest in the subject, both in the

  1099
  early-day motion and in -correspondence, with particular reference to the vocational training that law students must undergo before they can practise as solicitors or barristers.
  It would be helpful and fitting, given the subject, if I began with the current legal position on support for law students from England and Wales. There is an important distinction to be drawn at the outset in the support arrangements for students in higher education. In general, personally eligible students on full-time and sandwich courses at first-degree level are entitled to a mandatory award from their local education authority and can apply to the Student Loans Company for loans. These entitlements arise from the Education Act 1962 for mandatory awards and the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 for loans. They apply to students on full-time courses leading to the so-called degree comparable qualifications—the diploma of higher education and the higher national diploma—and to all courses of initial teacher training. For both awards and loans, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes national regulations that govern the rates and conditions.
  Other students in higher education—those on courses above first-degree level, most of those on part-time courses and students in further education—do not have those entitlements. Students who, after their first degree, take professional law courses—the Law Society finals, the legal practice course for those intending to practise as solicitors and the vocational course for intending barristers at the inns of court school of law—come within the latter broad category. Students taking higher degree courses at masters level and beyond can apply for a competitive postgraduate award from one of the national award-making bodies, such as one of the research councils, depending on subject. For courses not covered by these national selective schemes, which include professional law courses, students can, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, apply to their local education authority for a discretionary award.
  Students on post-graduate courses at institutions that receive recurrent grant from public funds can apply for help if they are in serious financial difficulty from the post-graduate access funds held by the institutions.
  There are no national regulations for local education authority discretionary awards. It is for each of the 117 LEAs in England and Wales to decide its own policies on which students and courses to support and the amount of support to offer in each case. Hon. Members will recall that these are, after all, discretionary awards. Ministers do not, as a matter of principle, seek to influence LEAs' decisions or policies on them; they would cease to be discretionary if we did.
  I have explained the current legal position in some detail so that the House can see what is the practical scope for action within it. Of course, I concede that it would be open to the Government to contemplate bringing the necessary legislation before Parliament to change the current position. We would, however, need to consider the substantial cost to the taxpayer of extending mandatory awards and student loans across the whole range of students taking postgraduate courses. Clearly, any such extension could not be confined only to postgraduate law students. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we have no plans to make such a costly change.
  There are some very important points which I should like to make about mandatory support. First, it is available to eligible students on first degree courses, irrespective of the subject they are studying. Secondly, it is
  1100
  available in accordance with the relevant regulations until the course has been completed, regardless of the course length, but it is aimed at enabling each eligible student to undertake one higher education course up to first degree level. It is not intended to finance students to undertake a succession of courses to reach the level of education or qualification which is needed to enter their chosen profession. As I said in my opening remarks, my own daughter is affected by this policy.
  It is misleading to suggest—as I am sorry to say that the Trainee Solicitors Group seems to be suggesting—that law students are somehow singled out and do not have the same entitlements to mandatory awards and student loans as first degree students in other subjects. Let me say clearly that that is not the case. Students taking first degree courses in law are treated absolutely on a par with their peers in other subjects. Most of the law students who go on to take postgraduate law courses of the types that I mentioned earlier will have already benefited from their entitlement to mandatory support while taking their first degree. However, like some other professions, any professional training that they undertake after their first degree falls outside the scope of the mandatory scheme.
  I know that some universities and the Law Society itself are currently looking at new structures for first degree law courses. More widely and in the longer term, the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct is reviewing the structure and funding of training for barristers and solicitors. Universities are considering new four-year integrated degree courses which will include the vocational training element currently taken as a separate course after graduating.
  As the regulations currently stand, such courses will attract mandatory awards and student loans in the same way as medical courses, which incorporate some professional training en route to the first degree. While acknowledging that it is for universities to decide which courses to offer and how to construct them, I make two points.
  First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has often expressed his concern about the trend towards longer degree courses. It is a trend which reduces the number of people who can enter higher education within the available resources. He has asked the Higer Education Funding Council for England to advise him on funding measures which would remove any incentive to lengthen degree courses at the expense of student numbers. The council has recently issued a circular to institutions indicating that it proposes to put in place from 1994–95 an element of output-related funding to discourage the lengthening of courses.
  Secondly, we would be concerned if these integrated degree courses in law—or, for that matter, any other subjects—became widespread as a device to obtain mandatory support for postgraduate vocational training. That would be contrary to the intentions of the current legislation and it would replace private or discretionary funding for vocational training with automatic Exchequer support. I am not convinced that such a switch is a desirable use of taxpayers' money.
  Concerns have been expressed by the hon. Gentleman and others about the narrow social base for law students and the low numbers of students from ethnic minorities on postgraduate law courses. These are primarily matters for the profession itself to tackle. While I understand the

  1101
  concerns, there are other and better ways of resolving them than through the national arrangements for student support.
  I deal now with discretionary awards. There have been recurring press reports in the past two or three years that LEAs have cut, or even stopped, discretionary awards. The hon. Gentleman mentioned some evidence from the Trainee Solicitors Group. I have not yet seen it, and I should be grateful if he would submit it to us for consideration. There have already been surveys and reports by a number of interested bodies, including the Law Society and the College of Law, which have highlighted the effect of cuts in support for their students. I am bound to say that a somewhat different story is told in the figures which my Department routinely collects each year from local education authorities. They show a steady rise each year in LEAs' expenditure when one looks at the national aggregate totals. And there was a sizeable rise in expenditure nationally for the academic year 1991–92.
  I accept that the Department's figures are, in the nature of things, collected after the end of the year to which they relate. It is true that national statistics can conceal wide variations at local level. The position on the ground at the moment is varied and unclear. There is anecdotal evidence that some LEAs are reducing their discretionary awards provision generally. Others are said to be selectively withdrawing support from more expensive courses, including perhaps postgraduate law courses. In contrast, some LEAs are actually increasing their overall awards budgets, while others are continuing to grant awards at about the same level from year to year. We have yet to see firm evidence of the overall picture.
  I am pleased, therefore, that the Gulbenkian Foundation and the Sir John Cass's Foundation, with financial support from my Department and the Further Education Funding Council, have commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research to conduct a survey of local education authorities' discretionary awards policies and practices. It will provide up-to-date information about the full range of their discretionary awards provision, including that for postgraduate law students. The results of the survey should be available to the foundations later in the summer and I look forward to seeing them.
  Concern has been voiced that some LEAs may be withdrawing entirely from making discretionary awards. We shall continue to monitor the situation. In my view, it would be unlawful for an LEA to adopt such a policy because this would amount to fettering its own discretion. A policy of "no awards come what may" is not acceptable. Nor, in the Government's view, should there be any need for such a policy in a properly managed authority and I shall explain why.
  It has been suggested that, in some way, Government funding—or the absence of it—has forced LEAs to cut back drastically on their discretionary award provision. I cannot accept that. The Government already contribute large sums from taxation to local authorities for them to use throughout the educational field, including discretionary awards.
  Taking my responsibilities for education in England, the 1993–94 local authority finance settlement allowed for a 2·6 per cent. increase over the previous year's settlement
  1102
  after changes in functions have been taken into account. The figure for Wales is somewhat different, representing an increase in provision of 20 per cent. over the two years 1991–92 and 1993–94. Given the prospect of low pay settlements and low inflation, it is a fair increase.
  Of course there are many pressures on the education service at present, and an endless succession of bids for more funding. However, any authority which manages its affairs well and achieves efficiency in its administrative costs should be able to continue to provide a high quality education service which meets the needs of the people of its area, including their needs for an appropriate range of discretionary awards.
  Within the national funding framework that I have just described, it is for each LEA to set its own budget and to decide how to allocate it between the various elements of the service, including discretionary awards. If some see fit to alter their priorities and redeploy funds from one area to another, that is their decision, but in considering restructuring their spending they must consider where economies may best be made, taking account of the likely effect on pupils and students.
  Let us also not lose sight of the fact that support for students is not confined to cash from the public purse. There are other sources such as charitable foundations, professional bodies and grant-making trusts which are prepared to help students. Some commercial organisations offer sponsorship and bursaries to those, including their employees, on certain courses. High street banks are often prepared to help, and there is the possibility of career development loans sponsored by the Department of Employment.
  Of course, I am sure that the law profession itself—the Bar Council, the Law Society and the practitioners—will want to do as much as it can to help law students, if only from enlightened self-interest. I understand that both branches of the profession have already demonstrated their concern that young lawyers at the start of their working careers should have an adequate income.
  Even so, it is interesting to note the findings of a survey by the College of Law earlier this year into its students' finances. It found that only a minority of respondents received support from their potential employers. It also found, tellingly, that the majority of students applied for help to their LEA and that almost half of them received some assistance.
  I believe therefore that there is proper scope for public and private funding to continue to work together to help law students to undertake the vocational training for entry to the profession. I have taken careful note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I can assure him and the House that I shall keep a careful watch on developments in that important area.

  Royal Assent
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  Charities Act 1993

  Clean Air Act 1993

  Radioactive Substances Act 1993

  Carrying of Knives, etc. (Scotland) Act 1993

  Disability (Grants) Act 1993

  1103

  Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1993

  Foreign Compensation (Amendment) Act 1993

  Non-Domestic Rating Act 1993

  Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993

  Midland Metro Act 1993

  Midland Metro (No. 2) Act 1993

  1104

  London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) Act 1993

  London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) (No. 2) Act 1993

  It being Three o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolutions [14 and 18 May], till Monday 7 June.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Agency Letters
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he will place in the Library copies of the recommendations submitted by(a) the Editor of the Official Report, (b) the Principal Clerk of the Table Office and (c) other sources in connection with the resolution agreed by the Administration Committee on publication of agency chief executives' letters and accompanying tables.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The terms of the Administration Committee's approval of arrangements for the publication of agency chief executive's letters in the Official Report are set out in the Committee's Minutes of Proceedings for 8 July 1992, HC 368-i to iv. It is not the practice of the Administration Committee to deposit in the Library papers which have not been reported to the House.

  Telephone Bills
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what were the quarterly telephone bills for the Palace of Westminster, including outbuildings, for each of the last 10 years; what use has been made of Mercury Communications through least-cost routing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: It is not possible to provide details of quarterly telecommunications bills for the Palace of Westminster for the past 10 years. However, the annual bill for telephone messages for the last seven years is as follows:

  £

  1987

  471,000

  1988

  552,000

  1989

  561,000

  1990

  570,000

  1991

  690,000

  1992

  599,000

  New technology installed in the Palace of Westminster telecommunications exchange in the summer of 1992 included a "least-cost routing" facility. At the same time, 125 of the outgoing lines of the exchange were converted to the Mercury network. These changes allow the automatic selection of the cheapest service for each outgoing message. Since October 1992, approximately 1·1 million calls lasting more than 20,000 hours have been carried on Mercury lines.
  652

EDUCATION

  Teacher Education
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish the advice received, and all correspondence, from Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools on the subject of teacher education and school-based teacher training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  Under the Education (Schools) Act 1992, the question of publication is entirely a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools. The Department for Education and Science was responsible for publishing Her Majesty's inspectorate's reports prepared before September 1992. It published a number of reports on teacher education, including one on school-based initial teacher training in England and Wales which was given wide distribution in January 1992.

  Liverpool City Technology College
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of acquiring land to be used as the Liverpool city technology college.

  Mr. Forth
  A site in Liverpool for possible use as a city technology college was acquired by the CTC Trust in February 1989 for £185,000 and sold in two parts in December 1990 and August 1991 for a total of £669,000.

  Higher Education Student Charter
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many copies of the non-consultative version of the higher education student charter were printed before the publication on Friday 21 May of the consultative version; what was the cost of printing them; what was the total number of administrative hours spent preparing them; when they will be pulped; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  Three and a half million copies of the charter for higher education were printed at a cost of £152,000. All copies have been pulped. Since my right hon. Friend announced our intention to publish further and higher education charters on 19 June 1992, the time of approximately one full-time equivalent offical has been devoted to the higher education charter initiative. The printing arrangements had to be made well in advance of the target date for publication given the large number of copies required. In the event, following further representations, my right hon. Friend agreed that wider formal consultations should be undertaken in particular to allow individual universities to have the opportunity to comment through the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.

EMPLOYMENT

  Asbestos
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress she has made towards banning all grades of asbestos; what discussions she has had at an EC level on this matter; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The importation, supply and use of the two types of asbestos most commonly associated with
  653
  disease—crocidolite (blue asbestos) and amosite (brown asbestos)—has been prohibited in the United Kingdom since 1986, although they have not been imported since 1972 and 1980 respectively. Since 1 January 1993, three further types of asbestos have been prohibited though these were not used commercially in the United Kingdom.

  Chrysotile (white asbestos) is now the only type of asbestos allowed into the United Kingdom. Imports have dropped significantly in recent years and are now less than 10,000 tonnes annually. Negotiations are currently in progress on a European Community draft directive to ban chrysotile but with exemptions for certain uses. The Government are keen to avoid this resulting in the replacement chrysotile with substitutes which may be less safe, and support the proposed directive provided that exemptions are based on the relative risks of chrysotile and substitute materials in any particular application.

  Ports (Accidents)
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many fatal accidents have taken place in the United Kingdom ports industry since July 1989.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The numbers of fatal accidents occurring in docks and harbours in Great Britain between 1 July 1989 and 31 March 1992 are given in the table. Statistics for 1992–93 are not yet available. Accident statistics for Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Fatal accidents1 in docks and harbours2 as reported to the Health and Safety Executive's Factory and Agricultural Inspectorates—1 July 1989 to 1991–924

  Year

  Fatalities

  1 July 1989 to 31 March 1990

  7

  1990–91 3

  2

  1991–924 3

  6

  Total

  15

  1 Includes accidents to employees (including trainees), self employed persons and members of the public injured as a result of someone else's work activity notified under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 (RIDDOR).

  2 As defined by Standard Industrial Classification Class 74 and actify heading 7630.

  3 Year commencing 1 April.

  4 Provisional.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many industrial accidents have taken place in United Kingdom port activities since July 1989.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The numbers of non-fatal injuries occurring in docks and harbours in Great Britain between 1 July 1989 and 31 March 1992 are given in the table. Statistics for 1992–93 are not yet available. Accident statistics for Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.654

  Injuries1 in docks and harbours2 as reported to the health and safety executive's factory and agricultural inspectorates 1 July 1989 to 1991–926

  Severity of injury

  Total

  Major4

  Over three days5

  1989–90 7

  80

  406

  486

  1990–91 3

  113

  498

  611

  1991–92 6 3

  88

  469

  557

  Total

  281

  1,373

  1,654

  1 Includes injuries to employees (including trainees), self employed persons and members of the public injured as a result of someone else's work activity notified under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 (RIDDOR).

  2 As defined by Standard Industrial Classification Class 74 and activity heading 7630.

  3 Year commending 1st April.

  4 As defined under RIDDOR but chiefly amputations, serious fractures and any other injury requiring hospitalisation for 24 hours.

  5 Any injury that results in an absence from normal work for more than three days.

  6 Provisional.

  7 I July 1989 to 31 March 1990.

  Dock Workers (Compensation)
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the inquiry commissioned from MDS-Transmodal by the Departments of Transport and Employment in 1991 into the cost to public funds of the compensation payments paid to former registered dock workers under the Dock Work Act 1989 has been completed; and if it will be published.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In 1991, the Departments of Employment and Transport commissioned M DSTransmodal and Pieda plc to undertake a study into the effects on the port industry of the abolition of the dock labour scheme.

  A report on the study is being prepared for publication. It is anticipated that the report will be published this year, and I will ensure that copies of the report are placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Sex Discrimination
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action she is taking to lessen inequalities between women's and men's pay.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In 1992, women's average hourly earnings—excluding overtime—were 79·2 per cent. of men's, the highest level ever, and the fifth consecutive year in which the differential between men's and women's pay had narrowed.

  The pursuit of sound economic policies resulting in high productivity and low inflation have established the appropriate conditions for the recent success in further narrowing the differential between women's and men's pay. Further progress in this area will depend in part on sustaining and improving on these economic gains.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action she is taking to combat sex discrimination in the workplace.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, both as amended, make
  655
  discrimination on grounds of sex in contractual and non-contractual employment matters unlawful. The Department publishes and distributes widely explanatory guides to the legislation.

  The Department also funds the Equal Opportunities Commission, which has a statutory duty to work towards the elimination of discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity between women and men.

  Sexual Harassment
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action she is taking to combat sexual harassment in the workplace.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government abhor sexual harassment as a particularly nasty form of sex discrimination which can have unacceptable repercussions in the workplace.

  It is well established in law that in certain circumstances sexual harassment can amount to sex discrimination, contrary to the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

  The Department has published two booklets explaining to employers and employees how to combat sexual harassment at work. Both booklets have been widely distributed throughout industry.

  The Government have also brought forward an amendment to the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill which will give industrial tribunals a discretionary power to protect those involved in sexual harassment cases from intrusive or offensive reporting of their cases.

  Personal Contracts
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration she has given to the implications of the recent Court of Appeal ruling that companies which grant pay rises only to employees accepting personal contracts are in contravention of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 for employment practices in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We have given careful consideration to the recent Court of Appeal decisions on this issue. As a result of these judgments, the law on action short of dismissal, which is now contained in section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, has been left in a state of some confusion. Section 146 was never intended to interfere in an employer's freedom to determine negotiating arrangements that best suit his business needs.

  In order to clarify the law on action short of dismissal, we have therefore introduced an amendment to the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill, which completed its stages in another place on Monday 24 May. This provision makes it clear that action taken by an employer for the purpose of changing his negotiating arrangements is not action taken against an individual within the scope of section 146.

  Departmental Offices
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimated amount to be spent in 1993–94 in rent and other associated costs for the offices of her Department in Caxton house, Tothill street, London.
  656
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Estimated expenditure by the Department for rent and other associated accommodation costs in Caxton house, Tothill street in 1993–94 is £12·75 million made up as follows:

  £ million

  Rent paid to Property Holding (including VAT)

  8·88

  Rates

  2·91

  Maintenance costs

  0·96

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Mr. T. Barber
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action his Department has taken in response to the representations made to him about the case of Mr. T. Barber of 6 Bennett rise, Huncote, Leicestershire, regarding his work as a bailiff at Leicester county court.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Mortgaged Properties (Repossession)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what were the main conclusions of his Department's review of county court rules concerning general possession procedures in relation to mortgaged properties.

  Mr. John Taylor
  The main conclusions of the review of the handling of mortgage possession cases were that the court needed to be provided with more information about the basis of the claim and the defendant's circumstances. New rules and forms that achieve these aims are currently being drafted.

  Judiciary (Training)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost of training the judiciary and the magistracy in the procedures to be adopted under the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Before the Criminal Justice Act 1991 came into force in October 1992, all judges of the Crown court and all magistrates were trained in its requirements. Judges and recorders attended sentencing conferences on their own circuits and special sessions dedicated to 'studying the Act's provisions were incorporated in the standard refresher and induction courses run centrally by the Judicial Studies Board. Written material was also issued. In addition, a training package, funded by the Home Office, was provided for justices' clerks to enable them 'to train justices of the peace. It is not possible to quantify the cost in detail because of the local nature of most of the training, but a very rough estimate would be approximately £250,000.

  Trainee Lawyers (Grants)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many representations his Department has received in the last 12 months regarding discretionary grants made by local authorities to trainee lawyers.
  657
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has received four representations from individual students, as well as representations from the Law Society, and from the chairman of the Trainee Solicitors Group.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action he is taking to encourage(a) women and (b) members of ethnic minority groups to pursue careers in the legal profession.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Although he has no direct responsibilities in this field, the Lord Chancellor is concerned to ensure equality of opportunity between all persons intending to be employed in the provision of legal services. Section 64 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 extends the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976 to the Bar in England and Wales. For those who seek judicial office, the Lord Chancellor's policy is to appoint those best qualified, regardless of gender, ethnic origin, political affiliation or religion. Without prejudice to this overriding principle, the Lord Chancellor has stressed publicly, and will continue to do so, that he would like more women and those of ethnic origin who are suitably qualified to be appointed to the judiciary.

  The Government recognised the importance of encouraging equality of opportunity when it established the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct, which is independent of the Government. The Act requires the committee to have regard to the desirability of equal opportunity when fulfilling its general duty of assisting in the maintenance and development of standards in the training and conduct of those offering legal services. The committee has commenced a major review of legal education and training; this issue will be considered as part of that exercise.

  Justices (Appointments)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether his Department applies any restrictions based on physical, sensory or mental impairments in the appointment of(a) justices of the peace. (b) coroners and (c) judges.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In the appointment of judges and magistrates, the Lord Chancellor must be satisfied in the public interest that a candidate has the necessary physical and mental abilities to carry out the full range of duties of the post and any individual candidate is considered on his or her merits in the light of their particular circumstances. I understand from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department that coroners are appointed by local authorities in accordance with qualifications laid down in the Coroners Act 1988, as amended by the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.

  Court Service
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has for organisational change in the management of the court service.
  658
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  After detailed consideration, the Lord Chancellor has concluded that a move to executive agency status is the right way forward for the court service and he envisages setting up the service as an agency in April 1995.

  Agency status will provide the management of the court service with a clearer focus on the job to be done, and greater flexibility to respond to the changing needs of all court users.

  The agency will comprise the staff of the unified court service. It will exclude the staff of the magistrates court service, which is locally managed and whose organisation is dealt with in the White Paper "A Framework for Local Justice".

  The conversion of the court service into an agency will not affect the judiciary, either in its independent role and functions or in its relations with the administration.

  Consultation with the judiciary and the trade union side on this subject has recently begun and will continue with them, and with other interested parties, throughout the implementation period.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Indonesia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the current projects and their value that are currently being funded in Indonesia by the Overseas Development Administration, European Community, World bank, Asian Development bank and other aid-giving bodies for which he is responsible.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Projects funded by ODA from the United Kingdom/Indonesia grant programme are:

  Title

  Allocation £ million

  Coastal Fisheries

  0·38

  Animal Health—Phase 4

  1·69

  Coastal Prawn Culture

  1·30

  Tropical Forestry Management

  10·77

  Gas Distribution

  9·70

  Hydrocarbon Basin Assessment

  5·98

  Active Learning Professional Support

  1·71

  Library Development

  0·75

  English Language Training (National Level)

  1·33

  Institutional English Language Training

  1·79

  Biotechnology

  0·43

  South Sumatra Geological Survey

  2·26

  Regional Government Finance

  0·91

  Police Management Training

  0·97

  Development of Professional Training for Civil Engineering Consultants

  1·74

  Development of Mini-Hydros

  5·61

  Development of Thermal Power Plant Personnel Training Capability—Phase 3

  1·20

  We also support the activities in Indonesia of British non-governmental organisations such as Voluntary Services Overseas, Oxfam and Christian Aid. The Commonwealth Development Corporation, for which the principal source of finance is the British aid programme, has investments in Indonesia totalling £72 million, covering nine projects in sectors such as textiles, cement production, power and plantation crops.

  Projects supported by the ODA under concessional loan arrangements include the following:

  659

  Title

  Soft loan allocation £ million

  Cigading-Serpong Railway Rehabilitation

  24·690

  Citayam-Cibinong Railway (New Line)

  20·105

  Steel Bridging Components

  3·669

  Forestry Radio Communications Network

  34·111

  Airport Security Systems

  10·455

  Flight Simulator for Civil Aircraft

  4·659

  Shortwave Radio Transmitters for National Broadcasting Network

  26·911

  Additional Generating Capacity for Jambi Power Plant

  5·345

  Equipment for Universities in Sumatra and Kalimantan

  13·671

  Most European Community aid to Indonesia is provided through the Community's Asia/Latin America programme, of which the United Kingdom contributes around 16 per cent. Recent project approvals have been as follows:

  Title

  Allocation

  £ million

  Mecu1

  Punggur Utara Irrigation Project

  23·07

  (29·3)

  North Bali Irrigation and Water Supply

  8·11

  (10·3)

  Forest Sector Support Programme

  20·47

  (26·0)

  1 Million European currency units.

  The World bank has an active portfolio of 61 loans with a cumulative value of approximately $7·9 billion. For the Asian Development bank, the corresponding figures are 62 and $5·6 billion. For the International Fund for Agricultural Development, they are four and $66 million. Details of loan approvals are contained in the annual reports of these institutions, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Committee for the Prevention of Torture
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the European countries visited in each of the last three years by the European committee for the prevention of torture.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The European committee for the prevention of torture (CPT) has visited the following countries in the last three years:

  1990: Austria, Denmark, Malta, Turkey, United Kingdom.

  1991: France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey.

  1992: Cyprus, Finland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, San Marino, Turkey.

  1993: Luxembourg, Greece, Liechtenstein.

  The CPT plans to visit Belgium, Iceland, Ireland and Norway by the end of the year. The CPT will then have visited all the states party to the convention.

  Tibet
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has recently received regarding the Chinese occupation of Tibet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I have received a number of letters and other expressions of concern about the situation in Tibet 660
  from hon. Members of the House and others. We share the concern about human rights there and particularly about the latest reports of detentions and demonstrations. With our European Community partners, we have been pursuing these matters with the Chinese authorities.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has had urging a boycott of Chinese goods in protest at the Chinese occupation of Tibet; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  None. We have no plans to introduce such a boycott.

  Mrs. Hamida Mattoo
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information about the death of Mrs. Hamida Mattoo he has received through the post in New Delhi from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs: what representations have been made to the Indian high commission in London about the circumstances of Mrs. Mattoo's death; when he intends to write to the hon. Member for Bradford, West following his letter of 15 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Our high commissioner in Delhi took up the case with the Indian authorities and received a fact sheet from the Indian Home Ministry on 26 May which states that Mrs. Mattoo was killed on 3 March 1993 in crossfire between Indian security personnel and terrorists. I will write to the hon. Gentleman shortly with details of the fact sheet. We have not made representations to the Indian high commissioner in London about Mrs. Mattoo's death.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministers (Cash Payments)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister if Departments in their capacity as employers notify the Inland Revenue when cash payments are made to Ministers to relieve financial pressures which affect their performance as Ministers.

  The Prime Minister
  I know of no such payments.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Prime Minister what considerations underlie the policies of Her Majesty's Government with respect to giving substantive answers to parliamentary questions seeking details of the names, occupations and remuneration of Members of(a) health boards in Scotland and (b) district health authorities in England.

  The Prime Minister
  Non-executive health board members in Scotland are appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and information on them is therefore held centrally and given in response to parliamentary questions. Non-executive members of district health authorities in England, however, are appointed by regional health authorities and not by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. Executive members of health boards in Scotland and
  661
  district health authorities in England are appointed by their respective board or authority. Information on them, therefore, is not currently available centrally.

  The level of remuneration for health authority members in England, and for health board members in Scotland, is set centrally and this information is always provided in response to parliamentary questions.

  Merlin Reactor
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government Department is responsible for overseeing the decommissioning of the Merlin reactor at Aldermaston.

  The Prime Minister
  The nuclear installations inspectorate, which is now part of the Health and Safety Executive, was responsible for overseeing the decommissioning.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 15 March,Official Report, column 33, what information has been received through the high commission in New Delhi from the Indian Government about Shabir Shah and Yasin Malik; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  On 26 May, our high commission in New Delhi received a lengthy aide memoire from the Indian Home Ministry. This stated that both Shabir Shah and Yasin Malik are in custody in Jammu where they are awaiting trial. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be writing to the hon. Gentleman with details.

  School Visits
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the local authority maintained schools, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges that he has visited since taking his present office.

  The Prime Minister
  I have visited a number of local authority maintained schools, grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement about the Government's commitment to making a contribution to the Jubilee line extension.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government, and I personally, remain committed to the Jubilee line extension as a major addition to the infrastructure of docklands and of London's transport. We have earmarked public funds for the line. As soon as negotiations with the companies involved in the financing of Canary Wharf have been concluded satisfactorily my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will authorise the start of construction and the first tranche of those funds will be made available. The line will then be built within an estimated 53 months. The draft funding agreement specifies that swingeing penalty payments will come into force if the line is not completed seven months after that.
  662

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Advisory Committees
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make available a list of independent Government advisory committees dealing with human health, environmental protection and animal welfare, for which a list of members' registered interests are available, and the dates on which these registers were introduced.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  Registers of members interests relating to the matters under consideration are published for the following committees.

  Committee

  Year introduced

  Committee on the Safety of Medicines

  1987

  Medicines Commission

  1987

  British Pharmacopoeia Commission

  1987

  Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances

  1991

  A register of members' interests is maintained for the Farm Animal Welfare Council by its secretariat.

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans the Government have for the future of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  HMSO has made great strides since its establishment as one of the first executive agencies in 1988. The 1992 trading fund accounts, published today, show a current cost profit of £6·5 million against a financial target of £6 million—the fourth successive year in which profitability has increased. In order to build on this growing commercialism, I am commissioning a consultancy study to explore the scope for further commercialisation of the operations of HMSO. The study will incorporate the review of status which is required periodically of all executive agencies. It will also take account of the Government's concern to ensure that Parliament, Departments and agencies continue to obtain value for money when purchasing the products and services provided by HMSO.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Manufactures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the factors determining the level of import penetration of the United Kingdom for manufacturers since(a) 1979 and (b) the year ended June 1989; and to what extent the increase in import penetration is due to the increase in the real exchange rate since the second half of 1973.

  Mr. Nelson
  Rising import penetration is largely a consequence of the greater specialisation of international production, and has been experienced by virtually all other industrialised countries. The counterpart to this rising import penetration is higher exports. United Kingdom export volumes were at record levels at the end of 1992 and have grown faster than gross domestic product as a whole since 1979.
  663

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the retail prices index for(a) goods other than food, fuel and alcoholic drink and (b) services for each year since 1987 and for each month since August 1992; and what were the increases for the same periods in (i) earnings of manual workers in manufacturing industry, (ii) earnings of white-collar workers in the private sector and (iii) producer prices for manufacturing.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information for(a) and (b) is not available in the form requested and can only be produced at disproportionate cost.

  The following table gives average gross weekly earnings of full time employees on adult rates with pay not affected by absence for April each year.

  Manual employees in manufacturing

  Non-manuals in private sector

  April

  Mean (£)

  Increase over 12 months (per cent.)

  Mean (£)

  Increase over 12 months (per cent.)

  1986

  169·6

  —

  203·9

  —

  1987

  181·1

  6·8

  222·8

  8·7

  1988

  195·5

  8·0

  247·6

  11·0

  1989

  212·1

  8·5

  272·3

  9·8

  1990

  231·1

  9·0

  300·2

  10·2

  1991

  241·9

  4·3

  318·2

  7·6

  1992

  258·9

  7·0

  337·9

  6·2

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  The data for producer prices (home sales) for all manufacturing industries are as shown:

  Index (1985 = 100)

  Percentage increase on year earlier

  1987

  108·3

  3·8

  1988

  113·2

  4·5

  1989

  119·0

  5·1

  1990

  126·0

  5·9

  1991

  133·0

  5·6

  1992

  138·0

  3·8

  August 1992

  138·5

  3·4

  September 1992

  138·6

  3·4

  October 1992

  138·7

  3·3

  November 1992

  139·2

  3·3

  December 1992

  139·5

  3·5

  January 1993

  140·7

  3·6

  February 1993

  141·4

  3·7

  March 1993

  1 142·4

  1 3·7

  April 1993

  1 143·0

  1 3·8

  1 Provisional.

  "The Sunday Times" (Letter)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the circumstances of the sending of a letter with reference number IDT ASS./DOCS/1.11.5. by an official in his Department to the political editor of The Sunday Times.

  Mr. Lamont
  I do not comment on letters sent on a "not for publication" basis.
  664

  Protection Money (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to ensure that tax relief is not granted for protection money in Northern Ireland; what estimate he has made of the extent of this abuse of the tax relief system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There is little evidence of tax relief for protection money being widely granted in Northern Ireland, but we are looking into the matter in order to find an appropriate solution.

  Income Tax
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are taxed on(a) PAYE, (b) schedule D and (c) schedule E basis; and what is the tax yield for each category.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Available estimates for 1992–93 are as follows:

  Source of income

  Number of individual taxpayer1 (millions)

  Tax yield2 (£ billion)

  PAYE and other

  Schedule E

  23·2

  49·7

  Schedule D3

  3·1

  7·5

  1 A taxpayer with both a schedule E and schedule D source of income is included in both rows of the table.

  2 The tax yield represents the tax liability on each type of income where that income is regarded as the top slice of a person's income.

  3 Excluding interest taxed at source.

  Pensions
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the amount of the public sector pensions payable in each of the next 20 years assuming annual inflation of(a) 2 per cent., (b) 4 per cent. and (c) 6 per cent. and in respect of the next three years the proportion that such pensions are as a percentage of forecast gross domestic product.

  Mr. Portillo
  The data requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 26 April,Official Report, columns 292–94, what amount of additional employment costs is incurred by each Department in addition to wages and salaries.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is no longer collected centrally. The table sets out the information in respect of central Government Departments for 1991–92, the last year available.

  1991·92 £ million

  Defence

  238·9

  FCO (including ODA)

  50·0

  Agriculture

  17·5

  Trade and Industry

  20·9

  Employment

  70·5

  Transport

  16·0

  Environment

  60·3

  665

  1991–92 £ million

  Home Office

  63·0

  Legal Departments

  49·4

  Education

  7·9

  Heritage

  0·1

  Health

  16·7

  Social Security

  61·6

  Scotland

  15·1

  Wales

  3·4

  Northern Ireland

  28·0

  Chancellor's Departments

  95·0

  Cabinet Office etc.

  3·1

  817·6

  Financial Regulation
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive the Securities and Investments Board report on the state of financial regulation; and if he intends to make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) on 25 May,Official Report, columns 540–42.

  Taxation
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (I) if he will publish figures on the same basis as table I of appendix 4 to "Economic Trends", January 1992, on the total percentage of gross income accounted for by taxes of all kinds paid by(a) the bottom quintile of households and (b) the top quintile for households ranked by equivalised disposable income for 1991; and if he will estimate the same quintile groups on the same basis for each year from 1992 to 1996;

  (2) if he will publish figures on the same basis as table 4 of appendix 1 to "Economic Trends", January 1992, on the total percentage of gross income accounted for by taxes of all kinds paid by (a) the bottom decile of households and (h) the top decile for households ranked by equivalised disposable income for 1991; and if he will estimate the same quintile groups on the same basis for each year from 1992 to 1996.

  Mr. Nelson
  The results for 1991 will be published in the May 1993 edition of "Economic Trends", due out on Wednesday 2 June. The required ratios can be derived from the figures in table 3, appendix 1, which is on the same basis as table 4, appendix 1 in the January 1992 edition of "Economic Trends".

  The figures are based on the family expenditure survey.

  Projections are not available.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what savings would accrue to the Treasury if M IRAS was phased out in three equal stages in three years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The cost of mortgage interest tax relief at the proposed rate of 20 per cent. for 1994–95 is estimated to be £3·6 billion. Based on the estimated 1994–95 distribution of mortgages, if the relief were phased out in equal stages over a three-year period the estimated yield would be £1·2 billion, £2·4 billion and £3·6 billion.
  666
  These estimates adopt the conventional assumption that there will be no change in interest rates from the current rate of 8 per cent.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual value of 6 per cent. of the civil service pay bill; and what is the total annual expenditure on civil service pensions.

  Mr. Portillo
  In 1992–93, 6 per cent. of the civil service pay bill—excluding the pay costs of civil servants working in trading funds and trading bodies, and MOD civilians working in non-support areas—amounted to £704 million. Pensions paid to retired civil servants in the same year totalled £1,720 million.

  Economic Policy (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all conferences and meetings of intergovernmental organisations he and Ministers of his Department have attended over the past year on the environmental impacts of economic and financial policy.

  Sir John Cope
  Treasury Ministers attend numerous meetings of intergovernmental organisations at which environmental issues may arise. It would not be practical to list all conferences and meetings of intergovernmental organisations which have touched on environmental issues.

  EC Finance Ministers Meeting
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the latest meeting of European Finance Ministers.

  Mr. Lamont
  European Community Finance Ministers held an informal meeting with central bank governors in Kolding, Denmark on 21 to 23 May. The Governor of the Bank of England and I represented the United Kingdom.

  The meeting discussed reports by the Monetary Committee and Central Bank Governors Committee on recent events in the exchange rate mechanism. It was agreed that specific conditions had applied in September 1992 with, in particular, an exceptionally large differential between United States and European interest rates. Member states emphasised the need for greater economic convergence and reaffirmed their support for the European monetary system. I made clear that the return of sterling to the ERM could not be contemplated until the requirements of United Kingdom and German monetary policy had come more closely into line. Copies of the reports of the Monetary Committee and Central Bank Governors Committee have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Ministers also discussed German proposals for a harmonised system of withholding tax on interest paid to EC residents. It was agreed that these ideas needed further preparation before being considered by the Council. In addition, there was a discussion of the issue of unitary taxation in the United States, in the light of my announcement to the House on 13 May, Official Report, column 528. Other member states strongly supported the United Kingdom position and it was agreed that the

  667
  presidency would write to the United States Administration underlining the importance member states attach to an early resolution of the problem.

  The meeting also examined the relationship between environmental and economic policies and briefly discussed the Commission's proposals for an EC carbon/energy tax. This proposal is expected to be discussed by the Council at its next meeting.

  Finally, Ministers discussed the unemployment situation in the Community and their remit from the Edinburgh European Council to consider measures to improve the functioning of the labour market.

  The meeting was informal and there were therefore no votes or formal decisions.

  Local Government Borrowing
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether local authorities are able to borrow from financial institutions outside the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Treasury has today issued four general consents. Three of those consents, taken together with complementary approvals given by the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales, allow local authorities in England and Wales to borrow in sterling from any credit institution provided it is authorised by the supervisory authority of an EC member state. The fourth allows local authorities in Scotland to borrow in sterling from EC credit institutions.

  These measures, which have been taken under section 43 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, and under paragraph 4 of schedule 3 to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975, make clear the interpretation of the legislation in England and Wales and ensure compliance with the single European market in banking services.

HEALTH

  Young People in Care
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the operation of those provisions of the Children Act 1989 relating to assistance to young persons leaving care.

  Mr. Yeo
  We are closely monitoring the implementation of the Children Act 1989 as a whole, including the after-care provisions. A report on the first year's operation of the Act was presented to Parliament on 4 February 1993.

  Mental Hospitals
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 27 April,Official Report, column 345, when the mental health task force is to begin collecting information on the closure of mental hospitals; when the data will be made publicly available; and what is the task force's definition of a long-stay psychiatric hospital.

  Mr. Yeo
  The mental health task force has begun to collect information on the closure of long-stay mental illness hospitals. It intends to complete an analysis of initial returns by the end of July, which I will make available. Information is being collected on those hospitals listed as mental illness hospitals with more than 100 beds 668
  in 1960 and which are still open, plus hospitals opened since then with more than 100 beds which are predominantly mental illness hospitals.

  Colorectal Cancer
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of death from colorectal cancer have occurred in women and men in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 24 March at columns 617–20 for figures for 1987 to 1991. Information for 1992, the latest year for which information is available, is shown in the table.

  Numbers of deaths from malignant neoplasms of the colon (ICD 153) 1 and malignant neoplasms of the rectum, rectosigmoid junction and anus (ICD 154) 1 by sex in England and Wales 1992

  Number

  Males

  8,749

  Females

  8,654

  1 ICD—International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision.

  Occult Blood
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to publish guidance to doctors in relation to screening for occult blood.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to issue guidance at this time.

  Fertility Treatment
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to issue guidelines about fertility treatment to unmarried couples or to individuals who already have children.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's code of practice gives guidance to fertility treatment centres. This includes advice on the factors to be considered by clinicians when considering an individual's suitability for treatment. These include the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of treatment and of any existing children in the family.

  There are also guidelines for clinicians published by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. In the light of well-publicised recent cases, the Chief Medical Officer has already had discussions with the president of the royal college about these guidelines and these discussions will continue.

  The Government have made it clear that health authorities should think carefully before providing fertility treatment to people without a stable family background. If there is evidence that this is not being followed, we will examine what further action needs to be taken.

  Human Growth Hormone Treatment
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients who received human growth hormone treatment have utilised the helpline or availed themselves of the counselling provided through her Department; what help or advice is being offered with particular reference to financial matters, including life insurance availability and mortgages; and if she will make a statement.
  669
  Mr. Yeo
  The helpline is provided by the department of growth and development at the Institute of Child Health of Great Ormond Street hospital. No record of the number of telephone inquiries has been maintained but the institute is also providing counselling for patients treated at one of the three London growth centres; of the 711 patients treated, 295 have asked for and received counselling. Details of the numbers of patients who have availed themselves of the counselling services provided elsewhere in the country are currently being collected. I understand that patients experiencing difficulty in obtaining life insurance or mortgages are advised to make inquiries across a range of providers of these services, since the terms and conditions very often vary.

  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received about financial support for those who received human growth hormone treatment and may now be at risk of contracting Creutzfeldt Jakob disease; and what estimate she has made of the cost of setting up an insurance fund for such people.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have received a number of representations, but as the treatment conformed with the best known scientific and clinical practice of the time we do not accept that there are grounds for financial support over and above the benefits which are available under the Social Security Acts. No estimate has therefore been made of the cost of a separate insurance fund.

  Beverley Allitt
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors she took into account when deciding what type of further investigation to hold into the events at Grantham and Kesteven general hospital between February and April 1991 which were the subject of the recent trial of former nurse Beverley Allitt; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In deciding the form of inquiry, my overriding consideration was how to establish the facts behind the horrific Beverley Allitt case in the most rigorous and effective way possible, and ensure that the NHS learns any lessons for the future. The questions the parents want answered are the ones I want answered, and they must be properly and fully answered.

  After careful consideration, I decided that this will best be achieved through an independent investigative inquiry, led by Sir Cecil Clothier, QC who has enormous experience in these matters. His advice, based on that long experience, was that, in cases such as this, the truth may more readily emerge in such an inquiry than in an adversarial public forum where witnesses may feel under strong external pressures. I would not have hesitated to order a public inquiry if I had thought that it would uncover the facts more effectively than the inquiry now being undertaken by Sir Cecil and his team.

  In ordering the Clothier inquiry, I have obviously been concerned to establish confidence in it. Sir Cecil must be able to see all the witnesses and papers he requires. If necessary, I will give him the statutory powers to do so. He and his team will be acting independently of the parties involved. He will conduct his inquiry in London, away from the scene of Allitt's crimes. I have asked him to proceed as quickly as possible, consistent with establishing the truth, and to publish his report in full. I will, of course,
  670
  do whatever is necessary to ensure that all possible steps are taken to ensure there is no repeat of such horrific and tragic events.

  Clinical Complaints
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the complaints dealt with under the clinical complaints procedure during(a) 1990, (b) 1991 and (c) 1992 were upheld.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Drug Use
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to publish the research report from Durham university, prepared for her Department, on the prevalence of drug use among young people; in what form it will be published; and whether the publication will be the full report or a summary.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 25 May at column 510.

  NHS Staff Grading Appeals
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS staff grading appeals are outstanding in(a) the West Midlands regional health authority area and (b) South Birmingham health authority.

  Mr. Yeo
  There are currently 3,068 staff grading appeals outstanding in the West Midlands regional health authority area, of which 783 are outstanding for South Birmingham health authority.

  Hospitals (Transport Facilities)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on the co-ordination of hospital planning and the provision of transport facilities for patients and their visitors; and on what grounds she would refuse an application by a health authority or hospital trust for a change in the services it offered because of such transportation considerations.

  Mr. Sackville
  Ambulance transport for national health service patients is provided, free of charge, on the basis of medical need as determined by a clinician. Patients without a medical need for transport may, exceptionally, be transported by the ambulance service, but a charge may be made. Visitors must make their own transport arrangements. There are no plans to change the basis of ambulance transport provision.

  Merseyside Health Bodies
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the members of the regional and district health authorities, and hospital trusts on Merseyside, indicating when they were appointed, and their professional backgrounds.

  Mr. Yeo
  The chairman and non-executive members of the regional health authority, the chairmen and non-executive directors of national health service trusts, and the chairmen of district health authorities in Mersey
  671
  region are listed in the table, together with the dates from which their current appointments commenced. Information relating specifically to their professional backgrounds is not available centrally, but the most up-to-date information held on their occupations is listed.

  The appointment of non-executive members of district health authorities is a matter for the regional health

  Name

  Appointment date

  Occupation

  Mersey RHA Membership (one vacancy)

  Professor A. Breckenridge (Chairman)

  12 January 1993

  Professor of Pharmacology

  Mrs. R. H. Hawley

  27 July 1990

  —

  Mrs. J. E. Timms

  1 April 1993

  Charity worker

  Mr. J. R. Halliday

  15 February 1993

  Company chairman

  Mr. B. Jenkins

  1 November 1991

  Company chairman

  Chairmen of Mersey DHAs (three vacancies)

  Mr. J. Ross (Chester)

  4 November 1991

  Retired BR manager

  Mr. F. R. Ludlow (Southport and Formby)

  1 November 1991

  Insurance consultant

  Mr. G. Murray (St. Helens and Knowsley)

  1 October 1992

  Business executive

  Mr. D. H. Tod (Liverpool)

  4 November 1992

  Company director

  Mr. D. Hannah (Warrington)

  1 April 1990

  General manager

  Mr. R. S. Gordon (Wirral)

  1 April 1993

  Underwriter

  Mr. S. H. Cussons (Macclesfield)

  9 November 1992

  Chartered accountant

National Health Service Trusts:

  Chairmen and non-executive appointments
  The Walton Centre jar Neurology and Neurosurgery National Health Service Trust
  Appointed from 1 November 1991

  Chairman: Mr. Peter Wright—Industrial pharmacist

  Non-executives:

  Mr. D. Snewin—Group sales manager

  Mr. M. Taylor—Chief executive

  Ms J. Pilkington—Nursing consultant

  Ms M. Craddock—Co-op manageress

  Mr. M. Hughes—Vernons Pools executive

  Liverpool Obstetrics and Gynaecology Services National Health Service Trust
  Appointed from 1 November 1991

  Chairman: Mrs. J. Greensmith—Management consultant

  Non-executives:

  Mrs. G. Arden—Solicitor

  Ms L. Bailey—Stockbroker

  Mr. D. Antonia—Chartered accountant

  Mr. A. Waterworth—Ex-engineering executive

  Mrs. C. Parnaby—Midwife

  Southport and Formby National Health Service Trust
  Appointed from 1 November 1991

  Chairman: Mrs. M. Pedlar—Managing director

  Non-executives:

  Mr. M. Landau—Littlewoods executive

  Mr. A. R. Thomson—Bank manager

  Mr. K. Sowerby—Chartered accountant

  Mr. D. P. Rimmer—Deputy Director Social Services

  Ms C. Aitken—

  Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology National Health Service Trust
  Appointed from 1 November 1991

  Chairman: Mrs. Brenda Dowding—Borough councillor

  Non-executives:

  Mr. R. Berry—Health and Safety director

  Dr. D. Jones—Retired CMO

  Mr. P. Marchant—

  Mr. G. Bush—Retired consultant

  Mr. J. Teare (appointed from 16 September 1992)—Chartered accountant

  Mersey Regional Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust
  Appointed from 1 November 1991

  Chairman: Mr. G. Perks—Retired ICI manager

  authority. Information on them, therefore, is not available centrally. Executive members of NHS authorities and trusts are appointed by their respective authority or trust, and therefore information on them is also not available centrally.
  Non-executives:

  Mr. S. Mayne—Managing director

  Mr. D. Kempton—Company director

  Mr. N. Wilson—Retirement home owner

  Ms R. Webster—Nursing lecturer

  Mr. G. Thomas—Ex-chief executive

  St. Helens and Knowsley Community Health National Health Service Trust
  Appointed from 1 November 1991

  Chairman: Mrs. D. Charnock—Management consultant

  Non-executives:

  Professor R. Gee—Director HE College

  Mr. R. Seneschall—Retired managing director

  Mr. A. Chick—Director YMCA

  Mrs. J. Bowden (appointed from 1 February 1992)—Solicitor

  Mr. R. F. Dewhirst (appointed from 11 January 1993) —Quality co-ordinator

  Aintree Hospitals National Health Service Trust
  Appointed from 1 November 1991

  Chairman: Robin Farmer—Commercial manager

  Non-executives:

  Mrs. M. Swinson—Tax consultant

  Mr. J. B. Cooper—Medical machinery consultant

  Mr. A. McMinn—Company chairman

  Mr. R. Snelgrove—Retired bank manager

  Dr. J. Ensor (appointed from 18 November 1992)—M & S Medical officer

  The North Mersey Community National Health Service Trust (Liverpool Community and Priority)
  Appointed from 1 November 1991

  Chairman: Mr. R. James—Chartered accountant

  Non-executives:

  Mr. K. Hutchinson—Managing director

  Mr. P. Fletcher—Retired finance director

  Mrs. J. Hall—Teacher

  Ms M. Kitchen—Journalist

  Mr. J. Barton—Head teacher

  Broadgreen Hospital National Health Service Trust

  Chairman: Mr. F. A. Fernley (appointed from 13 July 1992)—Retired personnel manager

  Non-executives:

  (Appointed front 21 December 1990)

  Mr. P. Ashworth Electrical engineer

  Mr. P. Stoney Lecturer

  Mr. J. Miller

  Mrs. A. Toyne (appointed from 1 December 1992)—Teacher

  673

  Mr. R. Bark-Jones (appointed from 1 December 1992) —Solicitor

  Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital and Community Services National Health Service Trust
  (Appointed from 21 December 1990)

  Chairman: Mr. I. F. Hill—Company deputy chairman

  Non-executives:

  Professor D. Lloyd—Professor of paediatrics

  Mr. J. C. Davies—Solicitor

  Mrs. S. G. Adams—Personnel consultant

  Ms H. Clark (appointed from 1 December 1992)—Lecturer

  Mr. F. W. Taylor (appointed from 1 December 1992)—Chartered accountant

  Wirral Hospital National Health Service Trust
  (Appointed from I December 1992)

  Chairman: Mr. A. H. Duncan—Quality co-ordinator

  Non-executives:

  Mr. B. Scott—Company director

  Mr. A. W. Shone—Company chairman

  (Appointed from 21 December 1990)

  Mr. P. R. Johnson—Managing director

  Mrs. M. Hazlett—Retired nursing sister

  Mr. G. F. Appleton—Chartered accountant

  St. Helens and Knowsley Hospital National Health Service Trust

  Chairman: Mr. J. R. Higham (appointed from 1 December 1992)—Managing director

  Non-executives:

  Mr. J. W. Royle (appointed from 15 February 1993)—Surveyor

  Mrs. J. L. Waitson (appointed from 18 December 1992)—Ex-Nursing officer

  Mrs. A. Hughes (appointed from 21 December 1990) —Welfare worker

  Miss A. Jones (appointed from 4 November 1992) —Solicitor

  Mr. J. Spencer (appointed from 1 December 1992)—Supplies controller

  Chester and Halton Community National Health Service Trust
  Appointed from 21 December 1990

  Chairman: Professor I. Stanley—Professor of medicine

  Non-executives:

  Mrs. J. Makinson—Bank nurse

  Mrs. J. Fenton—Solicitor

  Mr. I. Kemp—Chemist

  Mrs. A. Elloy (appointed from 1 December 1992)—Social worker

  Mrs. K. Tonge (appointed from I December 1992—Teacher

  Mid Cheshire Hospitals National Health Service Trust
  Appointed from 21 December 1990

  Chairman: Mr. R. F. Lawrence—Poultry farmer

  Non executives:

  Mr. W. Harding—Journalist

  Mr. G. Fenn—Company director

  (Appointed from I December 1992)

  Mr. J. Smith—Company secretary

  Mrs. P. Parton—Former nurse

  Ms B. Ong—Senior lecturer

  Cardio-Thoracic Centre—Liverpool National Health Service Trust

  Chairman: Mr. H. Clarke (appointed from 21 December 1990)—Company chairman

  Non-executives: (four only)

  Mrs. S. Malthouse (appointed from 1 April 1993)—Solicitor

  Mr. M. Rider (appointed from 21 December 1990)— Chartered accountant

  Mrs. M. Downs (appointed from 1 December 1992)—Managing director

  Mr. N. Tappin (appointed from 1 December 1992)—

  674

  Retired businessman

  Royal Liverpool University Hospital National Health Service Trust

  Chairman: Mr. J. Fitzpatrick (appointed from 1 December 1992)—Solicitor

  Non-executives:

  Professor Sir Robert Shields (appointed from 1 December 1992)—Professor of surgery

  Mr. E. Billington (appointed from 21 December 1990)—

  Mr. D. Anslow (appointed from 21 December 1990)—Chartered accountant

  Mr. G. Parker (appointed from 1 February 1992)—Managing director

  Mrs. J. Newall (appointed from 1 February 1992)— School administrator

  Countess of Chester Hospital National Health Service Trust
  Appointed from 4 November 1992

  Chairman: Mr. M. Emberton—Ex-company chairman

  Non-executives:

  Dr. G. Jones—Deputy college principal

  Lord Wade of Chorlton—Farmer

  Mr. N. Fitton—Chief executive

  Miss M. Hargreaves—Personnel controller

  Mrs. D. McConnell—Voluntary worker

  Cheshire Community Healthcare National Health Service Trust
  Appointed from 4 November 1992

  Chairman: Mrs. Jane Hill—Retired physiotherapist

  Non-executives:

  Mr. S. Bartlett—Commercial manager

  Mrs. R. Phillips—Magistrate

  Mrs. V. Basford—Voluntary worker

  Mrs. C. Bennett—Barrister

  Mr. J. Kennerley

  Halton General Hospital National Health Service Trust

  Chairman: Mr. D. Hammond (appointed from 4 November I992)—Company director

  Non-executives:

  Mr. R. Hodson (appointed from 6 May 1993)—Marketing manager

  Dr. K. MacVicker (appointed from 4 November 1992)—Retired GP

  Mrs. S. Anderson (appointed from 13 January 1993)—Personnel manager

  Mr. M. Stewart (appointed from 1 April 1993)—Retired manager

  Mr. D. Binns (appointed from 4 November 1992)—Retired general manager

  East Cheshire National Health Service Trust
  Appointed from 4 November 1992

  Chairman: Mr. P. Hayes—Managing director

  Non-executives:

  Mr. A. Weir—Solicitor

  Mrs. M. Loran—Publisher

  Mr. S. Blenkinsop—Retired newspaper editor

  Mr. D. Evans—Business manager

  Mrs. M. Davenport—District councillor

  Southport and Formby Community Health Services National Health Service Trust
  Appointed from 4 November 1992

  Chairman: Miss L. Brown—Barrister

  Non-executives:

  Mrs. C. Baker—Solicitor

  Mrs. M. Jackson—Environmental consultant

  Mrs. G. Gilbertson—Company secretary

  Mr. T. Andrew—Banker

  Mrs. B. Dean—Civil servant

  Warrington Community National Health Service Trust
  Appointed from 4 November 1992

  Chairman: Mrs. J. Grundy—Deputy Lieutenant Merseyside

  Non-executives:

  Mrs. D. Lawson—Crossroads co-ordinator

  675

  Mr. M. Davies—Financial controller

  Mr. P. Clarke—Company chairman

  Mrs. K. Carey—Teacher

  Mr. W. Cockroft—Ex-managing director

  Warrington Acute Hospital National Health Service Trust
  Appointed from 21 January 1993

  Chairman: Mr. N. Banner—Solicitor

  Non-executives:

  Mr. P. Jeffrey—Chartered accountant

  Ms J. Lang—Former sales executive

  Ms C. Bingham—Teacher

  Mrs. K. Cowell—Building Society Manager

  Mr. J. Baldwin—Property agent

  Hospices
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 24 May,Official Report, columns 447–48, on hospice support, what information has been given to regional health authorities with regard to the methodology used in calculating the transfer from the Department of Social Security to hospices; and what advice was given to regional health authorities as to the methodology to be used in determining the distribution of that allocation within each region.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the allocation and use of the transfer from the Department of Social Security to regional health authorities in respect of hospices was given in executive letter EL(93)14, sent to all regional general managers on 19 February 1993. A copy is available in the Library.

  HIV and Sexual Diseases
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is collected nationally to show(a) the number of people aged 65 years or over diagnosed as being infected with HIV and (b) the number of people aged 65 years or over found to have a sexually transmitted disease; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Reports of HIV infections are made to the communicable disease surveillance centre and communicable disease (Scotland) unit.

  To December 1992, 88 HIV-infected individuals had been reported aged 65 and over. Information on other sexually transmitted diseases is collected only for the age category 45 and over. In 1991, 3,290 genito-urinary medicine clinic attendees were in this age band.

  NHS Equipment
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has of the value of NHS equipment purchased by voluntary local subscriptions in each of the last five years in(a) cash terms and (b) in constant 1993 prices.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information exactly as requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance her Department has issued to NHS trusts and district health authorities concerning the use by private patients of equipment purchased by voluntary local subscriptions.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.
  676

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with her counterparts in the European Community on the incidence of food poisoning; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The United Kingdom plays an active role in regular discussions which take place in the European Community on a wide range of public health issues, including food hygiene and safety.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 261, what are the comparative figures for the incidence of food poisoning in each of the European Community countries for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no comparable figures available for other EC member states.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 261, if she will make a statement on who is being consulted and asked for evidence in respect of the new Government surveillance programme into the sources and causes of human foodborne illness; and what opportunity members of the public are being given to contribute their views.

  Mr. Sackville
  The steering group on the microbiological safety of food is responsible to the United Kingdom Health and Agriculture Ministers for the microbiological surveillance of food. The remit of the steering group and its working groups covers the whole food chain from primary production to consumption, with external membership drawn from the Public Health Laboratory Service, the national health service, environmental health departments, food research organisations, the food industry, veterinary science and consumers.

  A major study referred to in the previous answer is an epidemiological study of sources and causes of infectious intestinal disease in England. This study will take place in some 70 practices in the Medical Research Council's general practice research framework and will involve more than 20,000 volunteers. This study is one of a number of carefully designed surveys that will provide a better scientific basis for understanding human foodborne illness. Ministers are advised on the significance of these and other results by the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food.

  I expect the first report of the steering group to be published later this year. Anyone who wishes to offer views about its activities is welcome to do so.

  Pharmacists
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress her Department has made in negotiations with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee on pharmacists' remuneration.

  Mr. Yeo
  Discussions are continuing with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee. The next meeting is 15 June.
  677

DEFENCE

  Uniforms
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what specific steps are taken to ensure that overseas suppliers of service uniforms purchased by the armed forces are not in receipt of hidden subsidies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is our policy to encourage the development of a more open international market in defence goods through Government-to-Government negotiations, although it would not be practicable or cost-effective to investigate every potential supplier for hidden subsidies. Over 90 per cent. of my Department's contracts for clothing and textiles are placed with United Kingdom companies, though the nationality of subcontractors is a matter for the company concerned.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the value of all contracts for the supply of service uniforms are currently placed with(a) British and (b) overseas suppliers.

  Mr. Aitken
  In financial year 1992–93, 91 per cent. of contracts for the supply of clothing for the armed forces were placed with British suppliers and 9 per cent. with overseas suppliers, including the EC. So far in the present financial year 1993–94, 97·6 per cent. of the value of all contracts for the supply of clothing for the armed forces has been placed with British suppliers and 2·4 per cent. with overseas suppliers, including the EC.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement indicating his Department's policy on the placing of contracts with overseas suppliers of service uniforms; and if he will make specific reference to the criteria by which value for money and strategic considerations are assessed.

  Mr. Aitken
  Over 90 per cent. of contracts for the supply of service clothing are let to British companies. Overseas suppliers could be invited to tender if they achieve admission to the defence contractors list or if they apply via the Official Journal of the EC bulletin. Orders are rarely placed with companies overseas.

  Value for money from the defence budget is assessed through a system which includes contractor registration, quality assessment and the evaluation of offers with particular reference to price and delivery. Strategic considerations apply to only a small range of items, generally of a warlike nature, and are addressed through the selection of a limited number of companies which are to be invited to tender for the requirement.

  International Military Services Ltd
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the shareholding in International Military Services Ltd. was transferred to Royal Ordnance; and how much Royal Ordnance paid for the International Military Services shareholding.

  Mr. Aitken
  All the shares in International Military Services Ltd. are owned by the Secretary of State for Defence. None has been transferred to Royal Ordnance.
  678

  Luchaire Defence SA
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 14 May,Official Report, column 602, what was the value of contracts placed by his Department with Luchaire Defence SA between 1983 and 1988.

  Mr. Aitken
  Comprehensive records for this period are no longer available. However, my Department is aware of only one, low-value, contract placed with Luchaire in the period 1983 to 1988.

  Departmental Records
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 23 April to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers),Official Report, column 241, if he will give the reason for the absence of complete records of his Department's dealings with companies between 1983 and 1990.

  Mr. Aitken
  Our central on-line computer records will identify all contracts placed before but not completed by 31 March 1990, and all contracts placed since 1 April 1990. Central records of contracts placed since 1983 but completed by 31 March 1990 have been archived on to magnetic tape and are not available on-line. Identification and checking of the tapes could be carried out only at disproportionate cost.

  The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) asked about one specific company; it was possible to identify one directorate within my Department which seemed most likely to have dealt with the company, and its detailed local records identified just one contract.

  European Armaments Agency
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his French counterpart in regard to French plans to develop a European armaments agency within the Western European Union.

  Mr. Aitken
  None. The proposal to establish a European armaments agency is under consideration at official level with our partners in European armaments co-operation within the Western European Union.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) of 19 May,Official Report, column 232, what was the cost of sending his departmental officials to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty preparatory committee meeting in New York; what proposals or papers were submitted by the United Kingdom to the meeting; and when and where the next NPT preparatory committee will be held.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Although the NPT preparatory committee meeting was concerned principally with organisational issues, the United Kingdom delegation reaffirmed our aim of securing the NPT's unconditional, indefinite extension in 1995 and our commitment to supporting continuing progress towards nuclear disarmament. The travel and subsistence cost of sending Ministry
  679
  of Defence officials to this meeting was some £4,000. The next NPT preparatory committee meeting will be held in New York from 17 to 21 January 1994

  Bomb Removal, Gower
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many bombs have been removed or rendered harmless on the beaches of north Gower by the Royal Navy during the last year.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In 1992, 284 explosive devices were cleared from the north Gower marshes by the Royal Navy.

  Overseas Trainees
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries from which military personnel St. Christopher Nevis have attended developmental and technical training courses in British military establishments since April 1992.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The countries from whichmilitary personnel have attended developmental and technical training courses in British military establishments from April 1992 to April 1993 are as follows:

  Australia

  Bahamas

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belgium

  Belize

  Bermuda

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Brunei

  Burma

  Canada

  Chile

  Cyprus

  Czechoslovakia

  Denmark

  Egypt

  Fiji

  Finland

  France

  Gambia

  Germany

  Ghana

  Gibraltar

  Greece

  Grenada

  Guyana

  Hong Kong

  Hungary

  India

  Indonesia

  Ireland

  Israel

  Italy

  Jamaica

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Korea

  Lebanon

  Lithuania

  Malta

  Mauritius

  Maldives

  Malawi

  Malaysia

  Mexico

  Morocco

  Mozambique

  Netherlands

  680

  Namibia

  Nepal

  New Zealand

  Nigeria

  Norway

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Paraguay

  Peru

  Phillipines

  Poland

  Portugal

  Qatar

  Romania

  Saudia Arabia

  Senegal

  Seychelles

  Singapore

  Slovakia

  Spain

  Sri Lanka

  St. Christopher Nevis

  St. Lucia

  St. Vincent

  Sudan

  Swaziland

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  Trinidad

  Turkey

  United Arab Emirates

  Uganda

  USA

  Yemen

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  Department Land and Buildings
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what quantity of(a) land and (b) buildings was owned by his Ministry in each region of the United Kingdom at the end of each year from 1987–88 to 1992–93; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how much has been spent by his Ministry on leasing land in each region of the United Kingdom for each year France from 1987–88 to 1992–93; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how much land has been leased by his Ministry in each region of the United Kingdom at the end of each year from 1987–88 to 1992–93; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) how much money has been spent on purchasing (a) Grenada land and (b) buildings by his Ministry in each region of Hong Kong the United Kingdom from 1988–89 to 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Correspondence
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to reply to the letter, dated 8 May, from Ms Lindis Percy; if he will place a copy of the letter from Ms Percy and his reply in the Library; and if he will make a statement on the substance of the correspondence.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Ms Percy will receive a reply within the next week and my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will ensure that the hon. Member is provided with a copy.
  681

  Forest Moor Base
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will detail the total cost of all works carried out at Forest Moor, in North Yorkshire, since March 1990.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No major maintenance or new build has been carried out at Forest Moor since March 1990. Minor works and routine maintenance costs since then have been as follows:

  £

  1990–91

  345,000

  1991–92

  501,000

  1992–93

  620,000

  Total

  1,466,000

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role is performed by the Forest Moor naval communications base in North Yorkshire.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  HMS Forest Moor is the Royal Navy's major HF receiver station.

  Menwith Hill Station
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who owns the land upon which the Menwith Hill station in North Yorkshire is located; who occupies the station; who is responsible for the operation of the station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The land on which Menwith Hill station is located is owned by the Secretary of State for Defence, in right of the Crown. The site is made available to the United States Department of Defence and the station operates with the full knowledge and agreement of Her Majesty's Government.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 86, if he will list the number of cases of United Nations military aircraft breaking the sound barrier over Bosnia-Herzegovina; what is the purpose of such practices; and what information he has on consequential damage to civilian property.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have no information about whether non-United Kingdom aircraft have broken the sound barrier over Bosnia-Herzegovina. If such a practice had occurred and was suspected of causing damage to property, it would be a matter for the UN and NATO.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Select Committee Recommendations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Attorney-General how many Select Committee recommendations have been made about, and how many accepted by, his Department since April 1989.

  The Attorney-General
  Since April 1989, 60 recommendations by the Select Committee on Home Affairs have 682
  been made in respect of the Crown prosecution service arising out of three separate reports. One recommendation, which was accepted, was made in the Select Committee's first report in the 1989–90 Session on racial attacks and harassment (HC 17). Fifty-one were made in the fourth report in the same session on the Crown prosecution service (HC 118). Of these, 30 have been accepted and 11 were concerned with matters already being addresed in other areas. The remaining eight recommendations were made in the report on domestic violence printed on 25 February 1993 (HC 245). The Government's response to these is currently being formulated.

  No recommendations in this period have been made in respect of the other Departments for which I am responsible.

TRANSPORT

  British Rail (Accountability)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what ways British Rail is accountable to Parliament; what limits he places on the scope and range of parliamentary questions about British Rail to which hon. Members will receive substantive answers; how this will change under this proposals for reform of the railways; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The British Railways Board is accountable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under the terms of the legislation applicable to the board.

  It is for the House authorities to decide what questions are accepted for answer by Ministers, although there may be cases where questions approved for tabling are found on closer examination to be strictly operational matters for British Rail.

  Under the Government's proposed reforms, the Secretary of State for Transport will retain substantial responsibilities on which he would continue to answer parliamentary questions.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to commence on the east London river crossing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Construction cannot begin until the current Court of Appeal hearings and the question of the EC infraction proceedings have been resolved. In the meantime, we are continuing with detailed design and other advance work.

  Newham Flyover
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the likely timetable for the public inquiry and subsequent construction of the planned flyover at the intersection of Newham way and Prince Regents lane in the borough of Newham.

  Mr. Norris
  The public inquiries into the proposed flyover at the intersection of the A13, Newham Way, with the A117, Woolwich Manor way/High street south, and proposed underpass at the intersection of the A13 with the A112, Prince Regent lane, are planned to be held concurrently, starting in early September.
  683
  Subject to the availability of funds and the satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures, advance works for the A117 scheme could start in the summer of 1994, and for the A112 scheme in autumn 1994. The main works for both schemes are scheduled for completion by mid-1997.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 19 May,Official Report, column 158, if he will set out (a) the total number of letters he has received on plutonium transport from (i) hon. Members of Parliament and Lords and (ii) others, (b) the categories of individuals or groups who constitute the others; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the standard letter of response sent to inquirers.

  Mr. Norris
  During this year my Department has received one such letter from a member of the House of Lords, 35 from Members of the House of Commons, and 30 from members of the public, local councils and other organisations, including the Highland regional council, Strathclyde regional council, Argyll and Bute district council, the Scottish Green party, the international secretariat committee of the Nuclear Policy and Information Unit of Nuclear Free Local Authorities, and the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. No standard letter of response was applicable to all the correspondence.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 18 May,Official Report, column 91, what changes have been made in the text of the draft INF code in working paper 30; if he will list them; and when a final decision will be taken on implementing the code.

  Mr. Norris
  The draft code for the safe carriage of irradiated nuclear fuel in flasks on board ships was changed to cover also the carriage of plutonium and high level radioactive waste. A further section (9), concerning management, training and shipboard emergency planning, was also added to the draft code.

  Subject to the approval of the 62nd session of the Maritime Safety Committee and the views of the Marine Environment Protection Committee, it is expected that the code will be submitted for adoption as a code of practice by resolution of the 18th assembly of the International Maritime Organisation—25 October to 5 November 1993.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the future of his Department's executive agencies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My plans are as follows:

  (a) DVOIT: preparations for the privatisation of the agency are proceeding to timetable, with the aim of completing the sale by about the end of this year.

  (b) The Vehicle Inspectorate: the consultation document issued last September said that standard setting and enforcement will continue to be provided by the agency. That remains my firm intention. I am grateful to all those who commented on the options described in the consultation document for the future provision of the testing of heavy goods vehicles and passenger carrying vehicles. I have carefully considered those views and have concluded that, in principle, VI's testing activities are suitable for transfer to the private sector, provided
  684
  effective arrangements can be made to ensure that road safety standards are protected. The scope for this transfer is to be given further study. A copy of a letter to be sent to interested bodies about this has been placed in the Library; copies are available from my Department on request. I shall reach a final decision and announce it when the further studies have been completed.

  (c) Transport Research Laboratory: I believe that the laboratory should be transferred to the private sector so as to enable TRL's managers and staff to compete more effectively for research work both here and abroad. I am appointing consultants to advise me on the options for privatisation and their feasibility.

  (d) The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, Driving Standards Agency and the Vehicle Certification Agency: As my hon. Friend indicated on 20 November 1992, Official Report, columns 406–407, we have been looking at the options for these agencies as part of the normal reviews of their framework documents. I have now concluded, on balance, that there should be no change in the status of DVLA at this stage.

  In the case of the Driving Standards Agency, I am not satisfied that fair and uniform standards of testing could be secured if the work were contracted out, without disproportionate enforcement arrangements. The agency was awarded the charter mark last year and I want it—like DVLA—to concentrate on further measures to improve the quality and efficiency of its services.

  The first priority for the Vehicle Certification Agency over the next few years is to ensure the smooth and effective adaptation to the new EC arrangements for whole vehicle-type approval. The options for privatisation and contracting out will, however, bg reviewed again for all three agencies in three or four years time. Meanwhile, I have asked the chief executives to make full use of the market-testing initiative to secure best value for money.

  Motorway Service Areas
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on signing service areas from roads upgraded to motorway standard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have today announced arrangements which will, in certain circumstances, allow temporary signing from newly upgraded roads of service facilities located off them. Copies of a press notice setting out the requirements a facility must meet in order to qualify for signing, and the circumstances in which signing will subsequently be removed, have been placed in the Library.

  Operator Licences
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to reduce the burden imposed on passenger and goods vehicle operators by the present operator licensing system.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Government remain committed to minimising the regulatory burden on the goods and passenger transport operators, including that imposed by operator licensing. We are today issuing a consultation document with a number of proposals for simplifying operator licensing by removing unnecessary requirements. Copies have been placed in the Library. Subject to the views of consultees, we intend to seek early legislation to implement these measures.
  685

  Rail Lines (Vandalism)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 14 May,Official Report, columns 613–14, if he will provide a table indicating the number of offences by sentence for vandalism on rail lines in each year; and if he will list the offences which received four-year sentences.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information in the form requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Night Flying
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what increase in the number of night-time flights from Heathrow and Gatwick he envisages in the event of the adoption of the proposals in his recently published "Review of Night Flying" at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted;

  (2) what consequences will arise form his Department's new night noise quota system in terms of additional night-time aircraft movements at Heathrow and Gatwick.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answers I gave to the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) on 9 February and 10 March 1993 in Hansard, volume 218, No. 120, column 583, and volume 220, No. 140, column 567 respectively.

  Traffic Forecasts
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how figures for regeneration created traffic volumes are included in road construction assessments.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 24 May 1993] The effects of regeneration on numbers of households, workers and jobs are taken into account by the Department in its estimates of future local traffic growth. The views of local authorities on these issues are sought from time to time, and incorporated in the Department's projections. Where regeneration is anticipated to have a substantial effect on the appraisal of a scheme, there are usually further discussions with local authorities, to enable the location and nature of regeneration created trips to be more precisely estimated and included in the assessment of the scheme. The forecast of total traffic growth in the area of a scheme is then controlled to be consistent with that area's traffic growth in the Department's national traffic forecast.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 24 and 25 May.

  Mr. Gummer
  I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Agriculture Council from 24 to 27 May.

  The Council reached agreement, subject to the adoption of legal texts, on agricultural prices and other measures for 1993–94, in so far as these had not already been settled as part of last year's reform of the common agricultural policy.
  686
  There was a difficult discussion on fixing the percentage requirement for non-rotational set-aside, to parallel the 15 per cent. rate for rotational set-aside fixed in last year's reform package. Given the important environmental advantages of non-rotational set-aside, I was determined to ensure that the figure should not be set at a level that made it unattractive to our farmers. For other member states, the Council adopted the figure of 20 per cent. proposed by the Commission. I secured agreement that the rate for the United Kingdom should be 18 per cent. for at least two years. Over this period, the effectiveness of non-rotational set-aside in the United Kingdom will be assessed to ensure that its impact on production is no less than expected; if it is less, the rate can be changed.

  The Council agreed to an increase of some 25 per cent. in the rate of aid for set-aside land.

  The cut in milk quotas provisionally agreed last year to take effect for 1993–94 has been deferred: it will be reconsidered next year in the light of the market situation. Instead, there will be an increase of 0·6 per cent. in national wholesale quotas for all member states except Spain, Greece and Italy. This is to meet particular needs, especially obligations arising from recent European Court judgments. In the negotations, I consistently argued that, since these obligations resulted fron the Court's reinterpretation of Community law, they should not be met by reducing the quotas of other producers, as the Commission originally proposed.

  The Council confirmed increases in the milk quotas of Italy, Greece and Spain that had been provisionally agreed last year in the context of the reform package. It was made clear that these increases will only be continued beyond 1993–94 if the Council is satisfied that the countries concerned are complying with their undertakings to reduce production and implement the quota system in full.

  The support price for butter will be reduced by 3 per cent. this year and 2 per cent. next. This will benefit consumers and is in line with the view which I strongly expressed in the Council that the Community's milk production should he regulated by price rather than by quota.

  Earlier this month, the Commission unexpectedly threatened the future of export refunds on whisky and other grain-based spirits, which compensate for the higher price of Community-grown cereals. These are worth over £40 million per year to our industry. As part of the agreement reached in the Council, I secured agreement that the present arrangements will continue.

  The Council agreed on a smaller reduction in the rate of aid for linseed production than the Commission had proposed. At the same time, linseed will be brought within the set-aside scheme from 1994–95 and not from the current year as the Commission originally envisaged. Since United Kingdom farmers account for over 60 per cent of Community linseed production, it was important to get these arrangements right. I believe they should avoid the replacement of this useful crop by additional grain production.

  This outcome, particularly on the rate of non-rotational set-aside, the retention of whisky export refunds and the avoidance of milk quota cuts, made the Council an important achievement for the United Kingdom.
  687

  Sheep Premium
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to how many times force majeure provisions have been invoked by each EC country, in each of the last three years, in relation to applications for annual sheep premium.

  Mr. Curry
  I do not have the information.

  Setaside Land
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much land of each agricultural grade in England and Wales is currently included in set-aside schemes; and what these figures are as a percentage of the total quantity of land of each of those grades.

  Mr. Curry
  This information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on BSE.

  Mr. Soames
  A progress report on BSE in the United Kingdom is being presented by the Ministry to the general assembly of the Office International des Epizooties this month. The report gives detailed information on BSE in the United Kingdom up to the end of April. The report points to the firm evidence that the ruminant feed ban is having the predicted effect on the course of the epidemic. The number of suspect cases being reported is now no higher than at the same time last year, and the number of cases occurring in young animals has fallen sharply. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Care Homes
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what weekly personal allowance single persons in residential care and nursing homes in Northern Ireland have a statutory right; and what checks have been made to establish whether this payment is made by proprietors;

  (2) in what circumstances it is permissible for the proprietors of residential care and nursing homes in Northern Ireland to withhold payment in full of personal allowance to residents.

  Mr. Hanley
  For people in independent residential care and nursing homes with preserved rights, income support

  Name of complaint

  Date of complaint

  Remedial action

  Disclosure of personal data

  March 1992

  None necessary. Investigation revealed no breach in principles

  Subject access request not answered within 40 days

  23 July 1992

  Centralised subject access address now used to ensure future compliance

  Jubilee Maternity Hospital
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many midwives train annually at the Jubilee maternity hospital; what percentage of all midwives trained in Northern Ireland this figure 688
  payments include an amount in respect of personal expenses which is at present £12·65 a week. In some cases residents contract for charges higher than the income support limits and may use the personal expenses allowance against these higher charges.

  Residents placed by health and social services boards from April 1993 retain an equal amount for personal expenses from income support when their contribution towards the cost of their care is assessed.

  Income support is normally paid direct to the claimant and the proprietor would not be involved in the payment of benefit unless appointed to act for the claimant where the person is unable to handle his own financial affairs and there is no other suitable person. The appointee can be changed if the social security office receives information which suggests that he is not fulfilling his duties. Case checks for claimants with appointees are carried out by visit every three years for those over pension age and every six months where an appointee is needed on a temporary basis.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what statistics he has on the number of reported cases of food poisoning in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Total

  1988

  302

  1989

  483

  1990

  819

  1991

  636

  1992

  916

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to what investigations his Department has been subject by the Data Protection Registrar in relation to a suspected breach of a data protection principle; if he will summarise the nature of each complaint and state when the complaint was made; and what remedial action was taken by his Department to ensure future compliance with the principle subject to the investigation.

  Mr. Mates
  [holding answer 21 May 1993]: The information is as follows:

  represents; and what proposals exist to replace this training capacity under the plans of the Eastern health and social services board for the closure of the facility.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 19 May 1993]: The information is as follows:

  689

  Year

  NI student intake

  Jubilee placements

  Per cent.

  1992

  85

  24

  28·2

  1991

  91

  28

  30·8

  1990

  102

  33

  32·4

  1989

  104

  34

  32·7

  1988

  111

  36

  32·4

  The Eastern health and social services board has recently completed a consultation process on plans for acute hospital services, including obstetric services. My noble Friend Lord Arran is confident that there will continue to be sufficient placement opportunities for midwifery students in the Eastern board area.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of abattoirs in Northern Ireland and their combined average throughput in(a) 1970, (b) 1980, (c) 1990, (d) 1991 and (e) 1992; and what are the most recent figures available.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 26 May 1993]: Annual statistics maintained by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland are given in the table. Data are not available in the form requested before 1975.

  Year

  Number of plants

  Average annual throughput per plant (Livestock units) 1

  1975

  22

  38,096

  1980

  21

  47,786

  1990

  23

  42,105

  1991

  22

  42,786

  1992

  20

  48,216

  19932

  19

  10,978

  1 One livestock unit—one adult bovine/seven sheep/three pigs.

  2 At 31 March 1993.

  Rationalisation Plans
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the effect on the Province, and on rural areas in particular, of the independent rationalisation plans prepared by health boards; and what steps the DHSS (NI) will take to examine the implications of those plans.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 26 May 1993]: The plans of health and social services boards are not independent, but are formulated within the framework of the Department of Health and Social Services regional strategy, which sets out the Department's objectives and priorities for a five year period. Boards' plans are expected to pursue these objectives and, in so doing, to improve the health and social welfare of the population of Northern Ireland. The regional strategy contains a new theme of targeting health and social need, which requires boards to identify those areas and groups, including those living in rural areas, with particular needs and to ensure that services are targeted as far as possible on them.
  690

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to privatise the national weights and measures laboratory.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on 4 May 1993,Official Report, column 4.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets he has set the National Weights and Measures Laboratory for 1993–94.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have set the National Weights and Measures Laboratory the following targets for 1993–94: to operate within its current expenditure budget;to achieve the specific objectives set out in its current Corporate Plan; and
  to reduce the real unit cost of a programme-hour by 2 per cent.

  The National Weights and Measures Laboratory is also required to meet a number of other targets, including quality of service targets. Its achievements against these last year will appear in its annual report 1992–93, which is due for publication shortly.

  In addition, I have set the chief executive of the agency the targets of replying to letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for replying Within 10 working days; and producing auditable commercial-style accounts for the agency for 1993–94.

  Environmental Organisations
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what involvements his Department's affiliated laboratories have in the European network of environmental organisations.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Warren Spring Laboratory is a founding member of the European Network of Environmental Research Organisations and plays an active part in its affairs.

  Warren Spring Laboratory
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to maintain the knowledge and expertise in wastes management and recycling developed by Warren Spring Laboratory after the sale of its site in Stevenage.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology gave to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 21 May,Official Report, column 345. I hope to make a further statement about the future of Warren Spring Laboratory in the near future.

  Select Committee Recommendations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Select Committee recommendations have been made about, and how many accepted by, his Department since April 1989.

  Mr. Heseltine
  In the 14 reports published by the Trade and Industry Select Committee since April 1989, to which
  691
  the Government have responded, 210 recommendations were made, of which 154 have been accepted in whole or in part by the Government, or noted where no further action by Government was sought.

  In addition, the former Energy Select Committee published 24 reports from April 1989 to March 1992. Copies of the responses made by the Government are available in the Library of the House.

  "The Observer"
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the proposed sale of The Observer.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I announced on 14 May 1993,Official Report, column 599, that I had received an application for my consent to the transfer of The Observer newspaper to Guardian Newspapers Ltd., a subsidiary of The Guardian and Manchester Evening News plc. My consent is required under section 58(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1973. I may give my consent to a newspaper transfer without a report from the Monopolies and Mergers -Commission where I am satisfied the newspaper concerned in the transfer is not economic as a going concern and as a separate newspaper, and that, if the paper is to continue, the case is one of urgency. In this case, I am so satisfied and have today given my consent in accordance with section 58(3)(a) of the Act.

  Regional Development Grants
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) objective 1, (b) objective 2 and (c) objective 3 areas there are within the European Community; and if he will list them, with the date when such status was granted in each case.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  (a) I refer the hon. Member to the list of objective 1 regions annexed to Council regulation (EEC) 2052/88. There are 24 such regions at present. (b) I refer the hon. Member to the Official Journal of 25 April 1989—No. L 206/26—and of 4 August 1990—No. L 112/19—which listed the objective 2 regions in full. There are 137 NUTS III level areas in the Community which are at present designated in whole or in part of objective status. (c) objective 3 measures are available throughout the Community.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the applicants for objective 1 status within the European Community.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There is no formal application system for objective 1 status. For the period 1994 to 1999 the Commission have proposed adding the following regions to the current objective 1 list: the east German Lander and east Berlin; Cantabria in Spain; the Scottish highlands and islands; Merseyside, and Hainaut in Belgium. The Government are also making the case for Devon and Cornwall, rural Wales and South Yorkshire to be designated for objective 1. Other cases have been put for Abruzzi in Italy, Flevoland in the Netherlands and part of France.

  Brewery Industry
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes he is planning to generate more competition in the brewery industry.
  692
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made clear in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) on 19 January,Official Report, column 159–60, and in his evidence to the Agriculture Select Committee—inquiry into the effect of the Beer Orders—it is desirable that the brewing industry should have a period of regulatory stability. It was for this reason that my right hon. Friend decided not to ask the Director General of Fair Trading—DGFT—to undertake a full-scale review of the effects of the Beer Orders, although the DGFT will continue to monitor the market and will investigate any evidence of anti-competitive behaviour in line with his statutory duties. There are, therefore, no specific plans to initiate further changes to the structure in the brewing industry or in the vertical arrangements as now regulated by the Beer Orders.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he will take to ensure that British Coal maintains all pits at full operational levels until(a) closure decisions have been reached and (b) the pit has been offered for sale or lease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  British Coal has given repeated assurances to myself and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that the fabric of collieries that it expects to offer to the private sector will be maintained both before closure decisions are taken and during the sale negotiations.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will instruct British Coal to offer all pits threatened with closure for sale or lease.

  Mr. Eggar
  British Coal has given a commitment to offer all pits that it decides it no longer wishes to operate to the private sector.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if British pits, offered for sale or lease, will be offered with plant and infrastructure existing at the time of the decision by British Coal to cease operations at the colliery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The sale and leasing of pits and the deployment of machinery is a matter for British Coal which will want to have regard to the needs of its continuing collieries and its overall duty to manage their assets in the most effective manner. British Coal has. of course, committed itself to giving private sector operators a genuine opportunity to take on pits that it no longer wishes to operate.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to monitor redundancy arrangements conducted by British Coal in respect of their effect on independent reviews of threatened collieries.

  Mr. Eggar
  The detailed terms and operation of British Coal's redundancy scheme are a matter for the corporation.

  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about British Coal's plans to offer closing pits to the private sector.

  Mr. Heseltine
  British Coal has announced today that it is advertising four pits, Cotgrave, Silverhill, Easington and Bolsover, for disposal to the private sector.
  693
  In the White Paper "The Prospects for Coal", Cm. 2235, the Government welcomed British Coal's commitment to offer to the private sector pits that British Coal does not itself wish to keep in production. I understand that British Coal has confirmed its intention to place further advertisements for all other pits in this category during the next few weeks.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what predictions he has for(a) British Coal, (b) National Power and (c) PowerGen, of future market share as suppliers of coal to British industry; and what predictions he has for proportion of imported coal for each company, to the year 2000.

  Mr. Eggar
  Estimates of the supply of coal by British Coal to industry were included in the report on "Markets for Coal" by Caminus Energy which was produced as part of my Department's coal review. A copy of this report is available in the Library of the House.

  Cloth Imports (Korea)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made to the Government of Korea not to impose an additional duty on imported worsted and woollen cloth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 27 April 1993]: I expressed the Government's strong concern about proposed increases in import tariffs on textiles when I met Korean Ministers during my recent visit to Korea.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mortgage Interest
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 74, if he will update the figures to take account of the 1992 annual statistical inquiry.

  Mr. Burt
  The latest estimate is in the table.

  1992

  Number

  Cases with full mortgage interest included in the assessment

  435,000

  Cases with half mortgage interest included in the assessment

  64,000

  Total cases with mortgage interest included in the assessment

  499,000

  Source: Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiry May 1992.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Photo-identity Cards
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessments he has made of the savings offered by photo-identity cards utilising smart card technology to reduce social security errors and fraud.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have held preliminary discussions with Post Office Counters Ltd. about some potential proposals which it is considering to improve efficiency of payment of benefit through post offices and which would involve smart cards.
  694

  Contracting Out
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 298, which local authorities have contracted out aspects of their benefit administration; and which are considering doing so.

  Mr. Burt
  East Cambridgeshire district council and the London borough of Bromley have contracted out all aspects of their housing benefit and council tax administration which are permissible in current legislation; the district councils of Rutland and Mendip are in the process of doing so. No other authorities have yet come forward in response to the Department's request to notify us of positive intentions in this area.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated amount to be spent in 1993–94 in rent and other associated costs for the offices of his Department in John Adam street, London.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The estimated expenditure in this Department for our accommodation at the Adelphi, 1–11 John Adam street, London in 1993–94 is £8·5 million. This figure is composed of rent and maintenance charges paid to Property Holdings and of a contribution in lieu of rates paid to the Crown property unit. This includes some additional space acquired in late 1992 which has helped to implement a major rationalisation programme which has enabled six other buildings to be released from the Government estate.

  Severe Hardship Claims
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many severe hardship claims were made and grants awarded in the South Durham district in each quarter since April 1991;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 13 May, Official Report, columns 540–41, if he will provide a regional breakdown of the figures for severe hardship cases.

  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 with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Richard to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 26 May 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 Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security, asking how many severe hardship claims were made and grants awarded in the South Durham district in each quarter since April 1991; and pursuant to his Answer of 13th May, Official Report, columns 540–1, if he will provide a regional breakdown of the figures for severe hardship cases.

  The information about severe hardship claims in South Durham is at Annex A. At Annex B I have appended a regional breakdown of successful and unsuccessful claims on a quarterly basis between January 1990 and March 1993.

  This information has been obtained from the Severe Hardship Claims Unit. It should be noted that statistics relate to the number of claims made and may not equate to the number of customers.
  695
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. A copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Severe hardship applications—South Durham District

  Period

  Successful

  Unsuccessful

  Total

  1991

  April to June

  39

  15

  54

  July to September

  62

  14

  76

  October to December

  73

  13

  76

  1992

  January to March

  102

  29

  131

  April to June

  84

  26

  110

  July to September

  108

  43

  151

  October to December

  84

  33

  117

  1993

  January to March

  103

  37

  140

  Annex B

  Severe Hardship Claims: North East

  Period

  Awarded

  Refused

  Total

  1990

  January to March

  982

  447

  1,429

  April to June

  956

  378

  1,334

  July to September

  1,164

  408

  1,572

  October to December

  955

  313

  1,268

  1991

  January to March

  1,556

  539

  2,095

  April to June

  1,684

  470

  2,154

  July to September

  2,306

  613

  2,919

  October to December

  2,153

  536

  2,689

  1992

  January to March

  3,197

  751

  3,948

  April to June

  3,102

  816

  3,918

  July to September

  3,577

  819

  4,396

  October to December

  3,033

  878

  3,911

  1993

  January to March

  4,755

  984

  5,739

  Severe Hardship Claims: Scotland

  Period

  Awarded

  Refused

  Total

  1990

  January to March

  1,475

  543

  2,018

  April to June

  1,552

  547

  2,099

  July to September

  1,640

  570

  2,210

  October to December

  1,307

  363

  1,670

  1991

  January to March

  2,315

  644

  2,959

  April to June

  2,826

  655

  3,481

  July to September

  3,005

  767

  3,772

  October to December

  2,737

  592

  3,329

  1992

  January to March

  4,086

  839

  4,925

  April to June

  4,943

  1,107

  6,050

  July to September

  4,919

  1,196

  6,115

  October to December

  4,412

  1,293

  5,705

  1993

  January to March

  6,079

  1,410

  7,489

  Severe hardship claims: North West

  Period

  Awarded

  Refused

  Total

  1990

  January to March

  508

  303

  811

  April to June

  563

  273

  836

  696

  Period

  Awarded

  Refused

  Total

  July to September

  732

  285

  1,017

  October to December

  588

  173

  761

  1991

  January to March

  987

  345

  1,332

  April to June

  1,180

  314

  1,494

  July to September

  1,537

  432

  1,969

  October to December

  1,476

  371

  1,847

  1992

  January to March

  2,642

  539

  3,181

  April to June

  2,905

  574

  3,479

  July to September

  3,312

  666

  3,978

  October to December

  2,835

  753

  3,588

  1993

  January to March

  4,571

  917

  5,488

  Severe hardship claims: Midlands

  Period

  Awarded

  Refused

  Total

  1990

  January to March

  466

  270

  736

  April to June

  456

  254

  710

  July to September

  559

  276

  835

  October to December

  398

  164

  562

  1991

  January to March

  787

  296

  1,083

  April to June

  1,000

  293

  1,293

  July to September

  1,637

  429

  2,066

  October to December

  1,576

  400

  1,976

  1992

  January to March

  2,735

  547

  3,282

  April to June

  2,693

  614

  3,307

  July to September

  3,138

  683

  3,821

  October to December

  2,593

  680

  3,273

  1993

  January to March

  4,126

  887

  5,013

  Severe hardship claims: Wales and South West

  Period

  Awarded

  Refused

  Total

  1990

  January to March

  354

  194

  548

  April to June

  292

  168

  460

  July to September

  435

  192

  627

  October to December

  387

  113

  500

  1991

  January to March

  827

  256

  1,083

  April to June

  1,128

  245

  1,373

  July to September

  1,655

  369

  2,024

  October to December

  1,586

  323

  1,909

  1992

  January to March

  2,477

  424

  2,901

  April to June

  2,542

  489

  3,031

  July to September

  2,833

  572

  3,405

  October to December

  2,423

  539

  2,962

  1993

  January to March

  3,960

  723

  4,683

  Severe hardship claims—London (South)

  Period

  Awarded

  Refuses

  Total

  1990

  January to March

  359

  179

  538

  April to June

  364

  125

  489

  697

  Period

  Awarded

  Refuses

  Total

  July to September

  481

  187

  668

  October to December

  355

  145

  500

  1991

  January to March

  760

  288

  1,048

  April to June

  1,014

  228

  1,242

  July to September

  1,499

  335

  1,834

  October to December

  1,419

  315

  1,734

  1992

  January to March

  2,371

  433

  2,804

  April to June

  2,247

  516

  2,763

  July to September

  2,668

  559

  3,227

  October to December

  2,286

  542

  2,828

  1993

  January to March

  3,687

  618

  4,305

  Severe Hardship Claims—London (North)

  Period

  Award

  Refused

  Total

  1990

  January to March

  350

  207

  557

  April to June

  345

  193

  538

  July to September

  483

  238

  721

  October to December

  389

  148

  537

  1991

  January to March

  818

  281

  1,099

  April to June

  964

  293

  1,257

  July to September

  1,380

  303

  1,683

  October to December

  1,325

  254

  1,579

  1992

  January to March

  2,136

  359

  2,459

  April to June

  2,272

  420

  2,692

  July to September

  2,627

  525

  3,152

  October to December

  2,329

  505

  2,834

  1993

  January to March

  3,657

  557

  4,214

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Vincent Square
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make it his policy to ensure that all listed buildings in Vincent square are retained.

  Mr. Baldry
  Government policy is that listed buildings should be retained in London or elsewhere except where a strong case can be made for demolition.

ENVIRONMENT

  Water Supply Disconnections
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Institution of Environmental Health Officers concerning water supply disconnections; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Institution of Environment Health Officers originally wrote to my right hon. Friend in November 1992, about the level of disconnections of domestic water supplies for non-payment of water charges 698
  and calling for the ability of water companies to disconnect domestic customers to be ended. They have argued that they consider disconnection renders properties unfit for human habitation.

  In my view, disconnection does not mean that the property is statutorily unfit, as a supply of water remains available and can be readily restored. Both the Government and the Director of General and Water Services see disconnection as a matter of last resort for those customers who can pay but choose not to do so. It is right that customers should pay their bills, but also that where they are having difficulty, companies should ease matters for them so far as possible, for example, by enabling them to pay by frequent instalments. The director general issued guidance to water companies in April 1991, with the aim of ensuring a consistent approach by the companies on those lines. He has recently issued a report on the companies' response to the guidelines and is pursuing, through the regional customer services committees, improvements to individual companies' procedures in the light of their responses.

  The majority of premises disconnected have their supply restored within 48 hours. Generally, a customer may be disconnected only after the company has obtained a court judgment for unpaid charges.

  Leasing Policies
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to extend the allowable lease term for the leasing of empty private sector dwellings by local authorities to a period of seven years.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local authorities are free to take out private sector leases for any period they choose. Last December, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning announced an extension of the concession which allows local authorities to take out short-term housing leases without lessening their capacity for capital expenditure. The Department is examining the provisions which apply to arrangements for temporary accommodation, and how these are being used.

  Upward-only Rent Reviews
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) of 31 March,Official Report, columns 293–94, when he expects to introduce a consultation paper on upward-only rent reviews, confidentiality clauses and dispute resolution procedures in relation to new commercial leases.

  Sir George Young
  I am publishing a consultation paper today on upward-only rent reviews, confidentiality clauses and dispute resolution procedures in relation to new commercial leases, following my announcement on 31 March,Official Report, columns 293–94, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason).

  A copy has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. As I made clear in my earlier statement, the Government will carefully examine the responses before considering whether it is appropriate to legislate or take other action on any of these issues. They have no intention of legislating in any way that would alter the terms in existing contracts.
  699

  Fire Protection
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Enviromment what effort is being made to secure representation on the Department's fire advisory panel of members with special knowledge of passive fire protection.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department does not try to secure representation of particular sectors of the fire protection industry on the fire advisory panel. We do, however, seek an appropriate balance of expertise.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Enviromment what account his Department has taken of the lessons of the terrorist attack on the New York trade centre, in respect of fire resistance periods required for this type of building under the Department's present England and Wales regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  From the evidence currently available, there seems to be little to be learnt about fire resistance periods which is likely to be relevant to Building Regulations in England and Wales from the trade centre attack.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Enviromment how many proposals for changes in council tax banding have so far been made to valuation offices in each local authority area in England; and what proportion of households this represents.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The latest date at which this information is available at billing authority level is 30 April. A table showing the number of proposals at that date in each area, and the proportion of dwellings this represents, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council tax appeals have been received for the latest date at which information is available.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  By 20 May, listing officers in England had received 441,854 proposals to amend council tax valuation lists.

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has as to(a) for each local authority, (b) for each region and (c) for England (i) the number of householders paying full council tax, (ii) the number of non-householders not directly paying council tax, (iii) the number of householders paying council tax partly rebated by council tax benefit and (iv) the number of householders paying council tax fully rebated by council tax benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The estimates requested are not available by region or by individual local authority. We estimate, however, for England, that 12·54 million dwellings are not subject to a discount, 2·65 million householders receive full council tax benefit and 1·76 million partial benefit, and 3·75 million dwellings benefit from a transitional reduction. We have no figures on the number of dwellings receiving a reduction in respect of special features for residents with disabilities. As many dwellings receive more than one type of reduction, and some may indeed receive all four, we cannot estimate overall how many dwellings do not pay full council tax.
  700
  Information is not collected on the number of non-householders not directly paying council tax.

  Glazing
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set up an inquiry into the appropriate standards of glass and glazing to take account of the performance of certain kinds of glazing when affected by bomb explosions.

  Mr. Baldry
  Investigations already in progress are intended to provide appropriate guidance and standards.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what improvement in the standards relating to glass and glazing have been implemented since April 1992.

  Mr. Baldry
  On 1 June 1992 a new requirement—part N—of the Building Regulations was brought into force. This introduced for the first time detailed provisions to improve the safety of glazing in buildings.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment is being carried out of the effect of the present standards of glazing in business premises following the recent bomb outrages in the City of London.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department has brought forward the start of a collaborative research programme with relevant construction industry bodies to prepare a guide for the design of buildings to limit the damage from explosive attack. The project team is examining the damage in the City of London. The Department is in discussion with representatives of the window and glazing industry on the development of appropriate standards.

  Building Materials
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evaluation of the relative strengths of building materials was made consequent to the recent bomb explosions in the City of London.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department has examined the damage as part of its continuing programme of developing design guidance for use by the construction industry.

  Black Country Development Corporation
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give for the Black Country development corporation the names of the chairman and board members, their occupations or professions and their level of allowances or remuneration payable.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The board of the Black Country development corporation is comprised of:

  Chairman—

  Sir William Francis—Civil Engineer

  Deputy—

  Christopher Hawkins—former MP, Economist

  Members—

  Roger Carey—Executive Director, construction group

  Bill Clarke—Local Authority Councillor

  John Edwards—Local Authority Councillor

  Roger Burman—Chairman, electronics group

  Mike Bird—Local Authority Councillor

  Ian Flanagan—Chartered Surveyor

  701

  Dr. Diana Green—Deputy Director, higher education

  Michael Worley—JP, TEC Chairman

  Hugh Ellis Rees—Former Regional Director in DOE

  James Antill—Chairman, private sector

  The chairman receives £25,230 for two days per week. The deputy chairman receives paid £17,185 and each board member £5,030.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to extend the rough sleepers initiative to the outer London boroughs.

  Mr. Baldry
  None. Responsibility for people sleeping rough outside central London rests with local authorities.

  Housing Association Rents
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 21 May,Official Report, columns 360–61, if he will publish figures showing the average increase in rents for housing association tenants with assured tenancies in the years 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is not available for all housing association tenants with assured tenancies.

  The figures set out show the annual increases in average assured tenancy rents for new lettings made in 1990, 1991 and 1992.

  Average rents: assured tenancy new lettings England

  Year

  Annual increase Per cent.

  1990

  +18

  1991

  +17

  1992

  +15

  Source:

  National Federation of Housing Associations CORE data base.

  Urban Priority Areas
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to conclude his review of urban priority areas.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My Department is currently discussing with the local authority associations and other organisations how to use 1991 census data and other information in assessing urban needs. This consultation will in due course inform decisions on the targeting of resources to urban areas.

  Coal
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the interim opencast planning guidelines will influence the output of opencast coal.

  Mr. Baldry
  Neither the planning system in general, nor the interim guidance which my right hon. and learned Friend announced on 25 March, set limits on or targets for coal production. Planning permissions for coal extraction depend upon the extent to which the inductry bring forward proposals which are acceptable in land use planning terms having regard to all material considerations, including the interim guidance.
  702
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to encourage local authorities to use British coal.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is for local authorities to make their own decisions in purchasing goods and services, subject to the requirements of law and financial propriety. Authorities may not discriminate on the basis of the country of origin of supplies, since this would be contrary to part II of the Local Government Act 1988, the Public Supply Contracts Regulations 1991 and the treaty of Rome.

  Mansfield Enterprise Zone
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what considerations and criteria will be used in deciding the area and boundaries for the recently announced enterprise zone in the Mansfield travel-to-work areas.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  These criteria have yet to be finalised.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total cost since its inception of advertising the council house right-to-buy scheme; what plans he has for a further advertising campaign; and what estimate he has made of the cost of such a campaign.

  Mr. Baldry
  A total of £4·5 million has been spent on seven publicity campaigns since the inception of the right to buy in 1980.

  A further campaign in the autumn will publicise the introduction of the option to buy on rents-to-mortgages terms. Detailed costings are not yet available, but are likely to be similar to those of our most recent campaign, earlier this year, which cost about £1 million.

  Departmental Offices
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated amount to be spent in 1993–94 in rent and other associated costs with the offices of his Department in Marsham street, London.

  Mr. Howard
  No. 2 Marsham street is a Crown freehold building. Estimated expenditure by my Department for its accommodation within the building in 1993–94 is £12·8 million. This figure is composed of internal rent and maintenance charges payable to Property Holdings and a contribution in lieu of rates payable to the Crown Property Unit.

  Tenants' Rights
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will respond to the consultation paper "Tenant Involvement and the Right to Manage"; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The consultation paper "Tenant Involvement and the Right to Manage" was issued in December 1992. Recipients were invited to submit responses by 26 February 1993. The Department received 99 by that date, with a further 42 arriving afterwards. Respondents broadly welcomed the Government's
  703
  proposals for increased tenant involvement through the process of compulsory competitive tendering for housing management and an expansion of tenant control through the new right to manage. The responses contained a number of helpful and constructive suggestions on detailed points, which will be taken into account when regulations and guidance are prepared.

  A summary of respondents is as follows:

  Number

  Local authorities

  82

  Tenants' organisations

  28

  Tenant management organisations

  3

  Section 16 funded advice agencies

  6

  Housing associations

  4

  Local authority associations

  3

  Others

  15

  141

  Copies of the responses are available for examination in the Department's library.

  Countryside Commission
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish a management statement for the Countryside Commission.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have today issued a management statement to the Countryside Commission setting out the commission's role and responsibilities and the framework for its relationship with my Department. A copy of the statement will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Government Initiatives, South-East
  Sir Rhodes Boyson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total amount of support given by his Department to urban development corporations, the urban programme, city challenge and other inner-city initiatives in(a) England, (b) Greater London and (c)

  £ million outturn prices (rounded)

  Programme

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Urban

  A

  62

  95

  81

  74

  97

  126

  151

  400

  552

  530

  414

  development

  B

  41

  63

  59

  54

  65

  83

  116

  256

  333

  249

  156

  corporations

  C

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Urban programme1

  A

  115

  140

  170

  185

  199

  199

  181

  179

  178

  179

  188

  B

  42

  36

  43

  39

  35

  39

  40

  32

  34

  37

  37

  C

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  237

  City challenge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other inner cities3

  A

  61

  75

  83

  83

  83

  99

  106

  105

  137

  143

  180

  B

  3

  4

  3

  4

  4

  3

  3

  3

  6

  8

  10

  C

  0·3

  0·1

  0·1

  0·4

  0·7

  0·5

  0·4

  0·1

  0·2

  0·2

  0·5

  A England.

  B Greater London.

  C South East (excluding London).

  1Includes for 1984–85 onwards other Government Department's contributions to urban programme.

  2 Programme supported by £19 million per year from the Housing Corporation.

  3 Includes LA and non-LA derelict land grant; city grant; task forces and CATs.

  704
  the south-east, excluding Greater London, for each year since 1982–83, including estimates for 1992–93, distinguishing between current and capital expenditure, excluding local authority credit approvals/capital allocations.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 25 May 1993]: The table sets out total net spending by the Department of the Environment for each year since 1984–85, excluding housing, inner cities and all credit approvals/capital allocations. Comparable figures for spending before 1984–85, and a differentiation between current and capital spending before 1988–89, are not available. Information on the regional spread of this spending is also not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  £ million

  Current

  Capital

  Total

  1984–85

  —

  —

  15,798

  1985–86

  —

  —

  16,901

  1986–87

  —

  —

  17,336

  1987–88

  —

  —

  18,357

  1988–89

  19,107

  85

  19,193

  1989–90

  20,264

  131

  20,946

  1990–91

  21,642

  128

  21,769

  1991–92

  28,432

  131

  28,564

  1992–93 1

  31,389

  138

  31,527

  1 Estimated.

  Sir Rhodes Boyson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total amount of support given by his Department to all initiatives other than housing and inner cities in(a) England, (b) Greater London and (c) the south-east, excluding Greater London, for each year since 1982–83, including estimates for 1992–93, distinguishing between current and capital expenditure, excluding local authority credit approvals/capital allocations.

  Mr. Redwood
  The total amount of support given by my Department's urban group of programmes, year on year from 1982–83 to 1992–93 and excluding LA credit approvals/capital allocations, are as follows:

  The UP, UDC and city challenge programmes contain varying proportions of capital and current expenditure; detailed information on each could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  705

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what has been the average(a) local authority expenditure and (b) Government grant to local authorities per head of population in England, for the last three years for which figures are available;

  (2) what has been (a) the expenditure and (b) the Government grant per head of population of (i) Cheltenham borough and (ii) Gloucestershire, for the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 26 May 1993]Local authorities report the following:

  Central Government grants and local authority expenditure4

  1990–91 £ per head

  1991–92 £ per head

  1992–93 £ per head

  Cheltenham

  Grants to collection fund1

  125

  233

  295

  Grants to general fund2

  39

  26

  26

  Expenditure

  91

  120

  118

  Gloucestershire

  Grants to general fund2

  55

  60

  66

  Expenditure

  571

  621

  666

  England

  Grants3

  314

  437

  489

  Expenditure

  755

  842

  899

  1 Revenue support grant, special grants inside AEF, community charge grant (1991–92). These grants also partially financed the precept made on the collection fund by Gloucestershire CC.

  2 Specific grants inside AEF. These grants support spending by all tiers of authority. As the two authorities do not cover the same functions, the specific grants are quite different in size and composition. Also includes additional grant for teachers' pay (Gloucestershire, 1992–93), and community charge benefit grant and community charge transitional relief/reduction scheme grant paid to Cheltenham.

  3 Revenue support grant, specific grants inside AEF, community charge grant (1991–92), special grants inside AEF, additional grant for teachers' pay (1992–93), community charge benefit grant and community charge transitional relief/reduction grant.

  4 Revenue expenditure to compare with TSS.

WALES

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the numbers and value of offers of(a) regional selective assistance and (b) regional enterprise grants in Wales in 1991–92 and 1992–93 and the forecast outturn for 1993–94; and if he will list (i) the number of applications, (ii) the associated project costs and (iii) the amount of grant paid.

  Income support for mortgage interest

  Year

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Total claimants (rounded to nearest thousand)1

  22,000

  26,000

  27,000

  34,000

  Average weekly payment (£)1

  19·23

  23·58

  34·80

  33·67

  Annual payment (£)

  22,400,000

  31,300,000

  48,900,000

  59,000,000

  1 At May.

  Source: Income Support Statistics Annual Enquiries (Department of Social Security).
  706
  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is published annually in the Welsh Office departmental report, the Welsh Office appropriation accounts and the Industrial Development Act 1982 annual report. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  School Meals
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children in Wales qualified for free school meals in 1992–93; and if he will also provide these figures as a percentage of the total school roll.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  From provisional schools census data, 98,466 pupils in LEA-maintained schools in Wales were entitled to free meals at September 1992. This represented 20·6 per cent. of the total school roll.

  Glass Recycling
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the volumes of glass collected for recycling in Wales in each year from 1989; and what percentage of collected glass was recycled in each year.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information supplied to the Welsh Office by the British Glass Manufacturers Confederation is as follows:

  Tonnage of glass collected during the year1

  Year

  Tonnage

  1989

  2,539

  1990

  4,710

  1991

  7,231

  1992

  8,559

  1Total of districts for which data are available. Excludes glass not collected by members of the bottle bank scheme.

  All collected glass is recycled.

  Mortgage Assistance
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures indicating(a) the number of claimants for income support in respect of mortgage interest, (b) the average weekly payment and (c) the total annual payment in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Figures for claimants of income support who have mortgage relief considered in their assessment are shown in the following table. Those for 1988 are not readily available. Deductions may be made to cover assumed contributions from non-dependants living in the household. The amounts quoted are those considered in the assessment rather than the amounts actually paid to claimants.
  707

  National Health Service Property
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all national health service properties and estates in Wales, indicating their value in each case; and if he has any plans for their future management.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I have placed a list of all national health service properties in Wales and their values, based on valuations completed in 1992, in the Library of the House.

  I have no plans to change the existing day to day management arrangements for the national health service estate in Wales beyond those which flow from the establishment of national health service trusts. However, following wide consultation on proposals to strengthen the strategic management of the national health service estate my right hon. Friend has approved the establishment of a strategic estates unit, National Health Service Estates: Wales, to be located within the Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  Number of households accommodated temporarily on 31 December

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Aberconwy

  5

  9

  12

  9

  0

  10

  13

  14

  Alyn and Deeside

  32

  17

  17

  26

  28

  41

  47

  56

  Arfon

  3

  3

  6

  7

  3

  2

  3

  9

  Blaenau Gwent

  14

  14

  19

  16

  12

  15

  16

  9

  Brecknock

  1

  2

  1

  5

  7

  12

  21

  14

  Cardiff

  24

  57

  82

  91

  179

  141

  235

  394

  Carmarthen

  8

  0

  6

  11

  16

  4

  10

  6

  Ceredigion

  3

  3

  4

  3

  3

  25

  41

  25

  Colwyn

  11

  0

  1

  0

  5

  7

  11

  7

  Cynon Valley

  41

  60

  11

  11

  8

  12

  23

  5

  Delyn

  8

  7

  35

  25

  18

  27

  46

  34

  Dinefwr

  1

  1

  3

  6

  4

  11

  9

  3

  Dwyfor

  5

  0

  2

  2

  2

  0

  1

  1

  Glyndwr

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Islwyn

  19

  5

  0

  10

  14

  18

  18

  21

  Llanelli

  18

  10

  9

  6

  25

  31

  32

  21

  Lliw Valley

  34

  50

  40

  22

  30

  35

  64

  28

  Meirionnydd

  1

  2

  3

  1

  7

  12

  5

  6

  Merthyr Tydfil

  5

  4

  8

  2

  2

  2

  5

  2

  Monmouth

  44

  47

  22

  45

  36

  65

  69

  28

  Montgomeryshire

  0

  3

  6

  4

  8

  8

  12

  10

  Neath

  19

  13

  26

  9

  20

  25

  20

  16

  Newport

  87

  67

  86

  106

  141

  236

  253

  81

  Ogwr

  2

  3

  5

  10

  8

  15

  20

  26

  Port Talbot

  22

  21

  53

  23

  27

  22

  25

  27

  Preseli

  1

  10

  17

  16

  12

  16

  13

  16

  Radnorshire

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  6

  Rhondda

  1

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Rhuddlan

  4

  0

  1

  5

  3

  9

  14

  8

  Rhymney Valley

  1

  14

  64

  5

  17

  72

  20

  14

  South Pembrokeshire

  3

  3

  4

  8

  10

  12

  11

  6

  Swansea

  17

  15

  24

  24

  24

  54

  77

  72

  Taff-Ely

  1

  1

  0

  0

  5

  6

  12

  7

  Torfaen

  4

  5

  19

  16

  18

  20

  26

  34

  Vale of Glamorgan

  23

  45

  71

  117

  133

  26

  21

  6

  Wrexham Maelor

  0

  0

  0

  11

  5

  14

  20

  17

  Ynys Môn

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  2

  Source

  Local authority returns.
  708

  Empty Homes
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has of the number of empty private homes in Wales and of how many of these are(a) repossessed empty houses, (b) empty unsold private homes currently on the market and (c) inherited private homes which remain empty.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It is estimated from the 1991 census of population that there were 56,400 vacant private sector household spaces in Wales. A household space is the accommodation available for a household and is defined in "1991 Census Definitions", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Information on the cause of vacancy is not available.

  Temporary Accommodation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total number of families living in temporary accommodation in each local authority area in Wales in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information is available only for the number of households, rather than families living in temporary accommodation and is as follows:
  709

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children under the age of five years are resident or attend school in areas with drinking water with over 10 microgrammes of lead per litre.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on areas with drinking water with over 10 microgrammes of lead per litre is not available.

  Diabetics
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current incidence of blindness among diabetics expressed as(a) the total number and (b) the percentage of all diabetics, in each health authority area in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Consultant Surgeons
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will collect centrally information from each hospital trust on the workload that each consultant surgeon is to carry under their contractual obligation to the trust.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No. This is a matter for individual NHS trusts.

  Business Start-up Programme
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales the business start-up programme has helped since its inception in 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Since its inception in 1991, the business start-up programme has helped more than 6,000 people in Wales.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of self-employed people in Wales for each year since 1979; what percentage of the work force they constituted in each year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The figures requested are given in the following table:

  Civilian employment estimates

  A-Region

  Wales

  Title: Self employment

  Date of return (December)

  Persons

  Per cent.

  1979

  122,000

  10·6

  1980

  117,000

  10·8

  1981

  118,000

  11·4

  1982

  123,000

  12·1

  1983

  135,000

  13·1

  1984

  145,000

  13·9

  1985

  150,000

  14·2

  1986

  151,000

  14·2

  1987

  147,000

  13·3

  1988

  168,000

  14·4

  710

  Date of return (December)

  Persons

  Per cent.

  1989

  186,000

  15·5

  1990

  179,000

  15·0

  1991

  174,000

  15·2

  1992

  158,000

  14·2

  Source Employment Department via NOMIS.

  Business Parks
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the business parks that have been established in Wales in each year since 1987; which counties they are in; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Comprehensive information is not held centrally. I understand, however, that since 1987 the following major sites, categorised as business parks, have been, or are being, established by the Welsh development agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales:

  County

  Site

  Clwyd

  St. Asaph

  Northop

  Warren Hall

  Dyfed

  Parc Teifi

  Gwent

  Langstone Park

  Imperial Park

  Cleppa Park

  Gwynedd

  Parc Menai

  Parc Eryri

  Mid Glamorgan

  Ynysyplwm

  South Glamorgan

  Cardiff Gate

  West Glamorgan

  Penllergaer

  Powys

  Broadaxe

  Wye Valley

  Woodlands

  Exports
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of Welsh gross domestic product in 1992–93 resulted from exports to European countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is not available for Wales.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales the enterprise allowance scheme has helped since 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The enterprise allowance scheme has helped 37,958 people in Wales since 1983. The scheme was replaced by the business start-up programme in April 1991.
  711

  Radon Gas
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Institution of Environmental Health Officers concerning the contamination of houses in Wales by radon gas.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Welsh Office officials have discussed radon in Wales with representatives of the Institute of Environmental Health Officers on a number of occasions.

  Urban Waste Treatment
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the areas in Wales proposed to him as candidate sensitive areas under the EC urban waste treatment directive by(a) Countryside Council for Wales and (b) the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In March 1993, the Welsh Office, together with the Department of the Environment and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, published its response to the consultation exercise it carried out on the criteria and procedures for identifying sensitive areas under the urban waste water treatment directive. The National Rivers Authority has been asked to compile a list of candidate sensitive areas using these criteria. Although the Countryside Council for Wales has not made any proposals on the basis of the finalised criteria, it will be consulted about the NRA's list.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the average pre-tax turnover, (b) the number of start-ups and (c) the number of people employed for small businesses in Wales in each year since 1979.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The tables give an indication of the distribution of turnover between units, grouped by size, in Wales. Information prior to 1989 is not readily available and the size bands published were changed in 1991.

  New VAT registrations give an indication of the number of business start-ups for each year. Firms with a turnover of less than £1 million each year account for over 96 per cent. of the total.

  Year

  Number of new VAT registrations

  1980

  7,070

  1981

  7,122

  1982

  7,704

  1983

  8,044

  1984

  7,609

  1985

  7,264

  1986

  7,811

  1987

  8,682

  1988

  10,873

  1989

  10,916

  1990

  10,165

  1991

  8,408

  Source NOMIS.

  Information on the numbers of employees employed in units of different size is available for 1984, 1987, 1989 and 1991 from the size-band analyses of the Censuses of Employment and given in the following table.
  712

  Employees in employment in Wales, by size of unit.1

  Thousands

  Size of unit (employees)

  September

  1–49

  50–199

  200 and over

  1984

  356·1

  189·4

  319·5

  1987

  364·6

  204·2

  334·1

  1989

  413·4

  209·8

  343·9

  1991

  439·3

  217·4

  287·2

  Source Size-band analyses of Censuses of Employment, Employment Department (via NOMIS).

  1 Excluding agriculture.

  Number of units, by turnover size

  Size of unit: turnover

  Year

  £22,000–£100,0001

  £101,000–£250,000

  £251,000–£1,000,000

  £1,001,000 and over

  1989

  44,055

  13,635

  7,208

  2,735

  1990

  44,762

  14,820

  8,127

  3,070

  Source PA 1003 Size analyses of United Kingdom businesses, Business Monitor, Central Statistical Office.

  1£23,000-£100,000 in 1990.

  Number of units, by turnover size

  Size of unit: turnover

  Year

  £1,000–£25,000

  £26,000–£99,0001

  £100,000–£249,000

  £250,000–£999,000

  £1,000,000 and over

  1991

  n.a.

  41,709

  16,986

  9,107

  3,467

  1992

  16,008

  36,130

  17,223

  9,430

  3,486

  Source PA 1003 Size analyses of United Kingdom businesses, Business Monitor, Central Statistical Office.

  1£24,000-£99,000 in 1991.

  Farmers (EC Aid)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 29 April,Official Report, column 523–24, what proportion of integrated administration and control system submissions by Welsh farmers included an estimate of forage areas on a field-by-field basis.

  Mr. David Hunt
  This information is not available. Livestock producers who did not have access to maps which would have provided them with the precise details were given the option to submit estimates of field sizes. They were not, however, required to indicate whether the figures were derived from maps, otherwise computed or estimated.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation regarding the cost of the corporate relaunching and logo unveiling ceremony at the Mermaid theatre on 18 March.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None. Individual schemes within the approved marketing budget are a matter for the board of the Cardiff Bay development corporation, subject to the usual delegation arrangements with my Department.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 29 March,Official Report, column 90, when he now expects to be able to release an officer to undertake the quinquennial review of the Cardiff Bay development corporation.
  713
  Mr. David Hunt
  An officer has now been released and began work on the review on 17 May.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the continuation of the eligibility of the Bridgend travel-to-work area for regional aid.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The representations received about the review of assisted areas, including those relating to the Bridgend travel-to-work-area, are currently being considered.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to be able to announce whether Wales will continue to be treated as a separate region for available set-aside.

  Mr. David Hunt
  As soon as possible.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the continuing eligibility of the travel-to-work areas currently benefiting from regional aid.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The representations received about the review of assisted areas are currently being considered.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about representations he has received on the future shape of the regional aid map in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received numerous representations about the review of assisted areas. These representations are currently being considered.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discretion he enjoys in determining the number of livestock to be processed in low-throughput slaughterhouses.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The EC fresh meat directive contains arrangements for small slaughterhouses, which can benefit from a special list of structural requirements. Following discussions during December's Council of Agriculture Ministers, the Council agreed to increase the throughput limit for small slaughterhouses from 12 to 20 units per week until 31 December 1994. During this period, the Commission will review the implications of the meat hygiene directives for traditional small businesses. The Government will work closely with the Commission as it carries out this review.

  Select Committee Recommendations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Select Committee recommendations have been made about, and how many accepted by, his Department since April 1989.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the "Sessional Information Digest", copies of which are available in the Library of the House. This lists Select Committee reports and provides reference numbers to my Department's responses where appropriate.
  714

  Strategic Planning Guidance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Assembly of Welsh Counties or with Welsh representatives of individual counties in relation to the strategic planning guidance exercise recently completed; what financial considerations governed the funding of the planning exercise; what information on the contents and findings will be made public; if he will place a copy in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In 1990, the Assembly of Welsh Counties—AWC—accepted my right hon. Friend's invitation to co-ordinate the strategic planning guidance in Wales exercise and to report the results of the work to him. The work has included an assessment of the existing strategic planning guidance that provides the framework for the preparation of development plans and identification of the main strategic planning issues likely to affect Wales in the next 10 to 15 years. The Department has kept closely in touch with the progress of the exercise and officials have attended the seminars arranged by the AWC to discuss the interim results. The management of the exercise, its scale, degree of consultation and the consequent financial considerations are a matter for the AWC. My right hon. Friend expects to receive the final report shortly and will consider fully what further action is necessary. I understand that the AWC will be making its report publicly available. I will ensure that a copy is placed in the Library of the House.

  Cereals
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of his inquiries as to Welsh cereal yields.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I commissioned a study of the various cereal yields in Wales, on which I consulted the farming industry. I am now considering the findings of the study, taking into account the various representations made to me.

  Prince of Wales Hospital, Rhydlafar
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with South Glamorgan health authority in relation to the proposed inquiry into the running of the orthopaedic department at the Prince of Wales hospital, Rhydlafar.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The health authority informed the Department that it was instituting an inquiry into certain aspects of the running of the orthopaedic department at the Prince of Wales hospital, Rhydlafar.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 24 May,Official Report, column 467, on public appointments, if he will list (a) the deletions from the list of appointments he makes to public bodies which have arisen since 23 March and (b) the current vacancies among appointments which he makes.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information requested is as follows, reflecting the position as at 7 May 1993.
  715
  (a) Deletions:

  Appointee

  Public body

  Mr. D. M. Barling

  Plant Variety and Seeds Tribunal (Cereals)

  Mr. E. Rae

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  Mr. I. Jones

  Mr. G. C. Crimp

  Sports Council for Wales

  Mr. T. G. R. Davies

  Councillor Mr. K. F. Powell

  Mrs. A. Bowen

  Dyfed FHSA

  Mr. Thomas Lloyd

  Mr. R. N. Thomas

  Gwynedd FHSA

  Mrs. S. Wyn-Jones

  United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  Dr. M. E. Buck

  Councillor Leon Smith

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  Mr. T. R. Baxter-Wright

  Gwent Community NHS Trust

  Mr. B. K. Shah

  Mid Glamorgan FHSA

  Mr. H. S. Martin

  Clwyd North CHC

  Mr. D. Moore

  Ancient Monuments Board for Wales

  In addition, the Welsh Committee for Drug Misuse and the Welsh Committee for Alcohol Misuse ceased functioning with effect from 31 March, 1993: each committee had 1 chair and 15 members.

  (b) Vacancies

  PUBLIC BODY

  Agricultural Wages Committee and Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committees:

  Clwyd—1 Member

  Dyfed—1 Member

  Glamorgan—1 Member

  Gwent—1 Member

  Snowdonia National Park Committee—1 Member

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation—2 Members

  Sports Council for Wales—1 Member

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS Trust—1 Member

  Gwent Community Health NHS Trust—1 Member

  Gwent FHSA—1 Member

  Gwynedd FHSA—1 Member

  Mid Glamorgan FHSA —1 Member

  Mid Glamorgan DHA—1 Member

  Rhymney Valley CHC—1 Member

  Pembrokeshire CHC—1 Member

  Clwyd North CHC—1 Member

  Cardiff CHC—1 Member

  Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting—1 Member

  Land Authority for Wales—1 Member

  Housing for Wales—1 Member

  Welsh Development Agency—2 Members

  Barry Neighbourhood Hospital
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the transfer of responsibility for the proposed Barry Neighbourhood hospital to the Llandough NHS trust; and what representations he received from South Glamorgan health authority in relation to this issue.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It was concluded that the interests of patients from the Vale of Glamorgan would be best served by linking the proposed Barry Neighbourhood hospital to Llandough hospital NHS trust rather than to the community and mental health unit.
  716

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he has issued to the Welsh NHS trusts in relation to the implications of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 for existing staff transferred from health 'authority employment to trust employment.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A guidance document "NHS Trusts: A Working Guide" was published by HMSO in October 1990. This makes it clear that in making arrangements for staff transfer, and undertaking consultation, health authorities should assume that the transfer of undertakings regulations and the European Commission directive on acquired rights apply. Also, all staff who transfer to trust employment retain their existing contracts and rights. Further guidance in the form of a circular "National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 —Staff Transfer Schemes" has been issued to the NHS in Wales which also refers to the protection of the rights of NHS employees on transfer to an NHS trust.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will lift the requirement for local authorities in Wales to expose work to competitive tendering before and after local government reorganisation.

  Mr. David Hunt
  "Local Government in Wales: A Charter for the Future", Cm 2155, affirms the Government's commitment to compulsory competitive tendering—CCT—as a means of ensuring that local government services are efficient and give good value for money.

  It also proposes special arrangements for CCT during the transition from the present structure of local government to the new unitary authorities. I have been considering the detail of those arrangements for work which is currently subject to CCT and have concluded that, generally, local authorities should not be required to submit to competition work which they propose to carry out between 1 April 1994 and 30 September 1996.

  This period of exemption is intended to smooth the transition to the new authorities. They will be able to

  717
  examine the best way of organising their services and, where appropriate, put fresh arrangements in place before exposing work to competition. More importantly, they will be able to focus, in the time after their election, on the immediate requirement to establish reliable and effective service delivery arrangements. The proposed exemption would apply to CCT under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988, and would be given effect by secondary legislation under those Acts.

  I have decided that there are nevertheless some circumstances in which competition should continue to be required. These are:
  (i) construction contracts worth over £1 million. This would affect primarily the highways departments of county councils;
  (ii) work carried out by authorities, such as community councils, to which the 1980 and 1988 Acts apply but which are not affected by the reorganisation.

  None of these arrangements will affect contracts which the private sector in Wales has already won through CCT. The White Paper makes it clear that, where such contracts expire after the date of reorganisation, they will run for their full term and will be assigned to the appropriate unitary authorities. Detailed guidance on this, and on technical aspects of the transition as it affects direct service organisations, will be issued.

  These arrangements would not prevent authorities from voluntarily submitting work to competitive tendering during the period of the exemption. Nor would they have any effect on competition requirements set by the European Community.

  CCT will not be further extended in Wales until after reorganisation has taken place. The timetable will be discussed with the local authority associations and an announcement will be made in due course.

  Tenants' Rights
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make an announcement on the responses received from within Wales to the consultation paper "Tenant Involvement and the Right to Manage".

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The consultation paper "Tenant Involvement and the Right to Manage" was issued for consultation in December 1992. Recipients were invited to submit responses by 26 February 1993. Seventeen were received by that date from local authorities and others in Wales, with a further four arriving afterwards. Respondents broadly welcomed the Government's proposals for increased tenant involvement and the expansion of tenant control through the new right to manage. The responses contained a number of helpful and constructive suggestions on detailed points, which will be taken into account when regulations and guidance are prepared.

  A summary of respondents from within Wales is as follows:

  Number

  Local Authorities

  12

  Local Authority Associations

  1

  Tenants' Organisations

  6

  Others

  2

  Total

  21

  718
  Copies of the responses are available for examination in the Welsh Office Library.

  Sheep Identification
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on sheep identification.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A directive on the identification and registration of animals—92/102—was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 27 November 1992. It lays down minimum Community requirements for the identification and registration of cattle, sheep, goats and pigs. The objective is to set up a harmonised system which will enable animals to be traced back to their farm of origin, both for disease control purposes and for controlling payments made under the common agricultural policy. The national systems for sheep and goats do not have to be in place until January 1995. Agriculture Departments are discussing with industry organisations how these new requirements will be implemented so as to minimise the burden on the industry as a whole.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Advisory Services
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to regulate the operation of unqualified immigration advisory services.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government have drawn the attention of those planning the new Immigration Appeals Advisory Service and of the Law Society to the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee that a register of responsible agencies should be established. Should such a list be drawn up, we would be ready to consider making it available to applicants. We have no plans ourselves to draw up a register, or otherwise to regulate advisory services of this kind.

  Racial Attacks, Pendle
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many racial attacks were reported in Pendle for each year since 1979; and how many complaints were addressed to the Commission for Racial Equality by persons resident in Pendle in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Wolds Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictions are included in the contract for managing the Wolds prison and for transporting prisoners to prevent the contractor employing convicted criminals.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 26 May 1993:
  719
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the restrictions in the contracts for the management of Wolds Remand Prison and transporting prisoners to prevent the contractor employing convicted criminals.

  Under the terms of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, people who are to be employed as prisoner custody officers in a contracted out prison or on court escort work have to be certified by the Home Office. This means we have to be satisfied that they are fit and proper persons for such duties and have received training to a standard that we have approved. In addition to these statutory safeguards for custodial staff our standard contract also requires a contractor to provide details to us of all other personnel, including sub-contracted staff employed on a contract.

  In practice, this means that all those working at Wolds Remand Prison; in the court escort service in the East Midlands and Humberside and on all future such contracts are subject to routine enquiries about their suitability to work with the prisoners in the same way as happens with staff employed by the Prison Service. These include a criminal record check, to identify any convictions which might render the applicant unsuitable. Decisions about suitability are made to the same standard as, and in accordance with, Prison Service practice.

  Unit Fines
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Magistrates Association on the operation of the unit fines system since his statement of 13 May.

  Mr. Jack
  Since 13 May 1993, my right hon. and learned Friend has received no formal representations from the Magistrates Association, but Home Office officials met representatives of the association on 20 May to discuss options for replacing the current unit fine provisions.

  Drugs
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were serving prison sentences at the latest available date of over three years in prisons in England and Wales for drug offences.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 26 May 1993:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to write to you directly in reply to your Parliamentary Question about the number of men and women in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales serving sentences of over three years for drug offences.

  The latest available provisional figures by offence and sentence length are for 31 March 1993 and cover around 80 per cent. of sentenced prison population. They show some 1,300 male and 200 female prisoners in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales recorded centrally as being sentenced to over three years for drug offences, excluding any where drugs offences were not the principal offence.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many confiscation orders were made under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 for each year from 1987; what was the total value of the assets 720
  ordered to be confiscated and the actual amount recovered by way of confiscation, in each of those years; and what percentage this represented of the total amount ordered to be confiscated in each year.

  Mr. Jack
  Information collected centrally is given in the tables. A direct comparison between the amount ordered to be confiscated and the amount realised cannot be made because these data are collected from two separate sources and cover calendar and financial years respectively.

  Table A

  Offenders ordered to pay confiscation orders under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 by amount 1987–1991 England and Wales

  Year

  Number of orders made

  Total amount confiscated £

  1987

  203

  1,177,000

  1988

  539

  8,096,700

  1989

  802

  7,851,900

  1990

  871

  10,142,500

  1991

  1,005

  6,501,500

  Table B

  Amount (£) recovered1 by the Secretary of State in confiscation orders under the Drug Trafficking Offenders Act 1986 by financial year 1987–88 to 1991–92 England and Wales

  Year

  Amount recovered £

  1987–88

  600,000

  1988–89

  1989–90 2

  1,375,200

  1990–91 2

  1,448,000

  1991–92

  5,384,500

  1 The information collected centrally is known to be incomplete as returns were not received from all petty sessional divisions.

  2 There was some confusion with the recording of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988 during these two years. In consequence it is considered that data has been under-recorded for the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and over-recorded for the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the research report from Sheffield university, prepared for the Home Office, on the prevalence of drug use among young people; in what form it will be published; and whether the publication will be the full report or a summary.

  Mr. Jack
  The research findings will be published in full later this year, in book form.

  Sexual Offences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) men and (b) women serving a prison sentence in prisons in England and Wales at the latest available date after having been convicted of sexual offences against children.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  721
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 26 May 1993:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to write to you directly in reply to your Parliamentary Question about the number of men and women in custody for sexual offences against children.

  The latest available provisional figures are for 31 March 1993. They show that about 210 male and 3 female prisoners were serving sentences in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for unlawful sexual intercourse with a female under 16 years of age or gross indecency with or indecent assault on a child. Other inmates will however be serving sentences for rape, buggery and other sexual offences and for murder involving a sexual assault. The statistics for these offences do not distinguish the age of the victim.

  Segregated Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women, were segregated under rule 43 in prisons in England and Wales on 10 May.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 25 May 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of men and women segregated under Rule 43 on 10 May.

  The following table shows the number of males and females (both adults and young persons) removed from association under Rule 43 of the Prison Rules and Rule 46 of the Young Offender Institution Rules, in Prison Service establishments in England and and Wales on 10 May.

  Rule 43/46 Own protection

  Rule 43/46 Good order and discipline

  Total

  Males

  1,391

  272

  1,663

  Females

  22

  3

  25

  Total

  1,413

  275

  1,688

  The above table does not include inmates in designated vulnerable prisoner units where Rule 43 and Rule 46 restrictions do not apply.

  Refugees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 28 April,Official Report, columns 445–46, what changes have been made in the last 24 months to the criteria applied to refugees with exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom when assessing whether or not they should be granted United Kingdom travel documents.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There has been no change in our policy during the last 24 months. Reinforcement of the asylum division has allowed closer consideration to be given, in accordance with that policy, to some applications where we believe it would be possible for a national passport to be obtained.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 28 April,Official
  722
  Report, columns 445–46, what criteria are applied to individuals from Sri Lanka on exceptional leave to remain when requesting travel documents.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  All asylum applicants who are found not to be refugees but who are granted exceptional leave to remain may apply for Home Office travel documents if they are unable to obtain a national passport. As with other nationalities, applications from people from Sri Lanka are considered on their individual merits.

  Glazing
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance has been given to businesses in the City of London on the best kinds of explosion-resistant replacement glazing since 24 April.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The City of London police, in conjunction with Government security advisers, has been advising businesses and institutions in the City on the available range of glazing options. This complements the advice which is available from specialists in the private sector.

  Confessions
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the cases of those convicted on the evidence of confession alone, before the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. and learned Friend is always ready to consider representations alleging wrongful conviction, whatever the nature of the evidence in the case, and to exercise his powers wherever it is appropriate to do so. He has, however, no plans to institute a general review of cases falling into the category described.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the last convenient 12-month period he has overturned the recommendation of the adjudicator at the immigration appellate authority to exercise his discretion outside the immigration rules.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. All recommendations made by adjudicators are, however, carefully considered in the light of the known facts.

  Open Prisons
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide details of the criteria used by the Prison Service when allocating prisoners to open rather than closed prisons.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 26 May 1993:
  723
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the criteria used by the Prison Service when allocating to open prisons.

  Guidance to Prison Service establishments explains that all adult male prisoners (apart from those regarded by headquarters as requiring high security conditions, and life sentence prisoners, for whom separate allocation arrangements are made) should be regarded as probably suitable for an open prison unless they are sentenced to a term of over 12 months for any violent offence, are convicted of any but the most minor sexual offence, had previously served a sentence of over 12 months for such an offence and had not successfully remained for part of that sentence in an open prison, have current or previous convictions for minor or serious drugs offences, or have a recent history of escapes or absconds. Prisoners who come within these criteria, would be placed in a security category which would require them to be held in closed conditions. Having decided security categorisation, the local prison then must decide on the establishment to which the prisoner should be allocated. Allocation decisions take into account the need for security and control, the need to make best use of the Prison Service estate and the needs of the individual prisoner.

  Separate guidance applies to male young offenders and female prisoners. But the approach is similar in that an assessment of risk is made on the basis of information on the current and any previous offences before deciding on the appropriate establishment to which the inmate should be allocated.

  With the passage of time or changes in circumstances, many prisoners become less of a risk and less likely to try to escape. Some long term or life sentence prisoners may merit downgrading to a lower security category more than once. A prisoner who was originally allocated to a closed prison may therefore be reallocated to an open prison at a later stage in his or her sentence. I hope this has provided a helpful summary of the approach we take to allocation. But if you woulds like to have more information, I should be pleased to provide it.

  Redbridge and Snaresbrook Courts
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) criminal and (b) motoring cases were brought to trial at Redbridge magistrates court and Snaresbrook Crown court for each quarter of 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993 to date.

  Mr. Jack
  Information for 1990 and 1991 is given in the table. Information for 1992 and 1993 is not yet available.

  Number of defendants prosecuted at Redbridge magistrates court and number of defendants tried at Snaresbrook Crown court for "criminal"1 and "motoring"2 case by quarter, 1990 and 1991.

  Redbridge PSD

  Snaresbrook CC

  Year/Quarter

  Criminal1

  Motoring2 3

  Criminal1

  Motoring2

  1990

  Q1

  961

  449

  1,112

  12

  Q2

  1,103

  638

  1,054

  3

  Q3

  838

  840

  1,144

  4

  Q4

  783

  779

  1,044

  5

  1991

  Q1

  925

  1,066

  1,020

  4

  Q2

  906

  1,103

  1,064

  4

  Q3

  956

  1,189

  1,074

  4

  Q4

  901

  1,365

  935

  3

  1 Indictable and summary non-motoring offences.

  2 Summary motoring offences.

  3Improvements in the data collection methods used by the Metropolitan police district (MPD) have led to an increase in the number recorded as sentenced for summary motoring offences of about 50 per cent, in the MPD area as a whole.

  724

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will include four options on the range of alternatives to be presented to the Houses of Parliament on Sunday trading.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Yes. The Government's Bill to reform Sunday trading law will now contain an option based on proposals made by the Retailers for Shops Act Reform. This is in addition to total deregulation and the options based on the proposals of the Shopping Hours Reform Council and the Keep Sunday Special Campaign.

  Prison Population
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which years he expects the prison population to exceed the certified normal accommodation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On the basis of projections of the prison population published on 30 March—Home Office Statistical Bulletin 6/93—the projected population would not exceed certified normal accommodation before the end of the decade. It is, however, not yet possible to make any conclusive assessment of the impact of changes to the Criminal Justice Bill[Lords] proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

  European Constituencies
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made by the Parliamentary Boundaries Commission towards alterations in European constituency boundaries in the light of the United Kingdom's future increased membership of the European Parliament.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We hope to make an announcement on this matter shortly.

  Computerised Crime Information
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on his most recent evaluation of the effectiveness and cost of the computerised crime report information system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend receives regular reports on the progress of the crime reporting information system.

  Prison Ships
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with the Bibby Line.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 26 May 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about discussions with the Bibby Line.
  725
  The Prison Service has had a number of discussions with representatives of the Bibby Line over the last 6 years or so.

  Floating accommodation units are an option being considered to cope with surges of prison population. No final decision has been taken on the feasibility of this option.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration the Prison Service is giving to the use of ships for prisoners' accommodation; and in what circumstances ships might be used for prisoners.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 25 May 1993:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the use of ships for prisoner accommodation.

  The Prison Service has for some time been developing contingency plans to cope with surges of prison population which exceed the available accommodation. If effective plans can be devolved, they will reduce the need to have recourse to police cells to hold excess population.

  Floating accommodation units are one option which is being considered, though as yet no final decision has been taken on the feasibility of this option.

  Police Authorities
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police authorities with which he has had discussions between taking his present office and 22 March.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  In addition to my meetings with the Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire police authorities, my right hon. and learned Friend has visited Hertfordshire, Avon and Somerset, West Midlands, Thames Valley and Surrey police forces, when he also met representatives of their police authorities: and he has had meetings with delegations of police authority chairmen from the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.

  Queen Anne's Gate
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated amount to be spent in 1993–4 in rent and other associated costs with the offices of his Department in Queen Anne's Gate, London.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The estimated amount to be spent in 1993–4 on Home Office accommodation at Queen Anne's Gate is £21·9 million, comprising rent and value added tax, payable to Property Holdings, contribution in lieu of rates, maintenance and capital costs and the cost of fuel, utilities and telephones.

  National Debate for Crime Prevention
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who has been appointed to the National Board for Crime Prevention.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The membership of the National Board for Crime Prevention is as follows:

  Michael Jack MP, Minister of State, Home Office

  (Chairman)

  726

  Keith Ackroyd, Boots plc; British Retail Consortium

  Peter Batchelor, Vauxhall Motors

  Janet Paraskeva, National Youth Agency

  Prof. Ken Pease, University of Manchester

  Richard Penn, Chief Executive, Bradford MBC

  Dr. John Rae, Portman Group

  Helen Reeves, Victim Support

  Nick Ross, Broadcaster

  David Sieff, Marks and Spencer

  John Stevens, Chief Constable, Northumbria

  David Walton, Chief Probation Officer, Staffordshire

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what investigations his Department has been subject by the Data Protection Registrar in relation to a suspected breach of a data protection principle; if he will summarise the nature of each complaint and state when the complaint was made; and what remedial action was taken by his Department to ensure future compliance with the principle subject to the investigation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 21 May 1993]: The Data Protection Registrar has recorded 10 complaints against the Home Office. The registrar does not have detailed records of these complaints available, but gives the following information:

  Complaint type

  Number received

  Date received

  Principle 4

  1

  27 January 1993

  Principle 5

  1

  16 December 1991

  Principle 7

  6

  12 November 1987

  25 February 1988

  12 June 1989

  28 September 1989

  5 November 1991

  15 March 1993

  Section 5(1)

  1

  10 February 1990

  Unauthorised disclosure

  1

  26 March 1992

  The Home Office has central records of only four complaints:

  1. Passport Agency: Principle 4

  (Received in the Home Office 19 February 1993)

  A complainant was asked for his marital status when renewing his passport, and held that this was excessive information for the purpose for which it was required. The registrar accepted that the Data Protection Act did not apply as the information was not held on a computer.

  2. Prison Service: Principle 7

  (Received in the Home Office 16 October 1989)

  The complainant was an inmate of Lincoln Prison, and alleged that he had not been given access to a computer record containing personal data relating to him. The complainant was informed of the proper procedures for requesting access to his computer record, and the registrar concluded his investigation.

  3. TV Licences: Principle 5

  (Received in the Home Office 10 March 1988)

  A complainant said that the initial of his first name shown on his TV licence was incorrect. The complainant's TV licence was amended to show his correct name, and the registrar concluded his investigation.

  4. Prison Service: Principle 7

  (Received in the Home Office 7 March 1988)

  The complainant was an inmate of Durham prison, and alleged that a request for subject access to a computer record held on him at the prison had not been complied with. The complainant subsequently withdrew his claim to have made a subject access request, and the registrar closed his file.
  727
  Since 1987, every Home Office department has held detailed instructions on compliance with the requirements and principles of the Data Protection Act in general, and on subject access procedures specifically. None of the complaints made to date suggests that those procedures need any amendment. The procedures are, however, kept under review and will be updated as and when necessary.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were held in remand for(a) three to six months, (b) six to 12 months and (c) over 12 months in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 24 May 1993]Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Nigel Jones, dated 26 May 1993:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to write to you directly in reply to your Parliamentary Question about the number of prisoners held on remand for (a) 3 to 6 months, (b) 6 to 12 months and (c) over 12 months in each year since 1990.

  I am sorry to tell you that information is only readily available up to 30 June 1992. To obtain any later information at this stage would involve checking a large number of cases with Prison Service establishments which could only be done at disproportionate cost. Please find enclosed a table showing the length of time held on remand for inmates on 30 June in the years 1990, 1991 and 1992. The information for 1990 and 1991 was taken from Tables 2.3 and 2.4 of "Prison statistics, England and Wales 1991" (Cm 1221) a copy of which is held in the library. The information for 30 June 1992 is provisional; final data will be published in the 1992 edition of "Prison statistics".

SCOTLAND

  In Vitro Fertilisation
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the provision of in vitro fertilisation treatment; what is the current waiting list for this treatment; and what arrangements are in place to ensure that women in need of this treatment receive it at an appropriate stage of physical development and age.

  Mr. Stewart
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) on 10 March,Official Report, column 593–94.

  There are four centres currently offering in vitro fertilisation treatment in Scotland, at Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, and Glasgow. Information on their waiting lists is not held centrally. It is for individual health boards to decide whether or not to provide or purchase these services.

  Fire Service Benevolent Fund
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Fire Services National Benevolent Fund in Scotland; what matters were discussed; when he next plans to meet them; and if he will make a statement.
  728
  Mr. Lang
  I have not yet had the opportunity of meeting representatives of the Fire Services National Benevolent Fund in Scotland. Other commitments have regrettably prevented me from accepting invitations to the 50th anniversary commemorative service in Stirling and the fund's golden jubilee reception at the Guildhall, London to celebrate fifty years of charitable endeavour in support of retired and serving members of the United Kingdom fire services.

  Horticulture (Therapeutic Treatment)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the use and development of horticulture as a therapeutic treatment within the national health service in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  The national health service has long understood the part that horticultural work can play in the treatment programmes of, for example, patients with a mental illness or learning difficulty. Decisions about its use and development are however a matter for NHS provider units based on identified clinical needs.

  Food, Drinks and Confectionery
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the state of the food, drinks and confectionery industry in(a) Scotland and (b) Strathclyde.

  Mr. Stewart
  The most recent Annual census of production data show gross value added (GVA) in the food, drink and tobacco industry in Scotland in 1990 was 70 per cent. higher than in 1980. GVA in the industry in Strathclyde rose by over 40 per cent. between 1983 and 1990.

  The industry has of course been restructuring, but it remains a major employer. The last census of employment (September 1991) showed that there were 66,400 employees in the food, drink and tobacco industry in Scotland; around 25,600 were in Strathclyde.

  I note that independent forecasters, whose projections are monitored regularly by the Scottish Office Industry Department, suggest that further output growth may, in general, be anticipated in the industry in the next few years.

  Thread Industry
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of people employed in the thread industry in(a) Scotland, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Renfrew district in each year siuce 1975, showing the numbers that were (i) full-time or part-time, (ii) managerial, adminstrative and technical or manual and (iii) male and female; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  This data are not available in the precise form requested. Employment cannot be classified into full or part time; managerial, administrative, technical, manual; or male and female. In addition figures for Renfrew district are subject to disclosure restrictions under the Statistics of Trade Act 1947.

  The table shows the total number or employees in the thread industry for Strathclyde and Scotland in each year since 1975. The thread industry in common with other

  729
  industries requires a favourable economic climate in which to prosper. The Government's policy of low interest rates and low inflation is helping to stimulate the Scottish economy. The thread industry can be expected to share in this process.

  Number of Employees in the Thread Industry

  Strathclyde

  Scotland

  1975

  4,306

  6,335

  1976

  4,080

  6,196

  1977

  4,219

  6,218

  1978

  3,329

  5,229

  1979

  3,239

  4,901

  1980

  2,840

  4,184

  1981

  2,164

  3,522

  1982

  1,662

  2,639

  1983

  1,385

  2,339

  1984

  1,121

  2,120

  1985

  1,019

  1,974

  1986

  1,164

  2,165

  1987

  1,195

  2,299

  1988

  1,005

  2,047

  1989

  1,036

  2,088

  1990

  838

  1,736

  11991

  690

  1,549

  1 Provisional.

  Notes:

  1. This data have been extracted from the Scottish register of employment which holds information on units with 11 or more employees.

  2. The thread industry has been defined as standard industrial classification (SIC) 43211 and 43212; spinning and doubling in the
  cotton system.

  Solicitor-General for Scotland
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements are in place for the Solicitor-General for Scotland to be accountable to both Houses of Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The present Solicitor-General for Scotland is not a member of either House. When neither the Lord Advocate nor the Solicitor-General for Scotland is a member of this House, it is the practice for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to answer questions relating to their responsibilities.

  It is open to a Select Committee of this House or the other place to invite the Solicitor-General for Scotland to give evidence to the Select Committee in relation to any matter falling within the orders of reference of the

  Employment figures for Renfrew by SIC

  Standard industrial classification

  1981

  1984

  1987

  1989

  1991

  0–1 Agriculture forestry and fishing/Energy and Water supply industries

  1,600

  1,500

  1,400

  1,100

  1,000

  2–4 Manufacturing

  32,900

  27,400

  21,400

  20,300

  19,100

  5 Construction

  8,200

  6,700

  5,900

  5,500

  5,200

  6 Distribution, hotels and catering; repairs

  14,000

  14,300

  12,500

  13,500

  14,700

  7 Transport and communication

  5,500

  5,000

  6,800

  7,700

  7,600

  8 Banking, finance, insurance, business services and leasing

  3,000

  4,400

  3,700

  5,500

  5,700

  9 Other services

  23,100

  18,700

  15,600

  27,000

  27,100

  Notes:

  Source: Department of Employment (NOMIS).

  2. All figures rounded to the nearest hundred.

  3. Figures are for the 1981 local authority district of Renfrew.
  730
  Committee. In particular, the Select Committee for Scottish Affairs in this House is empowered to consider the administration and expenditure of the Lord Advocate's Departments. I do not propose to make a statement.

  Prison Service
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the organisation and management of the Scottish Prison Service; what arrangements are currently in place for compulsory competitive tendering within the service; if he has any plans to make any other service element subject to CCT; and if he has any plans to introduce any form of privatisation to the service.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Prison Service became an executive agency on 1 April 1993.

  The Scottish Prison Service is currently market testing the maintenance and minor works projects at Barlinnie, Shotts, Edinburgh and Perth prisons—annual cost £3·7 million, 115staff—and the storage and distribution service which operates from central stores—annual cost £800,000, 22 staff.

  The Secretary of State is currently considering with the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service possibilities for further market testing and an announcement will be made in the summer.

  Market testing might lead to contracting out, but there are no plans to privatise any part of the Scottish Prison Service.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the number of people employed in each industrial sector within Renfrew district in each year since 1974; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Local authority district employment data are available in selected years, on a consistent basis from 1981. The table shows the number of people employed in each industrial sector within Renfrew district in that year and in 1984, 1987, 1989 and 1991. It can be seen that the economy of Renfrew has experienced the process of structural change, a common feature of many modern economies towards a more diversified structure.
  731

  Language Disorders
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children in Scotland have language disorders; and what provision exists in Scotland for children with language disorders.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At the time of the 1991 schools census, some 1,719 children were recorded as having difficulties with language and communication. Education authorities in Scotland secure provision of a range of facilities for these children in mainstream schools and in special units.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on the appropriate level of staffing and other provision for children with language and speech disorders and on the location of these provisions.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is the responsibility of education authorities to provide adequate and efficient education for children, including those with special educational needs. It is, therefore, for authorities to decide the appropriate level and location of staffing and other provisions for children with speech and language disorders.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what language disorders are covered by the report for his Department by Her Majesty's inspector Mr. Gibson; and when he plans to publish the report.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The current investigation into educational provision for language and communication disorders is being conducted by a small team of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools and covers the special provision made for children with both linguistic and non-linguistic disorders. The children concerned are those with disorders in phonology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics of language, together with those with pervasive communication disorders such as autism. The investigation will be completed this autumn and a report published thereafter.

  Judges (Training)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are taken to ensure that the training of judges, and those about to be elevated to the Bench, includes a course on the handling of sexual assault and rape cases.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has provided additional administrative and financial support in recent years to facilitate the development of training to meet the needs of the judiciary. The content of judicial training is a matter for the judiciary and comprehensive information is not available centrally on the training undertaken by individual judges.

  Criminal Courts
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations and reports he has received during the past 12 months on the efficiency of criminal courts in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Opening the Scottish Grand Committee debate on crime on 25 March, my right hon. Friend announced that he had just received the first 732
  report of the groups which have been reviewing court programming under the chairmanship of Sheriff Principal Gordon Nicholson QC and Sheriff Graham Cox. The report will be published shortly for consultation on its recommendations. Copies of the report will be made available to Scottish Members of Parliament.

  Toxic Shock Syndrome
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Argyll and Clyde health board on the subject of toxic shock syndrome; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has received no representations from Argyll and Clyde health board on this subject.

  Community Care Forums
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the development of community care forums throughout Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  To encourage the involvement of voluntary sector agencies in the preparation and implementation of community care plans, community care forums are developing in many areas. The scale, structure and funding of these vary in response to local conditions. My right hon. Friend welcomes these developments which enable the voluntary sector to participate more fully in the development of community care.

  Youth Training
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the sufficiency of youth training places in Renfrewshire; how many eligible youths in the past two years have failed to obtain a place; how many have(a) been offered and (b) accepted other than first choice of training; what proportion this is of total trainees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The delivery of youth training in Renfrewshire is the responsibility of Scottish Enterprise through its contact with the relevant local enterprise company, Renfrewshire Enterprise. Scottish Enterprise has assured me that the Government's youth training guarantee is being met, and will continue to be met, within that area.

  This assurance implies that no eligible young people who have applied for a youth training place have failed to receive offers of suitable places, which is the entitlement conferred by the guarantee, although there will at any time be current applicants awaiting identification of a suitable place. The vast majority of young people receive offers of training through the careers service who take a number of factors into account, including the young person's preference, the local labour market and the abilities and aptitudes of the young person. The role of careers officers is to use their expertise to offer suitable training, even in cases where this differs from the young person's first choice.

  In the light of the obligation on local enterprise companies to ensure that offers of training places continue to be made to eligible young people for as long as they continue to seek a place and of the responsibility of the careers service to judge what constitutes a suitable offer of

  733
  training, the Scottish Office does not hold information about numbers of young people who choose not to take up any of the offers of youth training places which they receive or who are offered and accept places involving training which differs from their initial preference.

  Forestry
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of the silviculture and forestry industry in Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Our forestry policies remain as stated in "Forestry Policy for Great Britain" published in September 1991, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Economic Prospects
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the prospects for the economy of(a) Scotland, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Renfrew District.

  Mr. Stewart
  The economic prospects for Scotland, like those for Strathclyde and Renfrew district, will depend on the competitiveness of its industry. The Government have ensured that many of the factors determining competitiveness, and hence economic growth, are now firmly in place: inflation is at its lowest rate for almost 30 years; United Kingdom interest rates are at their lowest level for 15 years, as well as being the lowest in the European Community; and unit labour costs in manufacturing are growing more slowly than those in Japan and Germany.

  Economic forecasters monitored by the Scottish Office Industry Department predict that these factors, combined with the lower exchange rate, will result in positive economic growth in Scotland in 1993, with companies competing successfully in domestic and international markets. Indeed, Cambridge Econometics' recent forecast suggests that Scottish gross domestic product growth in 1993 will be 2·2 per cent. compared with 1·4 per cent. for the United Kingdom as a whole. Moreover, this positive rate of growth compares favourably with the negative rates predicted for some of the European economies.

  Parents (Fines)
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many parents were fined in Scotland in each of the last 10 years for failing to send their children to school.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Party Conferences
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of security arrangements in relation to the Scottish(a) Conservative and (b) Labour party conferences in 1993; what proportion in each case was charged to the operational budgets of the respective police forces; what is the expected individual per capita cost to council tax payers in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I understand from the chief constables of Lothian and Borders police and Northern constabulary that the costs involved were 734
  £56,700 and £700, respectively. The level of resources provided for the policing of party conferences is an operational matter for the chief constable concerned to determine in the light of all the circumstances, including the threat assessment. Fifty-one per cent. of police costs are reimbursed by the Government in specific grant. The remaining 49 per cent. is funded by police authorities from the different sources of finance available to them; the authorities determine which sources of finance meet the cost of particular services.

  Disability
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department has an advisory committee on disability issues.

  Mr. Stewart
  No, but the Department is represented on a number of committees which consider disability issues.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those buildings used by his Department which(a) have and (b) do not have adequate access for people with mobility disabilities; what plans he has to improve each; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Office currently uses 93 buildings, mainly offices. There is adequate access for people with mobility disabilities to 54 of these, which include all our major buildings. Access is less good at the other 39, which are mainly small premises. Action to improve access is taken as resources permit although the design of some older or smaller local offices makes that difficult. Plans are in hand to improve access to the offices in Elgin and Stornoway.

  Schools Inspectorate
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what duties, responsibilities and rights of inspection Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools in Scotland has over the new structure of further education colleges; what changes have been made in the role of HMI since 1 April; if any further changes are planned; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Her Majesty's inspectors' duties, responsibilities and rights of inspection in further education continue as before. Their main additional duty will be, in co-operation with the relevant administrative division, to advise my right hon. Friend on the corporate plans submitted by the FE colleges.

  Genetic Fingerprinting
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce additional measures to increase the availability to police forces of genetic fingerprinting techniques and resources; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Police authorities determine what resources should be allocated to their forces. It is then for chief constables to decide how these resources should be deployed. Tayside and Strathclyde police laboratories already carry out DNA testing or "genetic fingerprinting" and Lothian and Borders police plan to introduce such a facility when their new laboratory opens in 1995–96. Scottish police forces also have access to the facilities provided by the Forensic Science Service in England and Wales and by the private sector.
  735

  Cancer Screening
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the competence of the cervical smear tests carried out in the Paisley catchment area in the last 20 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The assessment of the competency of cervical smear tests is a matter for the clinicians responsible for such tests and for health boards. All laboratories participate in the national proficiency testing scheme.

  The inquiry into the review of the smear test slides at Inverclyde royal hospital laboratory will be examining quality assessment arrangements.

  Sports Centre Funding
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an official visit to the McMaster sports centre in the Johnstone west area of priority treatment to evaluate the contribution his Department made towards it from urban aid funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I welcome opportunities to see the benefits of the assistance provided by the Scottish Office through the urban programme. I would be delighted to visit the McMaster sports centre in Johnstone west when a suitable opportunity arises.

  Electoral Expenditure
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the fees and expenses paid to(a) returning officers, (b) depute returning officers and (c) all other grades of polling and counting staff for each of the most recent (i) European, (ii) parliamentary, (iii) regional council and (iv) district council elections; if he will itemise the eligibility criteria for the payment of these fees and expenses; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information about local government election fees and expenses is a matter for local authorities individually and is not held centrally. As far as parliamentary and European elections are concerned, the rates of fees and expenses payable and eligibility criteria for payments to returning officers, their deputies and other elections staff are set out in the relevant fees and charges order. The statutory instruments in force at the last European and United Kingdom parliamentary elections were, respectively: SI 1989, No. 995, the European Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers' Expenses) Regulations 1989, which came into force on 13 June 1989, and SI 1992, No. 717, the Returning Officers' Charges Order 1992, which came into force on 17 March 1992.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take capping action against any Scottish local authority this year.

  Mr. Lang
  No. All Scottish local authorities, with the exception of Clydebank district council and Shetland 736
  Islands council, have set budgets for 1993–94 at or below the expenditure limits implied by the provisional capping principles which I announced on 12 November 1992. I made it clear subsequently that I would not cap Clydebank district council if it set a standstill budget. The council has satisfied this requirement. Shetland Islands council which, given its special circumstances particularly as regards its oil-related special funds, will fund only a very small proportion of its planned expenditure from its council tax which, at taxpayer level, is the lowest in Scotland. In he circumstances, I do not propose to cap the council.

  Overall, this is a very satisfactory outcome and again demonstrates the effectiveness of my capping powers in protecting local taxpayers from excessive spending by their councils. It is my intention to issue later this year provisional capping principles for 1994–95.

  Woodlands
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), on 2 February,Official Report, column 177, if he will give the date on which the access agreement in respect of Steam Mills in Gloucestershire was signed; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 26 May 1993]: The access agreement for Steam Mills in Gloucestershire was signed on 31 March 1992. I have arranged for a copy of the agreement to be placed in the Library.

  Forestry
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement outlining the Government's policy on the development of the Forestry Commission in the United Kingdom; and what plans he has for change in ownership of the forests.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 17 May 1993]: The policies for forestry which my right hon. Friend and his fellow forestry Ministers intend to pursue remain as stated in "Forestry Policy for Great Britain" published in September 1991, a copy of which is in the Library.

  The Forestry Commission plays a central role in the delivery of those policies, particularly through its support for and regulation of the private sector and the management of the forests owned by the Government.

  However, forestry Ministers have established the Forestry Review Group to review:
  the effectiveness of the current incentives for forestry investment, in accordance with the manifesto commitment, and
  options for the ownership and management of Forestry Commission woodlands,
  and to make proposals for changes which would improve the effectiveness of the delivery of the Government's forestry policy objectives, having regard to the Government's other economic and environmental policies.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those individuals and organisations who have so far made submissions to the interdepartmental working group on the Forestry Commission; and if he will publish those submissions.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 26 May 1993]: Many individuals and organisations have written to

  737
  Ministers and Government Departments giving their views on issues connected with the work of the Forestry Review Group. However, they did not do so in the knowledge or expectation that their names or their submissions would be published and I therefore do not think it would be right to publish this information.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how much is spent by the Forestry Commission on conservation projects; and what is this figure as a proportion of turnover;

  (2) if he will outline the work done by the Forestry Commission on current conservation projects.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 25 May 1993]: The Forest Enterprise arm of the Forestry Commission, which manages the commission's forests, spends over £5 million each year on conservation projects, which is about 5 per cent. of its turnover. These projects include the management of 340 sites of special scientific interest and other areas of conservation value—including forest nature reserves—and of archaeological sites. They also include projects for particular species of flora and fauna. Examples are the construction of an insulated hibernaculum for bats in Yorkshire; providing nesting boxes for barn owls, goldeneye and many other birds; managing forests to provide better habitats for black grouse and capercaillie, to protect goshawks and other birds of prey, and to provide nesting sites for nightjars and red-backed shrikes; encouraging orchids in south Wales and south-west England; creating artificial islands for black-throated divers; making suitable rides and other open spaces to attract butterflies; protecting hen harriers in the highlands of Scotland; managing pinewoods in Culbin to protect the lichens; and providing basking areas for lizards and other reptiles in Northamptonshire.

  In addition to direct expenditure on such conservation projects, the Forestry Commission also carries out a great deal of work to improve the conservation value of its forests as part of its normal forest management. This covers, for example, the management of ancient semi-natural woodlands and the protection and expansion of native pinewood areas in Scotland and of heathland in the New Forest and other parts of southern England. It also includes the restructuring of commission forests as
  738
  they mature to increase their variety and conservation value. This is achieved by premature or delayed felling of the trees, widening the mixture of trees on replanting and leaving open areas. This can result in significant revenue forgone, none of which is included in the costs given above.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to promote the development of credit unions in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The credit union movement in Scotland has continued to grow. At the end of 1991, the latest year for which full figures are available, returns to the Registry of Friendly Societies show that there were 66 credit unions in Scotland, compared to 57 at the end of 1990. They had aggregate assets of £7,866,000, compared to £5,051,000. This was the equivalent to nearly 34 per cent., compared to 30 per cent., of the total assets of the movement in Great Britain. Those 66 unions together had around 27,000 members, compared to 19,000 in 1990, representing 39 per cent., compared to 35 per cent., of the total in Great Britain.

  The latest figures available for the current year indicate that the growth is continuing, with 76 Scottish unions now on the register.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 16 March to the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam),Official Report, columns 222–28, if he will give (a) the names, (b) the purpose and (c) the gross amounts paid to management consultants used by the Scottish Office since he was appointed, not already listed in his answer: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 20 May 1993]: Due to the quantity of information needed to answer this question, I will write to the hon. Member. Copies of my reply will be placed in the Library of the House.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers— Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.
Lord Rothschild Lord Rothschild —Took the Oath.

Tuberculosis: Immunisation Programme
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the declaration by the World Health Organisation that tuberculosis constitutes a global public health emergency, they will reconsider proposals to end the national programme of vaccinating children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, there are no plans to end the schools BCG immunisation programme.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. However, is she aware that, because the communicable disease report in May showed that TB in this country has risen by 5 per cent over the past year, there is concern about some of the causes of that rise? One of the factors which is of greatest concern is the interaction between HIV and the increase in TB. Can the Minister give the House any further information?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we are aware of the concern about the fact that the HIV pandemic is having an effect on the rates of tuberculosis in the USA and elsewhere. However, we have some very robust screening programmes so that those coming into this country who may have TB because they come from a high prevalence area are screened before they take up residence.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that immunisation against tuberculosis will continue well after the last case is diagnosed in this country, bearing in mind that the World Health Organisation has said that smallpox has been eradicated but that recently two cases were diagnosed in Asia?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords; the Government are very concerned about the issue. We have recently written to regional health authorities to remind them of their obligations. It is a disease which has largely been eradicated, and we are determined that it does not become reintroduced into the country.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the "helpful reply" from the Minister. However, I have to say that I found it most disappointing. Does not the Minister accept the report by the Public Health Laboratory Service, Communicable Diseases, which links homelessness with tuberculosis? Bearing in mind
386
that the problems of homelessness in our society are steadily increasing, will the Minister think again about the reply that she gave to my noble friend?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we know that there are many factors which affect the spread of tuberculosis. But the Government are addressing the vulnerability of homeless people to this particular disease. Last year we funded a tuberculosis screening programme at Crisis Open Christmas. We are in consultation with that organisation, and other organisations, to see how best to tackle the problem. In fact, the Department of Health is funding nearly 30 projects to help ensure that homeless people have ready access to any medical services that they require.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that I, and perhaps many other noble Lords, were very concerned when we read the Question? We are delighted at the very positive response that she gave. It shows that the basis of the Question was unfounded. Can my noble friend tell the House whether the success of all the vaccination and immunisation programmes is having a major impact in removing all the diseases that are capable of being removed by such measures? Will she give a commitment that the Government will maintain their policy of maximum uptake of immunisations and vaccinations in order to keep herd immunity as high as possible?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. He is quite correct in his assumption that we are tackling some of the endemic diseases that used to be very prevalent years ago. In the past two years not a single child has died of measles. The Government are anxious not only to maintain the present programme but also to improve it. We have set stringent targets that childhood immunisation should achieve a 95 per cent coverage by 1995. We are not as ambitious as one South American country where the former Minister of Health assured me that they had achieved target rates of 110 per cent
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the regional health authorities—and I speak as a member of one—recognise that the TB resurgence is a very serious matter? They are not only carrying out immunisation, but they are also undertaking research into the particular factors that cause the spread of the disease so as to contain it where it does occur in the community.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as the vice-chairman of a regional health authority my noble friend is obviously quite correct on the issue. The Government are committed to reviewing the policy to absolutely ensure that it is meeting all the targets. A national survey of notifications of tuberculosis in England and Wales is taking place during 1993, from which we expect some useful information to be produced.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I return to the point which was also mentioned by my noble

387
friend Lord Ennals about the helpfulness, or otherwise, of the reply of the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, also referred to the matter I am about to mention. I hope the Minister can confirm that this Question is not based on a misunderstanding. I understand there is to be a review of the schools vaccination programme. I am grateful that the Minister has indicated that that review will have a positive result in the sense that vaccination programmes will continue.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government have a good record in this field. We are one of the leaders in the world in terms of vaccination and immunisation programmes. Our healthy children are proof of the success of the programme.

Welsh Affairs: Report
11.13 a.m.
Lord Aberdare Lord Aberdare asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their reaction to the report Wales 2010 — Creating our Future published by the Institute of Welsh Affairs.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the report is clearly the result of a great deal of hard work by a number of committed people within the institute. It deserves careful consideration.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that positive reply which certainly recognises that this is an important and most interesting report. I have two questions for my noble friend. First, when considering the report will the Welsh Office pay particular attention to those recommendations for which it will have the prime responsibility if they are to be put into effect? The recommendations are listed at Appendix 5 of the report. Secondly, will the Secretary of State consider meeting with the authors of the report at some suitable date to discuss with them how best the various recommendations in the report can be carried forward?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has asked his department to consider the report's findings in detail. I am pleased to say that arrangements are already in hand for such a meeting to take place.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the department be prepared to consider consulting the many important local authorities in both South and North Wales on this matter?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am quite sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales takes all such opinions into consideration when making his plans.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the reply he gave to my noble friend did not seem to indicate positively that the Government have read the report? Have they read it?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the Government have read the report.
Baroness White: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that the brave new world envisaged in this interesting and exciting report, of which I too have a copy, is unlikely to be reached by the year 2010 unless certain districts in Wales can retain for some time longer the assisted area status that they currently enjoy?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that the report is optimistic in what it seeks to achieve. However, the Government's response to the report will be subject to financial constraints.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does not the noble Viscount appreciate that the very preparation of the report implies a concern about the next century in Wales and that steps must be taken in time to ensure the prosperity of Wales in the next century? What are the Government doing about that?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, as I have said, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales is meeting with the institute' and these matters will be considered.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I invite the noble Viscount to be a little more specific. This document contains about 82 initiatives set out in Appendix 5. The report assigns the 82 tasks to 17 organisations, or categories of organisation. If the Welsh Office is to give careful consideration to this document, will it initiate a round of consultations with all the organisations which are named in Appendix 5? Unless the department is clear about that and unless it is prepared to undertake such an exercise, how can it form an objective view of the merits of these recommendations?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, must be aware that several of the most successful initiatives of the Welsh Office have been born from ideas that originated within the Institute of Welsh Affairs. I refer to two of those initiatives; namely, the A.55 and the valleys initiative. I am sure that these initiatives would not have been embarked on if there had not been consultations held at a meaningful level between the Welsh Office and the Institute of Welsh Affairs.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we are the first to acknowledge the contribution of the Institute of Welsh Affairs. However, I specifically drew attention to the 17 organisations, and the department should be consulting with them.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am quite sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales is well aware of the points raised by the noble Lord. I am sure that he will take them into consideration when he takes these matters further.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if, as the Government claim, there has been some

389
economic success in Wales in recent years, that is due to a combination of proper planning authorities; proper co-operation with local authorities; an interventionist policy directly pursued, and announced as such by the Welsh Office; and a sympathetic attitude by the Government towards public expenditure in Wales? If that can work in Wales, why on earth cannot it work elsewhere?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition recognises the work that has been done in Wales by the Welsh Office and by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.

Humanitarian Relief: Spending
11.19 a.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proportion of their total overseas aid budget in each of the past three years was spent on humanitarian relief work and projects; and what is the estimate for 1993–94.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, of our total aid programme to developing countries humanitarian relief accounted for 9.6 per cent in 1989–90, 9.9 per cent in 1990–91 and 14.4 per cent in 1991–92. The figures for 1992–93 are not yet available. It is not our usual practice to publish estimates, which can often differ greatly from actual expenditure, especially in relation to emergency relief, which by its very nature is unpredictable.
Lord Judd: My Lords, while I thank the Minister for that reply, does she not agree that with more than 40 significant conflicts raging in the world and almost 40 million refugees and displaced people, and in the light of all the evidence that every major famine of recent years has been conflict related, that trend in the aid programme demonstrates that absolute priority must be given to pre-emptive diplomacy, conflict resolution, peacemaking and peacekeeping? What are the Government doing strategically towards those objectives?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I sympathise as regards the problems because I am the one in the hot seat who has to deal with them all the time. While one cannot predict where one is going to need to spend resources as a result either of natural disasters or of the man-made disasters of war which affect so many millions of people, we have a firm strategy for being ready to respond. We make sure that we have sufficient resources to expend when called upon to do so. We have learnt many lessons in the past two years, when we have had the greatest number of conflicts ever. I am glad to say that I have managed to make sure that life-preserving humanitarian aid takes the highest priority but also not to curtail development aid in order to provide such humanitarian assistance.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, first, no one doubts the generosity of this Government towards overseas aid.
390
However, is the aid going to the right people? What efforts are being made by this Government, or any other government for that matter, to ensure that the money we give goes to the people who really need it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure this House that the British Government have one of the most effective and carefully controlled systems for assessing need before deciding what resources are needed and by what means they should be expended. I have no doubt that there are some donor countries in the world which are not as precise as we are. If the noble Lord has a specific case in mind, I hope that he will write to me about it because I have never failed to investigate such suggestions and, if there has ever been the slightest doubt in my mind, to put in extra staff to make sure that the money is spent on those things which we say it should be spent on.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many noble Lords on these Benches do not accept the generalisation just made by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish? Many of us feel that the aid is inadequate. Will the Minister accept my congratulations on the fact that she distributes an inadequate budget as fairly as she can? Do the Government still accept 0.7 per cent of gross domestic product as the target for our overseas aid programme? Does she believe that progress year by year is now moving towards that figure? When will we reach that figure?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that the House already knows that the Government have never given a date by which, under any administration, we would meet that figure. It is a target. Over the past five years we have averaged 0.3 per cent of gross domestic product. I am doing my best to ensure that every single pound of the resources we have is spent to maximum effect and with the minimum administrative cost. However, one has always to be conscious of the fact that, with more than 30 million refugees and displaced persons and with the role of modern media in creating additional demand for help with problems about which a few years ago we knew nothing, we have a real difficulty. I shall do my best with the resources that are available.
I say to the noble Lord in all sincerity that any responsible government must spend only what it can afford. I am very conscious of the need to do the very best I can with those resources that I can obtain. However, we have to make sure that we have the resources to pay for the programmes that we want to implement.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, bearing in mind both the number and dimension of the problems, does my noble friend agree that whatever resources were applied they would be inadequate but that in the circumstances most of us warmly endorse the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton for what he has just said. I believe that we have to be very strict about the spending of resources. That is why over recent years we have sought to improve government

391
systems in many of the countries receiving aid, particularly relating to the administration of their own economic resources, so that we can make sure that all the money we give can be given to countries which are themselves pursuing sensible economic reform and structural adjustment.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, while I acknowledge that our Government have an excellent record in these matters, is the Minister satisfied that other wealthy countries are making as good an effort as we are? Is that not a vital question which our Government should address, because some countries would have difficulty in equalling our record but ought to do as much as we do?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the House is very well aware that, if Britain undertakes a commitment to pay money to an international organisation, we pay up. Others are not always so good at doing that. It is one of my jobs—and will be next week —to encourage others to pay their dues.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, as a supplementary point to the question I asked earlier, does the Minister accept that some of the Western countries which, like us, have been going through a very difficult recession have reached and exceeded the target of 0.7 per cent?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am glad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is aware that many countries have also suffered this bad recession. Sometimes his colleagues on the other side of this House do not seem to realise that other countries have also suffered a bad recession. None of those countries which have reached or surpassed the figure of 0.7 per cent have anything like our global responsibilities. Nor do they have the same ability to contribute in many different fields overseas. Therefore, while countries like the Netherlands may have a laudable and very acceptable system, they do not have the other demands upon them that the United Kingdom bears and which we have to be able to pay for.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the figures she herself has given today illustrate that there has been an increase of the order of 50 per cent in the amount of the aid programme being spent on relief as distinct from development? Does she agree that that is directly related to conflict and that if we are to create the conditions in which development can take place on a sustained basis priority must be given by the international community to conflict resolution and peacekeeping? We are Permanent Members of the Security Council: what are we doing about it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Judd, had seen the volume of telegrams on the subject of conflict resolution which emanates from and is received by the United Kingdom's mission at the UN in New York, he would know just how hard we are seeking to work with others on conflict resolution. I agree with him totally that conflict resolution can be the solution in some cases, but the difficulty for the Permanent Members,
392
who now work together better than at any time that I remember, is that whatever the Security Council resolves has to be implemented in some countries which have no interest in that conflict resolution.
Lord Rea: My Lords, at the risk of my point being considered wide of the Question on the Order Paper, will the noble Baroness give us some idea of the military expenditure which has been engendered by the support for our humanitarian work in various countries where British forces are engaged over and above what one might call the normal running costs of the Armed Forces?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord asks. I am afraid that I do not have the figures to hand; and the question is a long way from the original Question of the noble Lord, Lord Judd.

Parliamentary Questions: Cost
11.31 a.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What criteria they have for deciding that a Parliamentary Question could only be answered at disproportionate cost.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, any Written Question where the marginal cost of preparing the Answer is considered likely to exceed the threshold of £450 may be referred to the appropriate Minister who may decline to answer in whole or part on the grounds of disproportionate cost.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. My Question was intended to be of general application. Is he aware that it was sparked off by a Question put to the Government by his noble friend Lord Tebbit? At col. WA61 of the Official Report of 11th May he put to the Government the following Question:
"Whether they will list those meetings of the Council of Ministers within the last five years at which directives have been agreed or decisions affecting United Kingdom citizens have been taken which have involved participation by Ministers subsequently arrested for, or known to be under investigation in connection with, financial corruption".
The reply was given in the sense as I have already indicated.
Is the noble Lord aware that the information requested by his noble friend ought to be in the possession of the Foreign Office? Alternatively, a few telephone calls to embassies throughout the Community would have yielded the information. Does not his Answer imply that the inference contained in the Question asked by his noble friend is probably true, and on a very wide scale?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not know how the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, infers his conclusion, having said what he has said. The point is this. Parliamentary Questions are answered without charge. It is a very valuable service to Members of this House. The threshold of £450 focuses attention on

393
cost and the potential scope for abuse. It is always open to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to recast the Question of my noble friend, or indeed to pursue the matter through some other parliamentary or Ministerial route.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord inform the House of the cost of answering a Question about the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord should perhaps put down a Question to that effect.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, while ever mindful of the rights and privileges of this House, will the noble Lord say whether the rules which apply in this House as to whether it is worth while paying for the research are the same as in another place?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, yes. The threshold is government-wide and includes both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will my noble friend advise the House when the threshold was last set and when it is next due for review?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, yes. The cost of PQs was clarified and announced by a PQ on 14th January 1992. The threshold itself was further increased in February 1993. It is a figure which is regularly reviewed. It has been in place since 1965, when the threshold was £50.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, was the reason why the threshold was exceeded in that particular case due to the fact that a large number of cases were involved?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it was certainly a very wide Question which required an enormous amount of research. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, if the Question were recast in a different way, he might receive another answer.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my noble friend explained that one of the considerations taken into account was whether the information could be obtained by another route. Will he tell me what other route could generate the answer to the Question posed by my noble friend Lord Tebbit other than via the lips of the Minister?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not wish to give the impression that there was another non-parliamentary route. There are a number of ways of asking Ministers questions. There are Oral Questions such as this Question. Other forms of questions can be asked. As regards that particular Question for Written Answer, the Answer would have broken the threshold quite substantially.
Lord Richard: My Lords, in order that we are all aware of the position, will the Minister confirm that there is no advisory limit so far as concerns Oral Questions? If an Oral Question had been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, presumably some Minister could have sanctioned the expenditure so that it could
394
properly be answered. Will he confirm that even when it is a Written Question, if the advisory cost limit looks as though it will be exceeded, and the civil servant says to the Minister, "It looks likely that the cost will go over £450", it is then at the discretion of the Minister to decide whether or not to answer the Question, even if the cost is more than £450? Will the noble Lord tell us what criteria the Minister will then adopt? Does he consider the issue and say, "It will cost £450. It is a difficult question. I shall not bother to answer it"? Alternatively, does he say, "It will cost £1,000, but I should like to answer the question. Therefore I shall do so."? Are there any criteria or is it just the length of the Minister's foot?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition started his question off well. He is indeed right that Oral Questions do not have a financial limit because they are different types of Questions and, of course, there are any number of possible supplementary questions.
On the point of Written Questions, yes, when the threshold is broken it is up to the discretion of the Minister to decide whether or not that expenditure is worth while. Clearly in this particular case my noble friend decided that it was not worth breaking that rule. Overall, government decide not to answer some 2.2 per cent of all Parliamentary Questions that are put down. I believe that that is a good record and shows the real willingness of Ministers to answer all questions, even when they are difficult.

Education Bill
11.36 a.m.
Viscount AstorMy Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 3,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 4 to 33,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 34 to 48,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 49 to 53,

Schedules 5 and 6,

Clauses 54 to 57,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 58 to 160,

Schedule 8,

Clause 161,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 162 to 174,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 175 to 208,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 209 to 228,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 229 to 231,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 232 to 240,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 241 to 247,

395

Schedule 15,

Clauses 248 to 267,

Schedule 16,

Clauses 268 to 274,

Schedule 17,

Clauses 275 to 284,

Schedules 2 and 18 to 20.—(Viscount Astor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Bill
11.37 a.m.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is a short enabling measure. Last November the insurance industry announced that, with effect from 1st January this year, it would severely limit the cover given to industrial and commercial properties for damage caused by acts of terrorism. That limitation of cover was for prudent commercial reasons following the loss of their own reinsurance protection from predominantly large European reinsurers. That action was against a background of a sharp contraction in reinsurance capacity worldwide and worsening claims experience in mainland Great Britain.
That development was understandably of great anxiety to British industry and commerce. The Government concluded that it was necessary to ensure the continued availability of insurance cover for loss and damage arising from acts of terrorism. Accordingly, after discussion with interested parties, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade announced on 21st December 1992 that the Government would act as a reinsurer of last resort to insurers of industrial and commercial property in Great Britain with effect from 1st January this year.
I should say that while it is primarily industrial and commercial property that is affected, the restriction on coverage of losses stemming from terrorism applies also to other properties for which the policyholder was not a private individual. So the new arrangements apply to all such property, including buildings such as churches, about which I shall say more later.
The arrangements deal with the consequences of a partial market failure. The Government's involvement will last only as long as is necessary to remedy that failure. The arrangements do not represent a subsidy by the Exchequer, nor do they represent state aid. Over their lifetime, the arrangements are expected to be at nil cost to the taxpayer, but at the same time the Government seek not to expose insurers to undue risks which might threaten their solvency. I must emphasise that the arrangements provide for reinsurance, not compensation. If insureds do not buy the proper insurance cover, the Government will not entertain claims for compensation in the event of loss or damage.
The structure and operation of the arrangements are described in the explanatory summary attached to the Notes on Clauses, copies of which are in the Library. Briefly, insurers wishing to offer property
396
insurance, including terrorism cover, will become members of a mutual reinsurance company, the Pool Reinsurance Company Limited. Pool Re (as it is now known colloquially) will reinsure all terrorism risks situated in Great Britain, borne by its insurer members, for which an additional insurance premium has been paid by the insureds. In turn, the Secretary of State will reinsure Pool Re, and Pool Re will pay the Government a reinsurance premium.
An important feature of the arrangements is that insurers will provide, within their basic property damage policies, £100,000 of cover for each of buildings, contents and business interruption. That will occur automatically and without the need to pay an additional premium. This is especially helpful to small businesses. Where there are claims, the insurers will bear the first £100,000 under each section of the basic property policy, recovering claims beyond that amount from Pool Re. They will be paid for out of the premiums received. If those resources are exhausted, the company will raise a levy on its members of up to an equivalent of 10 per cent of the premiums they have remitted. Should those additional resources also be fully used up, the company will claim on its reinsurance contract with the Government.
Turning to the Bill itself, Clause. 1(1) empowers the Secretary of State to make payments in fulfilment of the obligations he has entered into under the agreement to provide reinsurance cover. The clause also empowers the Secretary of State to make payments under any guarantees he may have given. It is envisaged that he may wish to give guarantees to lenders to ensure that Pool Re could make prompt payment of claims from its members. Entering into the agreement and any guarantees would be subject to Treasury approval. Clause 1(2) would require that the agreement with Pool Re be laid before Parliament after the passing of the Bill and as soon as it is entered into. Clause 1(3) requires government premiums from Pool Re to be remitted to the Consolidated Fund.
Clause 2 defines the reinsurance arrangements to which the Act would apply. Clause 3 provides that the Act does not extend to Northern Ireland, where there are separate arrangements in existence.
I think I should comment on the degree of retrospection provided by the Bill. The Bill will not authorise any payments that might have been made before it comes into force. However, the provisions of Clause 1(1) would authorise payments to be made in future under an arrangement that may have been entered into before the Bill comes into force. The provisions of Clause 2(1) authorise payments to be made under an agreement which relates to events that occurred before that agreement came into being. If the passage of the Bill is completed quickly, it is the latter situation which will occur, and the agreement to be concluded will cover events occurring since 1st January 1993, notably the Bishopsgate bomb.
Before concluding, I should like to comment on two issues which I know cause some anxiety. First, the premiums that policyholders will have to pay in future to insure against terrorist damage are an unfortunate extra cost that businesses and others will have to face. We have no wish to see any unnecessary increases in

397
premiums. But we must ensure that the scheme operates properly and that so far as possible normal market conditions apply. Unless the premiums charged have proper regard to perceived risks and to claims experience, it will be impossible to return them to normal market conditions.
No one would wish to see government involvement as a permanent feature of this sector of the market. Such involvement would of course have to be paid for by taxation. Although terrorism premiums are a new charge, we must keep them in perspective and the sums involved are small compared with other business costs. The figures available to the Government suggest that terrorism premiums for large city centre properties are of the order of one-quarter to one-half of I per cent of the annual rent of a typical property.
Secondly, I should like to clear up some confusion about availability of cover for churches. Churches are eligible to be covered by the arrangements. However, it is for the individual Church authorities to decide whether to cover particular churches by paying an additional terrorism premium.
I commend the Bill to the House. The swift passage of the Bill, following the example of another place, will send a clear message both to business in London and throughout the country and to terrorists. The message to terrorists is that business and government together will not permit mindless criminal damage to interfere with normal life for a moment longer than is necessary. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Viscount St. Davids.)
11.47 a.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the brief introduction of the essential purposes of the Bill, and I especially endorse the message, to terrorists in particular, that he announced at the end of his speech. We support the Bill and the reasons which require all the stages of the Bill to be undertaken today. Nevertheless, there are serious disadvantages in undertaking, as a revising Chamber, a Bill on this basis. However, I believe it is the right course to undertake.
I wish to make some brief comments in the next five minutes. Perhaps I may say at the outset of my remarks that we certainly deplore the loss of life and injuries which have been occasioned by the recent acts of terrorism, but which go on all the time in Northern Ireland. Equally, we deplore the scaremongering and hyperbolic press reports by so-called experts about the costs which were occasioned by the explosions at St. Mary Axe, and recently at Bishopsgate. That I believe is to play the game of the IRA and those people serve no value at all in making instant comments.
The Bill has been necessitated because of a shortage of capacity in the international reinsurance market arising from a number of catastrophes over recent years, not confined to terrorism. There has also been a withdrawal of support from Britain's insurance market by a number of European reinsurance companies. Consequently, in the wake of the events referred to by the Minister and because market forces
398
simply cannot deal with every contingency, even this Government have recognised that it was necessary to intervene.
A suggestion was raised in another place on Second Reading that the arrangements contemplated in the Bill might be incompatible with Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome—a point which was not dealt with by the Minister. He referred to state subsidies, state aid, dealt with under Article 92, which is quite different. Article 85 deals with agreements between undertakings on concerted practices which may affect trade between member states and have as their purpose or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the Community. The article specifically prescribes certain such arrangements. Can the Minister indicate whether the Commission was consulted about the provisions of this Bill, and say whether he is satisfied that no such infringement of Article 85 arises, bearing in mind the fact that any agreements or decisions prohibited under that article would render them automatically void?
My next point is about reports that have appeared in the financial press to the effect that moves to increase the cost of terrorism insurance could prejudice the effectiveness of the scheme which we are currently considering. Can the Minister indicate whether higher premiums are likely; whether these might, as the press reports indicate, deter people from taking out the cover; and whether the Government are pressing Pool Re to increase its rates? Is the take-up of the new terrorism policies likely to be more restricted than is anticipated?
My own view concurs with that of the Minister. I believe that the premiums in this context represent a very small part of the total costs. But having said that, I am not an expert. The chief executive of the Association of British Insurers has indicated that he believes that the insurance cover will not be taken up on the scale expected. Can the Minister deal with that point?
Finally—since, understandably, we are legislating here with enormous haste, and because the Bill, although small, is nevertheless quite complicated, and in such circumstances mistakes can occur all too easily in practice—I hope that the Government will ensure that Parliament will be kept properly informed periodically about the way in which the scheme will operate. Perhaps he can give an undertaking to that effect.
11.52 a.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may take up the point made by the noble Lord opposite as to the undesirability —particularly in view of the function of this House as a revising Chamber—of taking this Bill through all its stages in one day. It is clear to all of us who have listened to both speeches that have been made that it is a complicated Bill involving technical questions of insurance. It would have been much more useful if the House had been able to have a Second Reading debate and then, some days later after consideration of what had been said, noble Lords may have wished to put down amendments, at least to test the soundness of

399
the proposals. I quite realise the need for haste, but I wonder whether it is really the case that the Bill could not have been taken for Second Reading a day or two earlier and a gap introduced.
Another Bill has been similarly treated this week. I believe it is a dangerous tendency of those who manage our business to cut down debate on Bills to one day, all stages other than Second Reading being taken straight away. I hope therefore that my noble friend the Minister will indicate some penitence about the procedure followed and, as the Deputy Leader of the House is present, that we may be assured that this will not become a common practice.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Opposition were fully consulted on the timetable. If by any stretch of the imagination the noble Lord is under the impression that the intention behind the speed and shortness of time was to cut out the opportunity for debate, I can tell him that that was the last thing in the minds of the business managers. They had in mind the imperative to get this legislation on to the statute book as quickly as possible. Bearing in mind the enormous pressure of the past two or three weeks—and noble Lords will know that there are more than 100 names on the list of speakers for the debate on 7th and 8th June—the House will appreciate the impossibility. Nevertheless, when the business managers look at the business—the approach to facilitate this measure came very much from the Government —they will certainly bear in mind what has been said.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I neither said nor intended to say that there was any deliberate intention, either on the part of the Government or the Opposition, to eliminate discussion. All I said was that the procedure had that effect; and that, particularly for a revising Chamber, that is very unfortunate and ought, if at all possible, to be avoided in all cases. I was hoping for some assurance from my noble friend the Minister that this will not become a common practice, whether with the agreement of the Opposition or not.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I share some of the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I also accept that there is need for urgency so far as concerns this Bill, for reasons which we all understand. But as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, this House lives or dies on the basis of its position as a revising Chamber. I am concerned about the increasing tendency in recent years to have arguments of this kind advanced in late May, June and July. I understand the case for the Bill proceeding in the way that has been suggested, but I hope, with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, as Deputy Leader of the House, will understand our concern about procedures of this character.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, obviously there is considerable concern among your Lordships that these matters of great importance should not be expedited unduly and unfairly. Of course it is important that they should be given proper consideration. Also, there is the difficulty
400
of trying to fit in a timetable, and the usual channels have to work out a very difficult system by which everything can be dealt with and given its due weight of importance. Certainly I shall take into consideration the matters that have been mentioned.
11.56 a.m.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am grateful for the constructive approach adopted by noble Lords and for the helpful attitude taken towards the rapid passage of this Bill. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of the questions that he wished to raise.
As regards the relationship of the arrangements to the Treaty of Rome, officials have discussed the position with Commission officials and no problems are expected. The terms of the agreement will probably need to be notified to the Commission under Article 85 of the Treaty. But our discussions with officials in Brussels have indicated that there should be no insuperable problems.
As regards the suggestions that there may be increases in premiums, the Government, with Pool Re, have a duty to keep the level of income into Pool Re under review, particularly in the light of claims experience. As with any insurance policy, increased incidence of losses leads inevitably to increased premiums. But the Government remain firm in their commitment to provide the reinsurance cover that the market is currently failing to provide. The Government have no wish to impose unnecessary costs on policyholders and will not wish to see premiums raised unnecessarily. Insureds must remember that the premiums will normally remain only a small part of their total costs.
I will, of course, bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade the request by the noble Lord that the House be kept informed on the progress of this policy and of Pool Re in future.
The support for these matters that is evident in this House, as it was evident in all parts in another place, shows that we are united in our desire to ensure that terrorism will never win. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived. Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 20th May), Bill read a third time, and passed.

National Lottery etc. Bill
11.59 a.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is quite clear from the list of speakers that the Bill has evoked an impressive array of noble Lords who obviously have an interest in it. I can only say in anticipation that I hope that your Lordships' interest will prove to be a helpful one.
The whole purpose of the national lottery which is provided for in the Bill is to benefit good causes and to help to improve the quality of life of people in this

401
country. If one can do that and at the same time react to a perfectly natural inclination of most human beings periodically to want to have a bit of a flutter, it seems that we have, as it were, killed two birds with one stone.
"Quality of life" is not an expression which particularly endears itself to me, but its sentiment does. Life is pretty short. It holds for most people a pretty good quiverful of anxieties, fears, worries and apprehensions. Life should consist of more than that. 1 f we can enable people to enjoy their lives just a little more than they otherwise might have done, perhaps we may have achieved something.
A visit to a film or a theatre; participating in sport or watching it; and learning from the rich heritage of our past all add to our knowledge, experience and enjoyment of life. That is what we hope to encourage with the proceeds from the lottery.
The idea of a national lottery to fund good causes is not unfamiliar in this country. The first state sponsored lottery in England and Wales took place in 1569. It was mainly to raise money for the repair of the Cinque Ports. The prizes were fairly glamorous, being in the form of plate, tapestry and money.
Then there were lotteries in the 17th century. They were set up to bring fresh water to London and also to raise money to bring home English slaves who were held captive in Tunis. In 1698 a law was passed which stated that only lotteries which had been authorised by Parliament would he allowed. That was because of concern which had arisen about the conduct of privately run lotteries.
In 1753 another lottery was established. The proceeds from that were used to buy and house nothing less than the collections of the British Museum. The last state lottery in England took place in 1826. By that time the black market in illegal betting on the outcome of the lottery had become even bigger than the lottery itself. So the idea of lotteries was abandoned. So lotteries in England are not new, even if they have a spirited history.
Although there are some natural apprehensions expressed about the introduction of a national lottery, it is not such a terrible invention. Regrettably, Britain is not for once leading the world—anyhow on this matter. Almost every other major country in the world has a national lottery; and we are the only country in Europe at present without one. There was one other fellow recalcitrant European country which did not have a national lottery. But that happy state of affairs came to an end 12 months ago when Albania decided to introduce a lottery. So we are, if one may use the vernacular, in this respect on our tod.
We hope that the lottery will enable more and better facilities for people to take part, appreciate and, if they can, achieve excellence in the field of the arts, sport and our heritage. It will also provide a nostalgic opportunity for us to look back and reflect on what was the best in the old millennium as we look forward to the new one and to the projects which will be funded by the Millennium Commission.
The Bill will also create the National Lottery Charities Board. The board will fund undertakings which will aim to help those who are in need or in
402
distress, improve the quality of life for individual groups and the community as a whole and help to enable citizens of the United Kingdom to take part in voluntary activity.
There are though, I know, some who have misgivings or doubts about a lottery from a moral point of view. Indeed, I am sure that I am not alone among your Lordships in having been deluged with letters from people who have anxieties about a national lottery. I can understand those feelings. I think that most of us somewhere in the inner recesses of our psyche question the virtue of making money out of doing nothing—but love it when we do. The Bill has, therefore, a number of safeguards which we think will ensure that the national lottery will not encourage excessive gambling.
Some of your Lordships may look back, possibly with nostalgia, to the rumpus which was caused when, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Macmillan, 35 years ago, introduced premium bonds—that institution which is much loved by doting grandparents who give them to their favourite grandchildren, if they are lucky.
The same moral qualms as are applied to the national lottery now were expressed about the premium bonds then. It was the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Margaret Herbison) who said in a trenchant observation that:
"All who wish our young people to be trained on the soundest moral principles regard this policy of the Chancellor as one of the lowest projects any Chancellor in Britain has introduced".
Well, that was a view. But the notion of the premium bond being an instrument for social evil is one which in hindsight has gone perhaps, shall we say, a little over the top. I think that those who express similar qualms today about the national lottery may be seen in 30 or 40 years' time to have been a little over-cautious.
The lottery will be run by the private sector. We think that that is the right approach, because the need to earn a profit will ensure that the operator will run his operation as efficiently and successfully as possible within the framework of regulation which will be provided by the Bill. The director general of the national lottery will be appointed by the Secretary of State. He will set the framework, through the licence, to ensure that the lottery will be run with propriety, that the interests of the consumer will be protected and that the operator of the lottery will work in a way which will result in the maximum amount of money being available for good causes.
Distributing the lottery money will be an important responsibility. We want those who distribute the money to respond with imagination to the ideas which may emerge from those who apply. They will have to ensure that the money will be used for projects which will be important, lasting and worthy.
The lottery will consist of three elements: the operation, the regulation and the distribution. We have adopted the approach of separating the functions into those three different parts after having given careful consideration to all the possibilities, including that of having only one body to be responsible for everything.

403
We took the view, which has been reinforced by consultation after publication of the White Paper, that each of the three elements of the lottery would best be served if they were undertaken by separate organisations. Our fear was that one large body, which might be overseen by a board of what one might describe as the great and the good, would have to rely upon the advice of other bodies which actually had the expertise. We would therefore be creating, albeit unwittingly, an extra layer of bureaucracy; and in the terms of 1066 and All That, that would be a "Bad Thing".
The amount of money which will be available for distribution from the lottery may well prove to be more than £100 million a year—not in total but in each of the five categories of art, sport, the national heritage, charities and the Millennium Fund. There could, in other words, be some £2 million a week being made available to each of those categories. By any standard, we shall be dealing with very large amounts of money for a wide variety of different causes. That is one reason why we think that separate bodies for the five categories will be appropriate; it is simply so that the amounts which will be dealt with can be handled correctly.
Each of the bodies will be accountable separately to Parliament. Only Parliament will be able to change the proportions to be distributed between the different categories—that will be by affirmative resolution—and there will be the safeguard that no one category will be able to get less than 5 per cent of the total.
In setting up the Charities Board and the Millennium Commission we shall be establishing two important, new, independent foundations. Together with the sports councils, the arts councils and the National Heritage Memorial Fund, we shall have five responsible bodies which will ensure that the money distributed is used wisely.
By setting out the arrangements for the distribution of the proceeds of the lottery in such detail, the Bill is quite different from the legislation which obtains in many other countries. Any lottery money which an organisation receives is intended to be additional to any other public money which it may receive. It is not intended to supplant it.
By setting up the lottery we shall be creating a substantial new business. There will be the operation of the lottery itself; a headquarters organisation; all the technology which will be necessary to run the lottery; the retail network; and a substantial marketing venture too. All of that is likely to create many hundreds of new jobs.
In other words, in the jargon of the commercial world, the Bill will be creating a completely new "product" in this country. Large numbers of on-line computer terminals will be needed. It is those computer terminals which will be used to play the national lottery. Those who want to play an on-line lottery game might choose, say, six numbers from 39 and they then mark their choices on a card which is fed into the lottery terminal. The chosen numbers are registered in the lottery's central computer and the machine issues a ticket. The whole transaction takes
404
less than a few seconds. Alternatively, players can buy an instant scratch-card ticket and win more, but lower-level, prizes.
Lottery tickets may be available from a variety of outlets, possibly in shopping centres, in railway stations, at corner shops and in supermarkets. The choice of retail outlets will play an important part in any successful bid to run the lottery. And the end result will be that thousands of businesses, both large and small, should benefit from the commission income which will be provided by the lottery. They will also benefit by attracting people into their premises and by increasing their sales of other products.
An important part of the Bill concerns existing lotteries which are run by charities, sports clubs and others. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary recognised the concerns of those who are engaged with existing society lotteries, increasing substantially the limits on turnover and on prizes, so that those who run small lotteries for the benefit of their own organisations will not be disadvantaged.
We understand the importance which is attached to lotteries by a large number of charitable organisations. Our view is that lotteries which are run by particular societies will continue to be supported, as they are now, by those people who are motivated to contribute to the causes which those societies espouse. I think that there will always be a clear distinction in the minds of the public between a national lottery and small charitable and local lotteries.
During the course of the Bill in another place, there were many discussions about the football pools and the possible effects on them of the introduction of the national lottery. There is, of course, the argument that there is only a certain amount of money in the system and that any money which is diverted towards the new national lottery can only be at the expense of some other body or charity which is at present benefiting; there is not any new money being created by the lottery. That, of course, is true, but research in other countries has shown that the main source of funds for their lotteries has not been at the expense of other gambling or charitable giving; it has come from a wide spectrum of general expenditure.
However, we have taken the opportunity of this Bill to modernise the regime which applies to the football pools, and we have taken steps which we think are fair and which will give the football pool companies considerable new advantages. In addition to those steps, we also propose to bring forward an amendment which would allow the pools a rollover facility which will match that of the lottery.
I have outlined the main points of the Bill today and the Government's philosophy behind it. The Bill will enable everyone in this country to participate in a new national lottery which, as well as giving them the opportunity to win a prize, will raise substantial amounts of money which will be available for a wide range of worthy causes. The lottery will also be an important new business opportunity, which is already being seized upon by those who think that they might be able to participate in providing some of the services required.

405
I hope that your Lordships will agree that it is a good Bill; one which will generate a great deal of interest and one which will benefit a large number of people in a large number of different ways. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. (Earl Ferrers.)
12.14 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this unusual Bill, which cuts across party lines. That is something which this House usually manages to debate extremely well. I note that in another place the Government had a three-line Whip, though some of their Members were clearly against; the Liberal Democrats had a Whip against, though some were clearly for; and the Labour Party —ever practical—had no Whip on the Second Reading, with Members speaking and voting both for and against, and on the Third Reading the Front Bench voted for.
We on these Benches today are broadly positive to the proposal, though with specific reservations which I shall identify later. We do not oppose the lottery in principle. Many people will enjoy a flutter, as the Minister said, and as some do successfully in other lotteries in most other countries. Market research and polls show that three-quarters of the British people would welcome a national lottery and participate in it. We do not wish to be patronising and suggest that people cannot be trusted to gamble.
We accept, also politically, that a lottery may be the only way under this Government to make major strides towards improving the quality of our artistic and sporting heritage. Its collapsing infrastructure needs more than the customary annual slice of inflation plus or minus the odd percentage. It needs major capital injections beyond the existing provisions.
At moments of optimism, contemplating this project, we may recall that the British Museum and Westminster Bridge in the 18th century, and the Sydney Opera House in the 20th century, were built from lottery proceeds. The V & A, the Science Museum and the Natural History Museums were built from surplus funds of the 1851 Great Exhibition. Indeed, moving almost effortlessly towards near euphoria, we can all share a vision of Britain blossoming with great cultural and sporting projects demonstrating our national architectural genius—a talent which has lately been inexplicably hidden from our gaze. If realised, that vision would also create much welcome employment.
Those are uplifting thoughts and I am reluctant to deprive noble Lords too precipitately of their enjoyment. However, I should warn them that that great vision does not wholly survive the close scrutiny which we propose to give the Bill. Indeed, many on my side will question from the beginning why such a noble vision requires such complex and costly bureaucratic vehicles. If the Government really wish to improve our cultural infrastructure there are simpler, cheaper and well-tested ways to do it which do not involve four new quangos, hundreds of millions of pounds of
406
administrative expenses and 16 year-olds scratching lottery cards. That simple method is direct public expenditure from fair and progressive taxation.
However, we accept that our traditional simple and cheap approach is not politically correct in present government circles. Therefore, this rather convoluted approach may be the best hope which the artistic and sporting worlds have on offer. The choice seems to be between a collapsing cultural infrastructure, which may be partly rescued by the lottery, or one which is not rescued at all, particularly bearing in mind that central and local funding for the arts, the sports and heritage are scheduled to fall in coming years.
I am intrigued also that it is assumed to be politically correct for the Government to sponsor a state-driven expansion of gambling which involves reducing the age of consent to 16 for football pools as well as the lottery. The Minister spoke of the pleasures of a flutter, and I totally agree with him. But I invite the Minister, in winding up to entertain the House with more lofty and philosophical thoughts on the matter. Where does the proposal fit into the Government's view of society? We know it offends the puritanical, non-conformist strain in our society—our heavy postbag tells us that—and many see it as bread and circuses.
I must admit that I am not from that stable, if I may be permitted to use that phrase in this puritanical context. I am more inclined towards the cavalier tendency. But I respect that puritanical strain as a legitimate voice in our society. Many of the noblest spirits on this side have derived from that pedigree. Much of Britain's greatness was built on the Protestant work ethic. I wonder whether the Government have a view on the Protestant work ethic. Perhaps they feel that growth in gambling is the only economic growth they can achieve. I understand that. As for the work ethic, they may feel that the swinging sixties did away with the ethic, and in the 1980s and the 1990s this Government have done away with the work. But seriously, we should like to tease out the philosophy behind this approach. Is it really—I hope it is not the case—just a device to allow cuts in public expenditure and direct taxes; or perhaps it simply involves buying a ticket to a classless society.
Turning to the contents of the Bill, I have to observe that many aspects of the working of the lottery remain obscure. The Bill does not tell us how, or how regularly, the lottery will operate or what it expects to raise. Turnover has been variously estimated between £1.3 billion and more than £4 billion. That is quite a range. At the upper level is a huge industry, with a significant impact on other marginal consumer expenditure. At the lower level it offers only relatively small sums for the five good causes and may not be worth doing after the Treasury and the operator's expenses have taken their cut.
We also need to know more about the operator under Clause 5; the key body which will apparently devise, propose and manage the lottery. It is very important to control its expense levels because that comes off the distribution to others. It is also important that it should be British. There are rumours of a very impressive American bidder. But bearing in

407
mind that British lottery promoters and products are prohibited imports to the United States, it would seem to me curious if an American operator were handed this huge prize.
Even more frustrating, though quite understandable, is that we yet do not know what the five beneficiaries will receive as a collective percentage. We know that tax takes 12 per cent, which is unnecessarily high—double the European average—and should be reduced. But until we know the percentages also allocated to prizes and to expenses we can get no idea of the final benefits. For instance, if prizes take 50 per cent and expenses 15 per cent, with tax at 12 per cent, that leaves only 23 per cent for the five good causes, or 4.6 per cent each. On a turnover of £1.5 billion that is £60 million to £70 million each a year—certainly no bonanza for the arts, charities and sport, given their needs, though relatively more helpful to heritage. It would help us if the Minister could give the House some idea of those percentages. We should like to see a guaranteed 35 per cent to the good causes.
We also need some idea of the financial dimensions of potential distribution if only to constrain the vibrant imaginations of various arts and sporting organisations, whose administrators, from what I read, have already in their minds pre-empted and spent some 73 years' anticipated receipts from the lottery.
Looking more closely at the details of the Bill, it has undoubtedly been improved by generous concessions by Ministers at the Committee and Report stages in another place. The voluntary and charitable sectors and especially the pools have benefited from that. But it remains deficient in several ways which I will now identify briefly. We propose to try to introduce further improvements at later stages in this House.
The first and fundamental question concerns additionality. The proceeds of the national lottery must not be subtracted from or substituted for existing or future public expenditure. It must be truly additional—distributed to projects which otherwise would not get state aid. That will not be easy to prove. It will be hard to demonstrate what the Government would or would not otherwise have done. But unless we are confident that all parties in this enterprise, including the Treasury, are positively committed to this principle—that there will in future be no subtractions from heritage funding because of the lottery—then it is not really worth doing. We should not set up this complex apparatus just to slice the same heritage funding in a different way. We want more.
The Secretary of State has given many assurances that the lottery projects will be truly additional. I trust him. He is an honest man. We welcome him to our debate. But I am not sure about future Ministers. There are often whiffs of a reshuffle and Ministers come and go. I am certainly not sure about the Treasury, which has never been trustworthy in these respects. It is already moving the goal posts on access to the public expenditure reserve for works of art. We also note that heritage spending is scheduled to fall by 5.4 per cent in real terms in 1993–94, curiously
408
coinciding with the expected launch of the lottery. I am a naively trusting man but if I am told that the Treasury's word is its bond, I would still prefer to take a bond. We need guarantees of additionality. I accept that it is difficult to entrench it in legislation, but we will look at ways of doing so at the Committee stage.
A major area of concern to us is the potentially damaging impact of the national lottery on charitable and small lottery income. Many football clubs depend on that. The NCVO estimates diverted revenues from charities of between £120 million and £230 million. We will urge the Home Office to monitor and report on such damaging effects. My noble friend Lord McIntosh, who is winding up from this Bench, will give particular attention to the concerns of charities and small lotteries in the Bill, so I will say no more on that very important point.
We are also concerned about the potentially regressive nature of this measure. The revenues may —if US research is correct—be raised disproportionately from poorer communities. There is an even greater likelihood that the proceeds will be redistributed to high prestige projects in the metropolis and more prosperous regions. It is very important that the redistributional aspects are monitored and reported on and especially that new cultural and sporting projects are built in less prosperous regions.
In another place much concern was expressed about the huge powers given to the Secretary of State in Clause 24. Improvements were introduced but the powers remain quite draconian. He can forbid a beneficiary, direct proper management, sack beneficiaries and managements, dictate purposes and change the percentage going to good causes from 20 per cent down to 5 per cent The man in Whitehall certainly knows best here. But I am not sure that unconventional theatre companies and art galleries will happily survive those powers. We are particularly concerned about the power to reduce allocations from 20 per cent to 5 per cent That may be too great and too abrupt.
One major and dubious proposal which I should like to see not survive the scrutiny of this House is the fifth distributing body, the Millennium Commission. It was not in the original White Paper. It suddenly popped up in the 1992 Tory manifesto, a provenance which I note has not offered much lasting value in other policy areas. It is quite superfluous. Most of the projects proposed under it so far rest naturally with three other good causes—the arts, sport and heritage. Projects such as the Manchester 2000 Olympics are a blatant example of non-additionality. The danger is of bloated national prestige projects ahead of a general election—a "Peter Lilley Memorial Post Office" in some marginal constituency springs to mind. Certainly it adds an unnecessary fifth layer of administrative costs. We will look at how best we can deal with that.
There are several other areas of particular concern which, due to the shortage of time, I shall leave to my colleagues, though I stress that the film industry needs consideration. Not surprisingly, I am bound to mention the possible impact of the lottery on the

409
revenues to the racing industry, especially if £8 million is forecast to be lost. I trust that other noble Lords will stress that at greater length. Presumably, it is not the intention of the Government to wipe out the benefits of their recent commendable reform by diverting: Toney away from racing.
In conclusion, we on this side of the House support the lottery on the basis that it will be made a success and will significantly benefit the appropriate good causes without seriously damaging others. But we are embarking on an enterprise without knowing how the lottery works or what its impact will be. The lottery revenues come from somewhere—it is not magic money—and there will be losers as well as winners. We should be concerned to monitor and mitigate those impacts. At Committee Stage we shall move amendments to secure that. We look forward to receiving support from, and offering support to, all sides of this House in that important endeavour.
12.31 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I have listened with great instruction and indeed entertainment, to the introductory remarks of the noble Earl and of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. The House may think that so far this morning it has heard two relatively carefree cavaliers. It is now going to hear from a rather reserved roundhead on this matter. We on these Benches, my honourable and right honourable friends in another place, and my noble friends in this place, find, great difficulty in supporting this Bill in principle with any great enthusiasm.
We have two important reservations which deserve to be articulated in this Second Reading debate. The first is whether the Government of this country should be the initiator and promoter of popular gambling on an unprecedented scale. There are many who believe that gambling is in itself immoral and a social evil. I shall look forward with great interest to the remarks of the right reverend Prelate on this.
Of course that is a fundamental view which should be respected. But one does not have to share it completely to be worried, as I am, about the Government moving from the role of regulation of gambling to that of active promoter of gambling. The noble Earl was most interesting when speaking about mediaeval history, but in modern times, as he acknowledged, I suppose we have the precedent of the Macmillan Government and premium bonds to which he referred. In a sense this is a sort of Conservative primrose path on which we are led into the diversion of the populace with bread and circuses of one sort or another.
The second reservation which we on these Benches entertain is the view that, if the money raised is to be spent on investment and activities which most civilised countries would regard as a proper burden on the public purse, then that is wrong. That is a subject to which I shall return. However, we accept that this is a clear Conservative manifesto commitment and therefore, in so far as this Government are determined on anything, they seem to be set on this Bill.
Today I want to address some of the serious concern about the operation of the Bill to which I
410
hope we can return in Committee with constructive amendments. There are essentially two over-arching questions about the source and use of funds for this lottery. How big will the cake be and how will it be divided? The size of the cake for the national lottery depends on the prizes, the products and the forms of gambling to which the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, referred; and on the efficacy of the promotion. I suspect that from an economic point of view there is some elasticity of demand and that there will be extra funds drawn from this form of gambling which are not at present drawn into other forms of charitable gambling. If, as the noble Earl and the noble Lord both say, the British like a flutter, we have estimates that the revenue achieved by this lottery could be anywhere between £2 billion and £6 billion. The noble Earl prudently used a lower figure in making his estimates to the House.
I take the median figure of £4 billion. If the size of the cake were to be roughly £4 billion, how will it then be divided? Unsurprisingly, at the very front of the queue is Her Majesty's Treasury. That can be no real surprise. It is stunning us with its modesty in requiring a mere 12 per cent., which is a lower figure than it originally started out with. I suppose that we are meant to be grateful about that. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked why it should be 12 per cent and not a lower figure. I wish to ask a more fundamental question: Why should the Treasury have any money at all from a national lottery? In round terms, and to use my own calculations on £4 billion, that is £500 million. Why that figure? Perhaps when the noble Viscount replies at the end of the debate he can tell the House exactly why, approaching this fresh subject with an open mind, the Treasury should get any tax revenue from it at all.
Noble Lords opposite on the Government Benches may be aware that there is no tax paid at all in Ireland and Norway on their national lotteries. As the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said, the average level throughout the European lotteries to which the Government referred, is about 5 per cent That is a tax level which the NCVO suggests might be appropriate. When he comes to reply, I hope that the Minister will be kind enough to talk to us about the case for tax at all, and if tax, why that kind of level.
There is another question on taxation. The Government propose 12 per cent What assurances do we have that that 12 per cent will be maintained into the future or, as the columnist, Mr. Joe Rogaly, said in the Financial Times two days ago, that shortly, in a year or two and when the Government are in a fix, they will not see it as an automatic milch cow for the Exchequer to milk in order to get the books straight?
I now wish to turn to the cost of operation. We have the Treasury cost and that of the operators. It has been said that the contract which is to be awarded to run the lottery is so massive that it will make a new FT 100 company. That is the scale of the contract which we are talking about awarding. It will he of great interest to hear exactly what the basis of that contract will be. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, when he says that American companies, or companies with American participants, should not

411
be allowed to tender. If we are to have such a lottery we need the best experience available. By the same token, I do not see why pools companies should not be allowed to tender. We need to get the best people to operate this lottery for us.
What concerns me most is not who is allowed to bid, but what will be the basis of the charge that they are allowed to make for this important service. Presumably it will have a fixed and a variable element. Presumably also it will have what in other privatised industries the regulators call the K factor, which is a factor for efficiency of some sort. Will there be some kind of factor added to the formula for success? Will there be some incentive to make a success of the lottery?
On all those questions depend whether we as a nation end up paying about 8 per cent or 15 per cent for the operation of the lottery. The sums of money involved are so immense that I believe that OFLOT and the Government, in awarding these contracts, have to be a great deal clearer on what the basis of a successful commercial tender would be.
If we start with £4 billion and take off the Treasury cost, the cost of operation and the cost of prizes, which must clearly be substantial if they are to be fair and are meant to motivate people in any way to take part, it has been estimated that there will be about 35 per cent left for the good causes which I am sure we all want to see supported.
But there are so many variables. What is fixed in the equation? Is everything fixed except the wretched good causes or are they simply the residuals which will get whatever is left? Would it not be a great deal better conceptually to start the other way round and to say, "Whatever happens, 35 per cent must be available to be distributed"? If I understand the noble Earl, that is the very purpose of this whole exercise and of the lottery. As I have made painfully clear already, if anyone is to be squeezed I should rather see the Treasury squeezed and greater pressure put on the efficiency of the operators than see the recipients squeezed in that way.
I turn now to the issue of additionality to which the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, referred. I have already mentioned the predatory instincts of the Treasury. We do not have to look further than the way in which the European regional fund has been administered to see evidence of the Treasury's preference, if it sees a new source of money, then to withdraw funds of its own. That is exactly what has happened over the years with the European regional fund. We shall need the most categorical assurances from the Government that money raised and disbursed in this way will be additional funding and will not in any way be regarded as replacement finance by the Treasury.
I realise how extremely difficult it is to enshrine such provisions in legislation. It is not at all easy. It may be that we shall have to be content with the greatest possible transparency in the operation of the lottery and with the annual reports by the Secretary of State on the way in which the money has been disbursed. I wonder whether other spending departments involved in the arts, sports and charities could
412
be required to append their own statements to the Secretary of State's annual report declaring and showing that they have not in any way substituted income from this source for expenditure that they would otherwise have made. I suppose that one way of ensuring adherence to the additionality principle might be, to the maximum extent, to encourage the use of lottery money to fund either one-off, capital or non-recurring projects rather than current expenditure. It is probably easier to do that in the realm of art and sports than in relation to charities.
I turn now to the geographical distribution of the charities' disbursements. It is exceptionally important that the money gets outside the metropolitan area of greater London and that it is spent around the country. It must be spent at the grass roots and on people who would not otherwise have easy access to such funding. The money should fructify in the hands of the people. It should not simply go to a few large, prestige projects.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, referred to the ideal, which we on these Benches support entirely, of protecting the young from acquiring the habit of gambling at an age when they are most impressionable and defenceless. The noble Earl referred jocularly to the enjoyment of gambling. I do not criticise that because clearly, for those who win, gambling can be enjoyable. However, there are many aimless young people in this country between the ages of 16 and 18 who in many cases do not have employment or a great deal of money and whose lives may not yet have taken a shape of clear principle and clear organisation, and they need our protection. It is extremely important that, far from lowering the age limit for participation in the pools to 16, we insist on a minimum age of 18 for participation in gambling of this sort.
I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, on the question of the Millennium Fund and trust. I am dubious about the value of that extra wheel on the chariot. It will be a tremendous temptation for the Government of the day (whoever they may be) as the millennium approaches to put money into triumphalist projects of one sort or another which our successors will look back on in a few years' time with great embarrassment and ask, "Why on earth did they spend money on that?" Surely it would be better to give out that money according to the principles that have been set for the other 80 per cent of the money and to allocate it for particular charitable, arts, sports and national heritage purposes rather than putting it into some pot for undefined projects in the future.
I turn now to the issue of good causes marketing. We must all be concerned that the introduction of the national lottery should not make it impossible for smaller, more humble good causes to raise funds through other forms of gambling. That could be avoided by saying that certain product forms, such as scratch cards, cannot be used by the national lottery, but I am not sure that it will be easy to try to specify product definition in that way. However, one thing that could be done would be to place some obligation on the promoters of the national lottery to indicate at the point of sale or on tickets the exact percentage of the national lottery money that will be spent on good

413
causes. That would mean that the people whose primary motivation is to say, "I wish in a small way and through this medium to see that my flutter goes to a good cause", can see the relative efficacy for charities of this versus other sorts of gambling.
In summary, the attitude of these Benches is slightly different from that of the Labour Party. As I understood him, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said that the Labour Party would be able to support the Bill if certain changes are made. Our position is probably that we will not be able to support the Bill unless certain changes are made. In practice, we may well find that we are working together on a number of amendments that will unite noble Lords across the House. I hope that that will be the case, because I very much agree that this is not primarily a partisan issue. We look forward to being able in Committee to present the Government with constructive amendments on the lines that I have outlined.
12.46 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: My Lords, I am happy to associate myself with the remarks of the two previous speakers in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for his engaging introduction of the Bill and for the clarity with which he made that introduction. If I am not thought impertinent, I should also like to congratulate him on his courage in trying to lead your Lordships' House to follow the example in this particular respect of that progressive and forward-looking country, Albania.
I am sure that your Lordships would not expect someone speaking from these Benches to be wildly supportive of this Bill—and I shall not disappoint you. It would be easy for me to confine my remarks to suggesting ways in which the Bill could be improved here or modified there but, judging from the remarks already made, it looks as if the Committee stage will provide a field-day for alterations and suggestions, and I have no doubt that voices from these Benches will be raised in support of many of the amendments.
Following the examples already given, it is right that today we should speak generally about the Bill and the principles which have guided its introduction. I thought that I was going to be alone in (and that I should need to apologise for) striking a discordant note, but I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for preparing the way for me. I want to say right at the outset that I deplore the Government's decision to go down this path. I do not believe it to be right. As an expedient, I believe that it is morally flawed and, speaking as a representative of the established Church, I would not be serving the interests of your Lordships' House were I not to say so in rather stark and uncompromising terms.
In the short time allowed to me—and I intend to be brief as well as stark—I cannot hope to justify such a sweeping condemnation, but perhaps I may mention three specific anxieties which weigh heavily with me. The first is about whether we need a national lottery. I am well aware that in the past lotteries have been used to raise funds for specific projects such as the building of the British Museum and bringing soldiers back from Tunis. And in some of the literature great
414
play has been made of the fact that a former Archbishop of Canterbury was, for a while, a trustee of a lottery. But what is it now which makes a national lottery desirable or imperative? That is the question. We should not be concerned with the situation 200 years ago.
I have considerable sympathy with the 1932 Royal Commission on Gaming and Lotteries which said of the idea of a national lottery that:
"In the history of public finance lotteries take their place among the expedients which are resorted to when other and more reputable methods of finance have failed".
This is the less reputable—I do not say disreputable —way. If the lottery is to fund projects which will be of such benefit to the public, why are they not being funded in more reputable ways from general taxation, as is English Heritage and as are the arts and sport, although it is said that they are supported with insufficient generosity? However, that seems to me to be a more reliable and equitable means of achieving the desired ends and is open to scrutiny in a way in which the distribution of the lottery funds may not be.
It seems to me that there is something implicitly deceitful about the state encouraging people to part with their money through the enticement of personal gain in order to spend the proceeds on matters which should be funded more properly from the public purse. Furthermore, there is a real difference in moral terms between an occasional one-off effort for a specific limited project and using this particular procedure for a continuing provision of resources for whatever cause. As everyone recognises, the lottery is likely to be supported more by those people who can least afford it than by those who can readily afford it.
I did not quite catch what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said in his introduction about the places where such lottery tickets could be purchased. Did the noble Earl say that they could be purchased at drop-in centres or job centres? If the latter is the case, that would be the crowning irony.
Secondly, I am concerned that a national lottery, by virtue of its scale, will undermine the whole idea of charitable giving. The charities have said that already and I say it again on their behalf. I should want to be the first to compliment the Government on the encouragement that they have given, through payroll giving and favourable tax arrangements for covenanted giving and in many other ways, to the work of charities. The charities have benefited enormously from the flow of direct giving which those concessions have produced. I do not underestimate the sympathy which this Government have shown and continue to show for the charities. But the charities share my anxiety about the effect on their revenues of a highly promoted national lottery.
The worry is not just about where the money goes. I believe that we are likely to see an erosion of altruism —the spontaneous response to an appeal, the spur of the moment gift to the collecting box—in favour of the opportunity, albeit remote, to get rich quick. I believe that one of the great strengths of British society has been its generosity to those in need. Now that may decline. We could be moving away from giving

415
something for nothing in favour of hoping to gain something for nothing, or at least for very little. That would be a serious loss to the national psyche.
Therefore, at the very least, I hope that the Government will be assiduous in checking the impact of the lottery on charitable giving. It would be a tragedy for us all if the work of children's charities, the overseas aid agencies and groups which help homeless, elderly or mentally ill people were to suffer as a result, either because the funds were diverted elsewhere or because the will was no longer there in quite the same way as at present. If the cry goes up, "Leave it to the lottery", where will the charities be?
Finally, I am uneasy about the whole idea of the state formally endorsing gambling. That has not happened before in living memory. Premium bonds were opposed because they appeared to be the thin end of a wedge. Many would say that this is the wedge coming. But premium bonds were different in that the capital sum was never at risk. But in this case there is no return for the giver. Although the decision to take part in the lottery will be an individual one, we are all frail human beings. Some will be tempted above their means with all the consequences that that may entail for their lives and those of their families. We know only too well that it is often among the less moneyed classes that the greatest amount of gambling takes place.
The point about a national lottery is that in order for it to work effectively, there will have to be massive advertising and encouragement to take part. I wonder whether it will be as harmless as the Government suppose. Could they not even consider attaching to every advertisement a government health warning: "Too much of this will damage your soul"?
I must give notice that many in the Churches, like myself, will be saying to their congregations, "Do not put your money in the lottery basket. Do not be seduced either by the siren voices which tell you that it is all for a good cause when you know that only £1 out of £4 is going to that good cause. And do not be seduced by the greedy voice inside you", which the noble Earl recognised within himself, as we all do, "which says that you may be one of the lucky ones and strike it rich". For years now the Churches have tried to discourage that particular temptation and have deplored raising money through the typical church raffle or tombola stall. Our teaching is that you must give. The Churches insist and demand that people give. It is the teaching of Christ to give. Giving is good for you. But this is a poor second best which it is wise to avoid.
After those negative remarks, which I hope that your Lordships will take in good part, especially the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I express the hope that at the very least the Government will monitor very closely the progress of the lottery as regards the uses to which the money is put and its effect on charitable giving and individuals. I hope that the Government will be prepared, if necessary—as I suspect it may be necessary—to revise their policy and to do what was done in 1826 and say, "Let's not do it again".
1 p.m.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, perhaps I may join in the congratulations which have been offered to my noble friend Lord Ferrers on his introduction to the Bill and on the brio with which he did it. I very much regret that I must disagree with the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans. Queen Victoria said that she did not like bishops. I in fact do; I have often thought that I would make a good bishop. The right reverend Prelate put his case with such charm and persuasion that it was difficult not to be convinced by it. Nevertheless, I believe that the moral basis of what he said was wrong and I wish to refer to that later.
There are very few government measures—and I refer to any government—which one can welcome with total enthusiastic and unqualified support. But in my opinion the lottery Bill is one of them. It not only rights a long-standing anomaly —that we are the only country in Europe without such a means of raising funds—but it benefits good causes. In the mellifluous, if somewhat gnomic, phrase of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, one flutter kills two birds. It benefits good causes, which is a justification for the Bill. It is also carefully and well drafted. It is well thought through and is based on sound principles.
I shall not go into the details of the Bill since that is a matter for the Committee. However, at its Second Reading I wish to deal with the principles that underlie it. First, I shall deal with the moral issue which was addressed by the right reverend Prelate; that is, the fear that the Bill will encourage gambling. With great respect to the right reverend Prelate that presupposes that gambling is an absolute evil. I do not believe that it is. We are not here in the realm of the absolute, we are in the realm of the contingent and the relevant. In other words, it is a question of degree.
Virtually everyone enjoys a little flutter. It is part of our culture and there is no harm in it. After all, let us look at our great political institutions. What is our British general election but a combination of a crusade and a sporting event on which everyone places a bet? Why not allow the Government to take advantage of this human propensity? In the words of General Booth, why should the devil have all the good tunes? It is nonsense to believe that the moral fibre of the nation will be destroyed by a Bill such as this. But those who hold such fears speak with great conviction and it is right that we should accord those convictions the respect which all strongly held convictions deserve.
My experience has been largely in the arts. I have the unique distinction of twice having been the Arts Minister; first once under my right honourable friend Sir Edward Heath and, secondly, under the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. That, if I may say to the right reverend Prelate, is a true example of ecumenism. If there is a reshuffle perhaps I may apply for the position of Minister for the Crafts.
I welcome most strongly the comprehensive nature of the causes covered by the Bill; that both sports and heritage are covered. My sporting qualifications are not immediately obvious. But I am president of the Emmanuel Boat Club. Recently an honour was thrust upon me which I never expected; I was made a

417
member of the Hawks at Cambridge. It goes to show your Lordships that if you wait long enough everything will come to you. But the important issue here is the underlying principle; that the Bill covers all leisure and cultural activities. It is recognised that leisure activities and their right use are as important for human happiness and fulfilment as good health or a good education.
The next principle which I welcome is the arm's length principle that the money should be administered by independent impartial bodies; for example, the National Heritage Memorial Fund in whose setting up I was privileged to play a small part in 1980. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, is here. My part in his appointment as the fund's first chairman is perhaps the only act in my life about which I have no regrets.
It is not right to give the money to English Heritage because it is too close to government—it has nothing to do with its present trials and troubles. But I wish to pay a tribute to English Heritage and to its former chairman, my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, because of the wonderful work that it has done. We at the Royal Fine Art Commission appreciate that work having seen, year after year, week after week, the experts coming before us to give helpful advice. I further welcome the principle that the money is in addition to and not in lieu of present funds. I hope that the Opposition will accept the assurances of the Secretary of State and my noble friend.
When I launched the business sponsorship scheme more than 20 years ago a crucial factor in its success was that it provided money in addition to government funding and not in place of it. The noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, still happily reigns at the Arts Council and I hope that that reign will continue for many years. When he took up office he made it clear that although he strongly supported business sponsorship it was an extra and not a substitution. The Government have made their position very clear on that crucial issue.
The final and major point upon which I welcome the Bill is precisely because of the Millennium Fund, to which the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, rather took exception. We have two duties; we must preserve our heritage and our inheritance —that which comes to us from other generations—and we must see that our own age adds worthily to it. Certainly we must preserve the past; let us get the Albert Memorial out from under wraps while we are all still alive to see it. But as regards new projects we in this country run into a cultural difficulty. The French do not have that. We do not like to commit ourselves to great cultural enterprises but when we do we do them well—I think of the Crystal Palace and the Royal Festival Hall.
Why should not we achieve the equivalent today? We could build a great new opera house on the South Bank, bringing together ENO and Covent Garden, with the opera house being used as a national dance theatre. We could build a new gallery of contemporary art outside London—and I quite agree with noble Lords who made that point. People in Birmingham have eyes as well as people in London. We could build a new bridge across the Thames. We missed the great
418
opportunity of having the Calatrava Bridge. Why not make up for that? Why not restore the river to a place of enjoyment and a great thoroughfare through the capital. We could have a revolution too in Park Lane and Hyde Park Corner, which are great spaces and thoroughfares in the capital. Why not put the cars underground and let the people, instead of being treated as troglodytes, come to the surface where they belong and enjoy one of the most beautiful parts of the capital? That would be a very worthy commemoration of the millennium.
I have been talking about grands projets, but let us also remember petits projets; for example, good street furniture, village halls, and learned societies which depend for their continuance on a few thousand pounds. There are also amateur dramatic societies and small theatres. Let them all have their share.
We have a very exciting project ahead of us with the Bill. We must seize the opportunity with enthusiasm. Power has gone from us never to return in the 19th century sense, but influence remains. The English language has become the language of the whole world in a time of communication. We lead the world in the arts, especially in architecture. Machiavelli is not always a person to be followed but if you read The Prince you will find that he puts one very pertinent question: what good is power without glory? The Bill creates the opportunity for new glories for the nation. I hope that noble Lords will give it their warm, enthusiastic and cordial support.
1.11 p.m.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to make my contribution to today's debate on the Second Reading of the lottery Bill. I believe that a great deal of good will come from it. I listened with great respect to the doubts expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans about the moral question of whether it is right for the Government to support betting. I fear that my view is rather more pragmatic: I think that the British are a race of inveterate gamblers and that we might as well accept that fact. We might as well give them decent and honourable things to gamble on which will lead to an improvement in our way of life.
I am indeed most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, for what he said about me. I should like to restrict my remarks today to Part II of the Bill and, in particular, to the National Heritage Memorial Fund which has been chosen by the Government as the distributor of 20 per cent of the money which will be available for the heritage. But before I do so I must declare an interest. As I believe many noble Lords know, I was chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund for 12 years and I am still intensely interested in it. However, having been away from it for a year now, I think that I am capable of looking at it objectively. I should like to congratulate the Government on the choice that they have made.
The National Heritage Memorial Fund has a highly competent chairman in the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, who was present in the Chamber earlier

419
but unfortunately has now had to leave. It has an admirable body of trustees and a competent and absolutely devoted staff. More importantly, it knows its way around the heritage world and it is well regarded. I believe that it starts from a very good basis.
In the new dispensation, the National Heritage Memorial Fund will have even more opportunities than it has had in the past to help conserve, maintain and acquire our heritage. But inevitably its character will change, and that is something which I regret. But there you are; you cannot help it. It will have to increase its staff to a considerable extent and inevitably it will have to become rather more bureaucratic. However, with all my heart I hope that it will be able to retain the speed and flexibility with which it has been able to take actions in the past. I want it to retain the spirit of adventure and excitement that it has always had.
When I think about quangos—which is what it is —in my imagination I inevitably think of four-legged animals. I have always looked upon the National Heritage Memorial Fund as being like the wild oryx of the desert. Please do not let it become a stalled, castrated ox.
I assume that the Government think well of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, otherwise they would not have chosen it to be the distributor. I also listened with great interest to what has been said about additionality. I hope that I may be forgiven if I strike a slightly discordant note by saying that, with those two assumptions—that is, first, that the Government approve of the NHMF and, secondly, that they will stick to the policy of additionality-I am amazed that they decided to cut down the resources of the fund in respect of 1994–95. At that time, the funds provided for the organisation will be reduced from £12 million to £7.8 million. I simply cannot believe that when that decision was made the fact that the fund was going to receive money from the lottery was not an influence. Otherwise, I think that it was very careless of the Government to do it. I cannot believe that they really thought about it.
The year 1994–95 is still quite a way ahead. I very much hope that the Secretary of State for National Heritage will persuade the Treasury to restore what was originally promised for the National Heritage Memorial Fund. If the fund is to be short of money, not only will the heritage suffer but, I fear, so will the Government. My reason for saying so is as follows. Your Lordships will remember that the reason why the NHMF was brought into existence was that there was an absolutely flaming row over the sale of Mentmore and its contents. Due to that fact it was decided that a fund should be set up with adequate resources to deal with that sort of problem and thereby keep it out of the political arena.
Since the fund was set up in 1980, I believe that I am safe in saying that there has been remarkably little heritage hassle, except for the flurry over Cork Abbey which noble Lords may remember. If the National Heritage Memorial Fund is cut down, I am afraid that there will be a great deal more political trouble. The
420
NHMF should have, and be seen to have, adequate funds to deal with such questions as what house is to be saved and what picture is to be retained so as to keep the whole thing out of the political arena. The action of the Government in cutting down the resources of the fund is equivalent in a sense, as regards error size, to not restoring the Albert Memorial, which will stick out in the park like a sore thumb as a reproach to the failure to support the heritage.
There will be a difficult period ahead as regards working out exactly how the lottery money is to be spent by the National Heritage Memorial Fund. I beg everyone to go for the maximum flexibility. There is considerable apprehension about whether the Treasury has the same conviction as regards additionality as government Ministers express. For example, if lottery money is applied to a building which is already receiving government aid from another source, everyone is quite sure that that government aid will be withdrawn. I beg the Government not to allow that to happen. We must maintain flexibility in this matter.
I have heard it said that the National Heritage Memorial Fund will not be able to spend lottery money and its own money on the same project. I do not know whether that is true, but if it is that is crazy. There may be a great house that needs £1 million to save it but money can be taken only from one pocket.
I have only one more point. The draconian powers of the Secretary of State have already been mentioned. I completely understand why the Secretary of State wants to be able to control these matters but I hope that he exercises that power with restraint. I speak from 12 years' experience of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. One of the great aspects of that fund was that, with one small exception whom I shall not name, neither Ministers nor officials ever tried to interfere in how we spent the fund's money. The National Heritage Memorial Fund has proved itself to be a great success. It has been a success simply because it has always received complete support from the Government and the Government have never interfered in how it spent its money. That is the way to deal with this matter.
1.22 p.m.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I begin my declaring an interest as I have been the Chairman of the Football Trust since it was first formed by the pools companies, Littlewoods, Vernons and Zetters, in 1979. Our income, as I shall explain in a minute, is almost entirely dependent on the success of the pools' companies. I must ask your Lordships' forgiveness if I have to leave before the end of the debate. I do that reluctantly as I have never done it before. I have arranged to attend a memorial service for Lord Edmund-Davies, who was an old friend of mine and a close colleague in the London Welsh Association. Therefore, I hope I may be forgiven if I have to leave the debate before the end. However, bearing in mind the number of speakers on the list, I may even be back in time to hear the reply from my noble friend the Minister.

421
Let me make it clear straight away that the Football Trust fully supports the idea of a national lottery, especially the possibilities that it brings for producing more money for investment in sports facilities and particularly in football. The national lottery is a matter of crucial significance to football and to the Football Trust. We must ensure that the position of our national game and the position of the trust which plays such an important part in the well being of the game is safeguarded. We rely on two sources of income. When we were first formed, our only income came from the Spot-the-Ball competition run by the pools companies. We continue to receive 21 per cent of the turnover of that competition which amounts to something like £13 million a year.
Since the 1990 Budget, we have had a second and more important source of income that has come indirectly from the Government. In the Budget of that year the Government reduced the rate of pool betting duty by 2.5 per cent and that has brought us in, for the five years that it was agreed it should last, something like £23 million a year. The proceeds of that £23 million are given to my trust. Under our agreement with the Government, these funds must be used on capital works for the safety and comfort of spectators at football grounds in accordance with the recommendations of the Taylor Report on the Hillsborough stadium disaster in 1989.
The trust has provided over £150 million in grant aid to football at all levels since it started life as the Football Grounds Improvement Trust in 1975. Our priority task now is to help clubs to implement the recommendations of the Taylor Report. The conversion of grounds in the Football Association's Premier League and in the first division of the Football League to all seated accommodation, and the work required to ensure that any retained standing terraces in the second and third divisions are safe, is both necessary and hugely expensive. So far we have offered over £71 million in grant aid for development work which in total has cost some £259 million. These figures take no account of the support we offer for vital safety work costing many millions of pounds more which local certifying authorities require league clubs to undertake. Nor does it include the £3 million which the trust provides every year to support the non-professional game.
We have a small staff who perform an excellent job. Proven procedures are in place which involve our professional advisers and they are designed to ensure full and proper scrutiny of clubs' development plans and ability to put together the necessary financial packages to pay for the work. Our annual budget is presently running at over £36 million and our administration overheads are currently less than 2 per cent of our income. That is a performance in which my fellow trustees can take pride. We hope to be able to continue this vital work in the years ahead but if we are to do so we have two needs. First, we hope that the Government will extend the life of the reduction in pool betting duty to match the timetable for the implementation of the Taylor recommendations.
Clubs in the FA Premier League and the first division of the Football League have until the end of
422
the 1994–95 season to complete the conversion of their grounds to all-seated accommodation. Clubs in the second and third divisions of the Football League have until the end of the 1999–2000 season to complete the work required at their grounds. In their case the Government have agreed that areas of standing terracing may be retained provided they are safe. But in many cases such work could prove to be every bit as expensive an undertaking as converting the ground to all seated accommodation. Implementing Taylor is a huge job and we are not yet at half-time in completing it. The final bill will be something like £400 million, and in the second half we will see many clubs which are only financially strong enough to meet a modest proportion of that cost.
Clubs in the FA Premier League and the First Division of the Football League have in broad terms met about 75 per cent of the cost of development work from their own resources and have relied on the trust for grant support of the remaining 25 per cent In the lower divisions we can expect, again in broad terms, that this ratio will be reversed. The need for the extension of our funding is therefore clear. It would give great satisfaction to football and to the trust to hear from the Government that the life of the reduction in pool betting duty is to be extended.
Our second anxiety is that our income should not be reduced by the advent of the lottery. That is why I warmly welcome the amendments that were mentioned by my noble friend which were accepted in another place or have been promised which will help to ensure that the pools are allowed to compete on fair terms with the lottery. That certainly brings comfort to the pools companies, the Football Trust and football as a whole. We believe that further amendments in this House designed to give the pools companies a full and fair opportunity to compete should be supported.
Football owes a debt of gratitude to the pools companies. They have put much needed millions of pounds into the game. It would be a tragedy if that source of funds were to be drastically reduced as a result of the national lottery. The needs of the game are great and football requires the continued support of the trust and the new help which the lottery can bring. I look forward to a continuing close working relationship between the trust and the Sports Council in that context, and we have already had constructive discussions.
We are also discussing with the Sports Council and the Football Association how to deal with the very real needs of grass-roots football. That is an area where funds from the lottery could have a useful part to play, and we look forward to working with both the Sports Council and the Football Association for the benefit of the game at grass-roots level.
I hope that the Government will acknowledge the vital role of the Football Trust in the future well-being of our national game and keep it in mind as the National Lottery Bill completes its stages in this House. I hope that, like me, they wish to see the Football Trust prosper and, once the lottery is in place, will work closely with other interested parties for the benefit of football as a whole.
1.31 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I have long looked forward to welcoming this Bill in your Lordships' House. I have always believed that a national lottery could be an important additional source of revenue for good causes. In general terms I am much in favour of the Bill.
I recently became a more active supporter as a consultant to the Lottery Promotions Company, which in many ways inspired the Bill, because I was becoming increasingly incensed by the unholy alliance between the Treasury and the pools promoters, who were determined to delay the Bill and thwart its intentions for as long as possible. The reasons are obvious. The Treasury hates losing control of any public expenditure and the pools companies do not want to lose their monopoly. In spite of the deluge of lobbying recently, I am far from convinced that the lottery will have any damaging effect on the pools, betting on horse or dog racing or on other charities. I do not believe their predictions, but I do believe in the inherent love of gambling of the British people and above all in their generosity. Fortunately, thanks to the inclusion of a proposal for a lottery in the manifestos of both main parties we now have the Bill before us.
My interest in museums and heritage matters is well known and it is to those areas I wish to direct my comments. The considerable euphoria which surrounded the publication of the Bill has evaporated to a considerable degree as various potential beneficiaries have read the small print of the Bill and sought advice from the heritage agencies.
Over the past 30 years historic houses and museums have faced deeper and deeper financial crises despite government funding schemes such as the National Heritage Memorial Fund, English Heritage and the Museums and Galleries Commission. The amounts of money available are simply inadequate to deal with the serious problems which exist. Even Grade I listed buildings and structures such as Brighton West Pier are unable to find the sums in excess of 10 million that they need to safeguard their future. There is no doubt that the public perception of the lottery is that substantial proceeds would be directed towards funding such projects. Unfortunately, it seems to many of us that the Bill contains a number of serious flaws which appear to make that impossible.
The Government have rightly emphasised repeatedly that lottery money will not be used to replace state funding and that the proceeds will be available in addition to government grant aid. I should like to develop the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, a few moments ago. It seems that Treasury advice on that issue has been that no proceeds from the national lottery should be given to projects that could attract government funding. That precludes the multi-source funding on which so many of our heritage projects depend. That is nonsense. The spending proposals of almost every museum and historic house for repair or development could in theory receive grant aid. In reality, very few will. It is
424
clearly not right that all museums should be denied access to lottery proceeds on the grounds that some of their spending proposals may receive grant aid.
Lottery money allocated to our heritage should be targeted on the areas of greatest need—our cathedrals, museums and historic buildings, both great and small. If it is difficult for money to be spent on those buildings we may well find that it is easier to obtain lottery money to build a brand new visitor's centre at Buxton Crescent, for example, rather than to repair the crumbling fabric of that beautiful Grade I building.
Therefore, it is possible that much-needed funds will have to be directed towards second-rate projects which do not currently receive grants. Unless that issue is resolved we could find ourselves in the position of seeing someone sitting at a cathedral organ, restored at great expense by lottery funds, while water drips on the head of the organist because English Heritage has insufficient funds to renovate the roof. Therefore, I look forward to some explanation, as I am sure will the whole House.
There is another anxiety which I hope my noble friend can dispel when he winds up the debate. On reading the Bill I was concerned That the National Heritage Memorial Fund would not be able to give money for the conservation of buildings but only for refurbishment. I now understand that that may not be the case, but I should be grateful for clarification.
I believe that before the Bill leaves this House it is essential to define more precisely what constitutes an eligible recipient for lottery money and which projects should be more appropriately funded through existing mechanisms.
I now turn briefly to the question of recurring revenue funding. I believe that the Government are right to resist suggestions that funds should be available for revenue funding. They should maintain their policy that lottery funds should be directed only to capital projects. Nevertheless, it is a basic truth that almost all capital expenditure has on-going revenue implications. For example, an extension to a museum will incur extra overheads and staff requirements as well as having implications for the conservation of the collection. A new concert hall will have to employ a director and staff and pay its gas and electricity bills. A sports field will need somebody to mow it and paint the white lines. Millenium projects, whatever they may be, will have on-going costs for which someone will have to pay.
I suggest that capital projects funded by the lottery should, where necessary, include an endowment fund to ensure their continuation. Otherwise there is a possibility of capital lottery projects facing severe financial problems and even receivership within a few years of their completion. That might be an even more serious problem in deprived areas where neither the local authorities nor local people can afford to subsidise the on-going costs themselves. We do not want to see any neglected lottery white elephants in years to come closed because no one pays the running costs or because they were built in the wrong place.

425
Another exception to the no revenue funding rule must he the use of lottery funds for one-off events such as the European Arts Festival, the Olympic Games or future jubilee celebrations.
Despite being so ably promoted by my noble friend Lord Palumbo, and after so many grand and imaginative ideas have been put forward, it is far from clear at present what the purpose of the Millenium Fund will be. That will no doubt become clear when the commission is set up. We shall then find out what projects will be developed which are not already covered by other areas of lottery largesse. It is essential that all the millenium projects should be new ones with an on-going benefit to the community at large. The imaginative list of projects of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, was absolutely splendid. I should like to add to it new open green spaces in cities, nature reserves in the country, new forests and buildings of great architectural quality, not necessarily all large or grand. But perhaps most important of all, in order to ensure the future of our heritage, we must teach the skills of conservation and administrative expertise to those who will look after the heritage in the future. I should therefore like to see a substantial part of the Millenium Fund going towards education, perhaps by establishing a college or a faculty in more than one university to teach our future conservators and administrators to care for and develop Britain's heritage in the future.
I was somewhat disappointed at the attitude of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats towards the Millenium Fund. Theirs is almost a spoil-sport attitude. Perhaps it is sour grapes because they did not think of the scheme themselves. Surely as a nation we should greet and celebrate the dawn of the millenium with some style. I am sure that future manifestos will not suggest that the Millenium Fund should be closed down.
There are other matters in the Bill which will be better discussed at Committee stage. For instance, I do not believe that the Secretary of State should have any responsibility for individual spending decisions. Each distributing body will have to justify its spending decisions to Parliament, Of lot and the public, and not necessarily to the Secretary of State, whose role should be less important. I must confess that I believe that there is considerable merit in the suggestion that the whole national lottery should be set up as a charitable foundation, and if an amendment were tabled to that effect it would receive my full support.
I very much welcome the Government's agreement to allow smaller lotteries to become more attractive, with larger prizes. There are a couple of important areas which need to be ironed out at Committee stage. I should not like my criticisms of the Bill in any way to dampen the warmth of my welcome for it. However, I believe that unless certain matters are clarified and the allocation criteria are better defined, we shall find that in a few years' time there will be vast sums of money swishing around unspent in the national lottery pot while the historic houses, museums and galleries crumble and important works of art disappear overseas.
426
I am sure that that is neither the will of the Government or the people nor the intention underlying the Bill. I am sure that it is not the will of the Prime Minister. He said that,
"With the lottery will come a better Britain".
I am sure that with all the expertise in this House we have a great opportunity to make the Bill even better too.
1.42 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I must dissent from the Bill. It is not the way to achieve a national lottery; and it is not the time to do it. It is not the way to do it because the means are open to strong social and moral objections. It is not the time to do it because Britain is in peril and we do not want the Bill to distract the Government from their task of getting Britain on the go again.
Having listened to the speeches, I believe that the Bill is a subtle stratagem to obtain more money for the heritage of the aristocracy from the pockets of the working people. That is what it is all about. The idea that the Bill enables people to do something which they otherwise could not do, or could not find the means to do, or did not know where to go to achieve it, is a lot of rubbish. The advertisements are full of opportunities to give money to good causes, heritages and otherwise. Moreover, those in charge of heritages and those who own them charge admission money —and good luck to them. That is the way in which they can maintain some treasured artifacts intact.
But let us be honest, my Lords. Not a word has been said about the big prizes. Not a word has been said about the propaganda underlying the Bill that the prizes must be big. We know that such prizes are part of the mythology of chance in such games of luck. The extraordinary aspect is people's ignorance about the length of the odds in such an enterprise. They have no conception of the length of the odds. So many people seem to believe that the odds are 50:50. The attitude is, "If it's him, it might be me. I have as much chance as he has, and he has just won the prize". That is the underlying mythology. What are the chances? What are the odds? Are they 1,000,000:1; are they 6,000,000:1? If it were in order, and if there were more people to respond to my request, I would ask noble Lords on the other side to put up their hands if they would go in for the lottery themselves with anything but a token desire to support the national heritage.
How many thousands of pounds a week, a month or even a year would noble Lords opposite put in the state lottery? I believe that now is not the time, nor is it appropriate for your Lordships' House, to be laying the foundations of the lottery state. The state lottery will be the foundation of a lottery state. Let us consider the propaganda and the information, with consultants and directors of this and that involved. We have received such material recently. We can see that an industry is about to emerge. We have seen the Friendly Society Movement go. We have seen the Co-operative Society Movement go. Almost everything is turned into a business in the present circumstances.

427
Underlying the Bill lies inducement. Inducement is stronger than the cause which we are asked to support. The football pools have shown that one does not need good causes and the National Heritage Memorial Fund to encourage people to go in for the pools. They believe that their judgment of what football teams will do is as good as anyone else's and that they will have a go. There are big prizes with regard to football pools. It is the inducement to gain a big prize out of the lottery that is the inspiration behind the appeal of the lottery.
Who wants the lottery anyway? Where is the public demand? Where are the demonstrations, with people saying, "Give us our state lottery. We are not satisfied with those we have. We want them to be run properly so that no one has their hands in the till". But—my goodness me, my Lords—the Government have their hands in this till before it has been filled. The provisions are in the Bill and they, of course, are taking their cut before anyone else has a chance. It is an affront to the intelligence of your Lordships' House.
We shall have references to good causes. I warrant that if we took the good causes out of the Bill the Government would have to drop it. They want the embroidery of good causes in the Bill, however little they might get out of them. What are the good causes? I believe that if good causes have to go to the national lottery for support, their cause is not as good as it ought to be. Many good causes are able to receive from existing sources not only support and money, but help too. The fact that we have these good causes all over Europe, all over the world, is nothing to go by. Noble Lords should tell me where a voluntary sector exists in Europe comparable with that in Britain. Bear in mind that after the Reformation, the Church charitable work was transferred to the Poor Law. We secularised our charitable work in that way. None of the European countries has secular charities at all, they are all Church affairs. That is where charity started and in many cases it is where it has stuck.
Moreover, we find lottery tickets on sale in countries where there is considerable poverty, and people are induced to part with money which they cannot afford. How long will it be before there has to be a little tear-off part of the ticket that we buy in the lottery which we have to send to the Inland Revenue in order to obtain tax relief? Not very long, I guess. How long will it be before there is a claim for improved social benefits in order that people can enjoy their share of the "entry in chance" to the national lottery? After all, we have to take account of television licences, motor car licences and all the other amenities of life. Why are we being shut out of the state lottery? Give us the money to have a go, let us make it fair all round. No, this Bill is a lot of rubbish.
A moment ago I asked: who is behind this? Where does it come from? Is it the trade unions? There is only one political party in Britain today which would introduce this Bill and that is the one opposite. It would not be introduced from these Benches, whatever people may say. It would not be introduced from here unless the Labour Party had lost its senses.
428
No, I shall not give way, I have had nine minutes and I shall finish in 10. There is a lack of support from these Benches.
As for the Liberal Democrats, I am not at all surprised that they have given the only speech this morning that added any warmth to this chilly Chamber. The right honourable Alan Beith, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats, is, I see, on the Council of Reference of the Jubilee Policy Group. It so happens that the document of the Jubilee Policy Group is the one to which I most subscribe and which applies most to the debate. It gives the case against the Bill, covering the grounds which I have mentioned and many more.
Finally, I come to timing. Clause 60 provides for the Secretary of State to say when the balloon goes up. He can decide when the lottery is launched, and when it catches fire and comes down again. All that, he can decide. I do not believe that this revolutionary change in the voluntary sector in Britain should take place without the positive vote of Parliament at the time when the Government think it should begin. It is not enough to leave it to the Secretary of State.
In conclusion, I resent the intellectual, elitist, aristocratic way—pardon those words, but I have been listening to them this morning—in which this is being turned into a class problem of how to get the poorer working people to subscribe to the national heritage. There is a lot of money behind the national heritage and I believe that it should be drawn upon first.
Another point about foreign countries is that they do not have the taxation system that we have. We have the most efficient taxation system in the world and we do not need lotteries to make good the holes in our taxation system. It is only a matter of using that system.
In 1994 we shall have the first wallop of the energy tax, under the existing bodies which will come into operation. The following year we shall have the remainder of it, a 17.5 per cent increase in tax on energy is on its way. What state of mind will the country be in when we subscribe to the national lottery in order to promote good causes? If I had responsibility for a charity of any standing, I should urge it to keep out of this and let my good cause speak for itself. There is far more money in some of the charities helping good causes than they will ever get out of this. What is more, some will be animal charities which are excluded from Children in Need, red nose telethons and all the other money-makers for charitable purposes. Those charities are excluded; it is only for human beings and mostly children.
That is it, I feel warmer now. What I have said will make no difference—I know that—but I feel immeasurably better for having said it.
1.56 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House feels better for having heard the noble Lord's speech, although I for one cannot agree with much of what he said. I have no objection to

429
gambling and in particular to the type of long-odds gambling which the lottery will comprise. What I say in my speech will confirm that.
I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who issued the challenge as to who on this side of the House might buy a lottery ticket, that I might well do so; not just, as he said, because the lottery will benefit the aristocracy. Whether I should include myself among them, I do not know. I am sure that my noble friend will be able to confirm that that will not be the case. I am also well aware of the type of odds which are involved in this kind of lottery. If one buys a ticket for £1, one knows that half the proceeds from the ticket will go in prize money. If one is hoping to win a prize of £1 million, then in round terms the odds are about one million to one. However, many people will enjoy the chance to have a soft flutter in that way.
The reason I speak today is because, as some of your Lordships know, it is one of my most pleasant duties to serve as the Deputy Chairman of the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. It is in that role that I wish to say a few words about the impact of the national lottery on existing sources of funding for sport and the arts, and in particular for the Foundation for Sport and the Arts itself.
The foundation has become one of the most important sources of funding for sport and arts organisations across the United Kingdom since its creation in July 1991. In the space of no more than 20 months, it has distributed well over £100 million to thousands of deserving causes, the size of its grants varying from a few hundred pounds to over £2 million.
Our aim is to target as much of our £60 million annual income towards projects which reach all sections of the community, much of it to grass-roots projects. We also have special concerns for the young and the disadvantaged. It is of course impossible to detail all those organisations which have benefited from the foundation's work; but that information is included in the foundation's annual report.
Let me give your Lordships a small flavour of the diversity and range of grants that the foundation makes, and note a number of its most recent awards. A quick glance at the latest list shows that there have been some worth several hundreds of thousands of pounds. A quarter of a million pounds to the Magic Circle, for example, will help to establish an international centre for the magic arts in this country. A quarter of a million pounds to Oxford University will pay for the construction of a swimming pool for the benefit of all its students. At the other end of the scale, there are hundreds of small grants to grass-roots sport and arts organisations. However, small as they are, they often make a critical difference and ensure the continued success and development of organisations that would otherwise have foundered. The Liverpool Elite Majorettes Troupe, for example, has been awarded £250 to cover its annual running costs, while the Churchtown Cricket Club in Southport has been given £226 to enable one of their players—with size 16 feet—to purchase a pair of hand-made boots. My Lords, that really is getting to the grass roots of sport.
430
All over the country sporting and arts venues now bear the foundation plaque. The range of sports to have benefited from the foundation is immense—from basketball to volleyball, from rugby union to rugby league, from wrestling to gymnastics, from table tennis to real tennis, from bowls to boxing and from weight lifting to athletics. Arts festivals in towns all across the country—Belfast, Edinburgh, Thaxted, Chester, Truro and Lichfield, to name but a few—have all flourished with awards from the foundation. I believe those are the very sort of things that were referred to by my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley, in his excellent speech.
It is also important to mention the contribution that the foundation makes to sport and art for the disabled. A grant of £50,000 was made towards training costs for the 1992 Paralympics. This year an award of £200,000 will build a riding centre for the disabled. I am sure therefore that noble Lords will agree with me that the Foundation for Sport and the Arts is something clearly well worth preserving. There are many hundreds of thousands of people across the United Kingdom who would, I know, be glad to echo those sentiments. That is why my fellow trustees and I are so concerned that the introduction of the national lottery does not lead to the demise of the foundation. The Government have stated repeatedly that the lottery will provide additional funds for sport and the arts, and we wish to see that pledge honoured, as so many noble Lords have said today. It would be a disgrace if the lottery were introduced on the pretext of providing extra funds for sport and the arts when, in reality, it simply acted as an elaborate mechanism to transfer resources from one funding body to another.
Many noble Lords will have received a letter from the Secretary to the trustees of the foundation setting out in detail some of our anxieties. Let me remind noble Lords of some of them.
The foundation's £60 million a year is funded from two sources: £40 million from a contributory element in the remittances of the clients of Littlewoods, Vernons and Zetters Pools, and £20 million from a reduction in pool betting duty from 40 per cent to 37.5 per cent announced in the 1991 Budget. It is clear that all the foundation's funds depend directly or indirectly on the future viability of the pools companies. Therefore, it is very important that they are given the fullest opportunity to compete effectively and fairly with the national lottery. Without a successful pools industry, sport and the arts would stand to lose one of their most important sources of funding.
The pools industry has sought, throughout the Bill's progress in another place, amendments to ensure that it be given the same freedoms to operate in the market-place as will be accorded to the national lottery. The reasons for that are clear. The pools and the lottery are directly equivalent, soft forms of gambling which will be competing for very similar, if not identical, markets. That point was acknowledged at Report stage in another place by my honourable friend the Home Office Minister, Mr. Peter Lloyd.
If the lottery is given additional market freedoms which are denied to the pools, such as the ability to

431
advertise itself on television and radio, it will be able to attract existing customers away from the pools. By all means, the lottery should be able to compete for existing pools customers—that is, after all, the essence of the free-market system—but only on the basis of fair and equal competition.
The Government have acknowledged the similarities between the pools and the lottery—not only that they are similar forms of soft gambling but also in the contributions that each makes to good causes, including tax. Indeed, the pools industry currently makes a greater contribution to good causes and tax than will the lottery: 47.5 per cent of the pools' turnover goes in tax and good causes—37.5 per cent in pool betting duty, and 10 per cent to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and the Football Trust, to which my friend Lord Aberdare has already referred—while the lottery's contribution to good causes and in tax will be around 35 per cent (12 per cent tax and 23 per cent good causes).
It is fair to say that the Government have made or promised a number of changes to the Bill which go a long way towards ensuring fair competition between the pools and the lottery. They have, in particular, promised that the pools will be allowed to operate limited roll-overs similar to the national lottery. I was grateful for the confirmation from my noble friend Lord Ferrers in his opening speech. They have also promised that the pools will be able to sell their coupons in shops, as well as sponsor television and radio programmes unrelated to football results. I would be grateful if my noble friend who is to reply to the debate can confirm that amendments will be brought forward in this House to cover those points.
However, the Bill still allows a number of unfair competitive advantages for the lottery over the pools. It will, for example, be allowed to advertise itself on television and radio, while the pools are not. There will also be a significant differential between the two in the level of tax and contributions to good causes, with the pools being taxed at a much higher rate and thus denied the opportunity to offer a comparable percentage of turnover to prize winners.
If we are to be confident in the future of the pools industry, and consequently in the future of the foundation, it is vital that the Government take further steps to ensure free and equal competition with the lottery. Having come so far in recognising, and indeed accommodating, the similarities between the two, I find it difficult to understand the basis on which the Government can sustain the remaining inequalities in treatment. I therefore urge noble Lords to press the Government to recognise the need for these remaining changes to the competitive framework between pools and the lottery. Without free and equal competition, the pools industry, its millions of customers and its employees, along with all the beneficiaries of the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, stand to lose a great deal.
I welcome this Bill, not least because it notes the recognition on the Government's part that sport and the arts deserve higher spending priorities than they have previously enjoyed. But I do so on the
432
understanding that the Bill is amended in Committee in ways that ensure that competition between the pools and the lottery is on fair and equal terms.
2.7 p.m.
Lord Palumbo: My Lords, I rise to support the Bill and the establishment of the national lottery. I speak today as the chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain. I should like to say, first, how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley for his kind remarks about my chairmanship.
Noble Lords will know that the Arts Council of Great Britain has been nominated by government as one of the distributing bodies. The Arts Council of Great Britain emerged and evolved in a peculiarly pragmatic fashion during the long, dark days of the Second World War, when it offered solace and comfort of a spiritual nature, principally through music and the performing arts, to a population that was bent on survival. In the almost 50 years since that time it has built up a bank of expertise, art form by art form, that is second to none.
I do not wish to leave noble Lords with the impression that the Arts Council is infallible or that we never make a mistake. We do. However, I suggest that the Arts Council of Great Britain is on the whole respected and admired both at home and abroad. It is impartial, objective and independent, and is therefore the ideal vehicle for the distribution of lottery moneys.
There will be those who say that there should be a single distributing body to allocate money to the various classes of beneficiary under the national lottery and that that single distributing body should have charitable status and be tax exempt; and that, moreover, it could be serviced with a very small number of staff.
With the greatest respect, I beg to differ. If the commitment of the Government is to openness of operation, transparency of decision and accountability, in my view that body needs a staff adequate to fulfil those criteria. Your Lordships will readily appreciate that shoals of applications will come through the post every day. They will all have to be sifted, analysed and responded to, each one first having had applied to it the specialist knowledge of the art form involved. I do not wish to recommend the establishment of some bulbous bureaucratic machine, but a machine that is appropriate for the task, no more, no less.
I have been encouraged by the assurance of the Government that funds generated by the national lottery will supplement —be additional to and not a substitute for—existing public funding. In an ideal world such an assurance would have been better in binding legal form. But I wholly understand the political reality that makes that an impossibility. I should like to emphasise and endorse the point made by my noble friend Lord Charteris when he invited the Government to give the distributing bodies the maximum flexibility so that they are able to carry out their work as effectively and efficiently as possible and take decisions quickly and decisively, without the

433
imposition of a plethora of rules and regulations which would run counter to what they are trying to achieve.
Today there is a pressing need to embark upon a capital enterprise for the refurbishment of the cultural fabric of our nation, which has suffered from years —in some cases decades—of neglect and is now in an appalling state. In addition, we need to commission for the heritage new buildings that will fill the gaps in present provision as we approach the dawn of a new millennium. Your Lordships will be aware that the buildings and structures that help to constitute the heritage of this country are an unparalleled national resource.
I should like to think that an enterprise of this kind will take effect as soon as the lottery moneys come on stream. The sums of money involved will run into several billion pounds. They will be spread over a period of perhaps 25 or 30 years, subject to availability. Because of the controlled programme of construction, refurbishment, restoration and rebuilding, there will be no inflationary consequences. There will be the substantial creation of new jobs, which will be jobs for life, as joiners, plasterers and stonemasons are taught new skills.
At the end of the day there will be huge increases in productivity, interest and audiences, in box office receipts and, by way of return to the Exchequer, in receipts from value added tax and invisible earnings. Of those who come to this country as tourists, 40 per cent come for a specific cultural reason. I believe that if this project goes ahead the gross annual turnover of the arts industry, which is currently running at over £13 billion a year, will be increased, and so will invisible earnings, which are running in excess of £6 billion.
There is one other matter which is more difficult to quantify but no less important. By embarking upon a capital enterprise of this kind which has a sound economic basis, we shall also be embarking upon an act of celebration which will raise people's expectations, increase levels of confidence and generate optimism, hope and civic pride for the future. I can foresee not long hence a time when our craftsmen, the best in the world, having dealt with the problems at home, travel around the Continent in a thoroughly peripatetic fashion with complete freedom of movement, turning their attention to the restoration and revitalisation of the heritage of other countries. That is why I say that they will have jobs for life, and not simply by way of the single market but perhaps the Eastern bloc countries as well.
It has been said that a single volunteer is worth more than 10 pressed men and that a man of passion is worth more than 10 men of consensus. The Arts Council of Great Britain and the other distributing bodies have that passion and the skills to go with it. We now need the political will of the Government to make that vision a reality. I know that that political will will not be withheld. I commend the Bill to the House.
2.16 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I must first apologise to your Lordships' House because I was not in my place when this debate started. I was chairing a meeting elsewhere and it went on for a little time. However, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this debate.
I am a reluctant supporter of the national lottery. I agree with the people who say that in this country we gamble a great deal too much already and do not need any further encouragement to do so. However, I suppose that there is something to be said for the view of the taxi-driver who drove me to the House. He remarked that life was a lottery anyway and that one more would not make much difference. He was probably quite right.
But much as I dislike the idea of further encouragement of gambling, I take the view that the Bill will pass through Parliament. If so—I am sure that other speakers have already mentioned this point but I missed the opportunity to hear them—it is important that the best possible use should be made of the money available. I can be absolutely certain that other noble Lords have said that they do not believe that the best possible use will be made of the money available if the Treasury gets its sticky fingers into it. Therefore my primary purpose is to join with all the other people who say that they want that money to be genuine additional money and that its distribution should be free from government control.
I expect that we are asking for something that would be regarded as quite impossible. Perhaps I may tell the House the reason that I feel so strongly about this matter. I understand that the money is to go to sports and the arts. But also some of it will go to charities and voluntary organisations. In this country we have reason to be very proud of our long tradition of independent voluntary organisations. But increasingly they are becoming dependent on being able to obtain money from government departments. If they can get their money only from government departments, they are tied and unable to do their quintessential job, which is to initiate and take lines which the Government do not like and to introduce new things which the Government have not thought of and might well wish not to see introduced.
If that function goes, the most important part of the voluntary tradition goes with it. Some of us are determined to defend that freedom and see the opportunity coming from the national lottery as a means of defending it. If voluntary organisations and charities are 80 per cent to 90 per cent dependent on money that they receive from government departments, it is nonsense to pretend that they are independent in the way that they operate. That cannot be so. They have to go back to those government departments to ask for funding and therefore they will not do or say things that government departments will not wish to hear. But doing and saying things that government departments do not wish to hear lies at the very heart of the voluntary movement in this country. If that disappears a very great deal that is of value will also disappear.

435
Therefore, having first been biased towards the idea of a national lottery, I then saw it as a chance to do something which I have long thought we needed in this country; that is, to have large foundations—not just innumerable small charities to which we all write letters over and over again —with specialist people distributing the money. We need people who understand about the real needs of the different sections and organisations that are applying to them. They need to bring forward their independent informed judgment as to the way in which the additional money can be distributed.
When I speak to other people about the matter, they say that I am crying to the moon; it is not possible. But I suspect that, were opinions to be polled, it would be found that there was wide support for it. How can it be done? I do not know in detail. The important point is: who will control it and who will appoint the people who decide on the distribution of the money?
If those people are appointed by the Government, even indirectly, there is a danger that they will have in mind what it is that the Government would like them to do. It is important that the people who are giving out the money should not in any way be answerable to the Government. They must be free to make the best decisions based on their well-informed judgment in regard to what is needed.
It may be possible to set up something like an all-party group in the House of Commons or, indeed, in both Houses, which could concern itself with the people being appointed, provided they were not members of the Government. That is one possibility as regards the way in which the problem might be approached. Surely there must be others. If there were real determination to have money distributed by people who are not in any way dependent on the Government, perhaps we could see a way of enabling the proud voluntary tradition in this country, with all its skills, courage and innovation, to continue. If we do not provide something of that kind, little by little that tradition will be undermined until the voluntary organisations are little more than a limb of government, in the same way as local authorities are being turned into little more than a limb of government.
I attach great importance to the successful accumulation of money through the national lottery, taking account of all the caveats put forward in regard to what it does to local lotteries and football pools —though I am not so worried about the pools. I believe that we may be able to give a new lease of life to the long established, proud tradition of voluntary organisations in this country. They need it.
2.23 p.m.
Lord Crathorne: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to welcome the Bill. I should like to talk specifically about the role of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. I am a trustee of that body. At this point I should mention that our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, was present earlier. He felt that it was inappropriate for him to make his maiden speech
436
when previous commitments meant that he could not stay until the end of the debate. However, when he was in the Chamber he sat next to his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, who made an excellent and helpful speech earlier today. It is surely the success of the noble Lord's leadership of the National Heritage Memorial Fund which prompted the Government to choose the fund to be one of the distributors.
We are delighted by the confidence shown in us by the Department of National Heritage. We look forward to the challenge. To give the House an idea of the scale of difference that it will make to us, at the moment we deal with around 250 cases each year and around one-third of those receive grants. As the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, mentioned, the number of people who contact the distributing bodies will rise dramatically. That depends to some extent on the cut-off point for applications. It is not something that we have considered but will clearly have to do so carefully in the future.
The present NHMF staff is seven, with 10 trustees. That has meant that the fund has been able to act with great speed, and that has been of great benefit in saving parts of the heritage. As far as possible we want to try to maintain the speed and flexibility. The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, put it much more dramatically when he said that the NHMF reminded him of the wild oryx of the desert; "do not let it become a stalled, castrated ox". That is a wonderful phrase.
In the 1980 heritage Act there was no definition of "heritage". As the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, has often said, the heritage will define itself. That is what has happened during the fund's existence, with satisfactory and often inspired results. Another aspect of the 1980 Act is that the trustees were left to get on with things quite independently of government. I am sure that we all feel that to be important. That is why I raise the matter of the Secretary of State's power that he wishes to reserve for himself in Clause 24 of the Bill. The trustees are a little perplexed by that. Those powers seem greater than are traditionally required. If the DNH believes in the trustee system, which has certainly worked well up to now in the fund, cannot the trustees be trusted to do a good job in the future?
In that context I was interested and pleased to read what the Permanent Secretary at the DNH, Hayden Phillips, said in the Sunday Times. He stated:
"The bi-partisan tradition is that government should step back from decisions about which particular arts institutions to support. There is strength in the British tradition which says that government mustn't get into that kind of detail".
That is a statement that I am sure we all support.
The other point which has been discussed at length by the trustees is in relation to what we can spend the lottery money on. The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, and my noble friend Lord Montagu mentioned that point. Schedule 4 widens our powers, principally by enabling us to finance buildings which either house or advance public knowledge of heritage objects. The Government have made it clear that lottery money is additional money, and they will not reduce government spending because of the lottery money. That is a welcome commitment.

437
However, we are warned by the DNH that the beady eye of the Treasury may be upon us if we use lottery money to save objects of the same kind as we currently use NHMF money for. For example, if two costly paintings which should be saved for the nation appear for sale at the same moment and the NHMF exhausts its grant on the purchase of the first, it cannot buy the second with lottery money without running the risk of its grant being reduced.
We should be flexible and at times new NHMF lottery money should be allowed to support a heritage item which old fund money would have gone towards had the funds not been exhausted. That is of specific concern to us at this time when, as the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, discussed in some detail, we are suffering a reduction of grant from £12 million to £7.8 million in the year 1994–95.
Another warning we have had from the DNH is that we cannot combine lottery money with government money. Many items saved for the nation are funded from various sources. I am sure that we would all agree it is highly desirable that that should be so. For example, if we take the case of the Holbein "Lady with a Squirrel", the £10 million purchase price was made up by the National Gallery purchase grant and the National Heritage Memorial Fund as public money and then the NACF and the Getty Endowment Fund as basically private money. As we understand it, lottery money could not have been used to help because of the use of government money. This makes it impossible for lottery money to combine with museum money when it originates from the government. That cannot be the right way to go. I look forward to hearing a little more about this from my noble friend on the Front Bench at the end of the debate.
Having made these points, I should say that the National Heritage Memorial Fund is excited about the possibilities that the lottery money will open up in the funding of new projects. We want to ensure maximum flexibility so that we can use lottery money as widely as possible for the benefit of our heritage. We have started holding informal talks with other interested and distributing bodies about how we can all work well together. I can report that there is a great deal of enthusiasm and there is no doubt that co-operation among the various bodies will be good. Although the lottery can never be a panacea for all heritage and arts needs, we greatly welcome it.
2.31 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, we have heard a great deal about the wonderful things that will be done with the marvellous amount of money that will be collected. So far I have heard any possible proceeds there can be from a national lottery spent about three times over. We have to consider how much it is likely to raise and how we can arrange for it to raise the largest amount possible.
The experience all over the world is that no lottery works unless at least 50 per cent of the take from the lottery ticket buyers is returned in prizes. Any lottery which seeks to make a profit, on a large scale, below that 50 per cent return to the ticket buyers fails
438
because in the end people know what good value is and will not wear it. In France, for example, the take is 55 per cent; in Spain it is 55 per cent; in Germany it is 50 per cent Noble Lords may say: what does that matter to us, because we cannot bet into other people's lotteries? That is quite untrue. A case is now going through the European Court of Justice which is almost certain to establish the fact that it will become legal for anyone in Britain to bet in a European lottery. At the moment if you bet from here into a German lottery or a French lottery you are breaking the law. But that will not last within the European Community. It is absurd to think of setting up a lottery with prizes which are not commensurate with those available just across the water.
It is also ridiculous to talk so much of these super prizes —£1 million, £2 million or whatever it may be —that one or two people will win. That does not sustain anything like a pool or a lottery. I do not deny that you have to have the super prizes, but you have to have lots of little prizes as well; otherwise people will never meet anyone, or hardly ever meet anyone, who has won anything out of a lottery. It is like the premium bonds, which rather sank in esteem because no one ever met anyone who had won anything sizeable. You have to have lots of small prizes as well. Therefore, a great deal has to be arranged in that respect.
At the moment, as I understand it, the Government are thinking of taking 12 per cent out of the lottery. If my formula is agreed there will be another 50 per cent going for the prizes. Thirty-eight per cent will then be left to divide between the lottery promoters and the good causes that will be the recipients of the profits. I should like to see the Government taking only 10 per cent, which would leave a little more for the good causes. It is said that the lottery promoters will take 15 per cent in administration. I shall explain in a moment why I think that amount could be reduced slightly.
At this point I had better declare an interest. I am the chairman of the Horserace Totalisator Board and we intend to apply to have a licence to run or operate part of, or the whole of, a lottery, either by ourselves or in conjunction with others. The research which we and others have done shows that any interested consortium must spend £150 million initially in order to set up the lottery. It would expect to lose around £200 million in the first two years of operation. It would certainly lose a great deal more than that if the prize take were less than I have suggested. It would be hoped that any serious contenders would be able to reach break-even point by the end of the first two years with a take nationally of around £1.5 billion. But if we stick to the larger percentage take in prizes I believe that over the next three or four years we could achieve a much higher figure. It could rise to £2 billion, £3 billion or perhaps even to £4 billion. The promoters will expect to make a profit or begin to make a profit only in the third year.
One point to which the Government must pay attention is that the promoters will have invested a great deal of money in equipment, and so forth, in the operation and that therefore the renewal of a licence

439
should be almost assured for a successful operator. He should not have his licence taken away before seven years. No one will seriously spend all that money if he has to give the licence to someone else at the end of five years, or even seven years, even though he has been successful.
We know that the lottery will have a serious effect on the horse-race levy. When the French national lottery was introduced the PMU take dropped by about 10 per cent initially, which was quite a lot of money. It went on like that for three, four or five years and only now is the PMU —the tote monopolistic betting organisation on horses—catching up with the lottery take. It is about even now.
I believe that quite a lot of new money will go into the lottery. Some people have the idea that the amount of money that people are prepared to spend on gambling is finite. It is not. If there is a horse-race meeting with seven races instead of six, the seventh race will do just as well as the others because there will still be those people who are trying to maximise their winnings or having a last desperate bet to recoup their losses. The amount is not finite. The amount of money that most people might spend on a lottery would probably be £1 a week or a figure of that kind. That would be an enormous amount of money in total over the nation.
I should like to see lottery tickets being sold in betting shops. Those are natural places because it is a bet. It would also help in terms of the loss of horse-race betting turnover, or at least the betting turnover to the bookmakers. I shall come back to the levy board in a moment. It would help the bookmakers because they would have new money coming into modern betting shops, which are now mostly extremely attractive places. People would realise that these pokey holes that they have heard about, in Dickens and so forth—with gin and God knows what—are now highly respectable except that the Government, in their quaint adherence to the Beatrice Webb doctrine, and so forth, still think that it is wicked for working class people to go to betting shops. You are not allowed to say on the outside what the wares are on the inside. You are not even allowed to look through the window. You cannot say, "We are betting so-and-so on the Grand National next week"; you would be arrested. You cannot even advertise the name and address or the telephone number of the premises from which you are operating. One or two changes like that would have to be made in any case to attract people to come to betting shops. Once they come in to buy their lottery tickets they will say, "Oh, this is not so bad". I have noticed very much in my rounds of our betting shops—and other people's by the way—that more and more women are now going into betting shops because they have become civilised places. You can have coffee and there are comfortable seats. They are not just tough beery places with a lot of people swearing at each other.
Although I know that it is the hope of the Jockey Club and other racing interests, it is unlikely that they will get any further tax advantage from the Government at the moment. On the whole, I believe
440
that racing must admit that under the last Chancellor they have had a very good deal out of the authorities. Even though the previous Home Secretary—now the new Chancellor, appointed today—is very sympathetic to racing, I cannot see him being able to cut the betting duties.
However, to gain some compensation I believe that the energies of racing should be directed towards supporting the application of the Horserace Totalisator Board to run part or the whole of a lottery. As should be well known, all our profits go back into racing. Therefore, that could be some compensation for the initial drop which there must be in the horse-racing levy.
We regard ourselves as being very well suited to running a lottery. We have a machine called the Tote Fast Terminal. It was designed by the Tote and made in Britain. It now has half of its development costs paid for, as well as by ourselves, by Bass, which owns Coral, in a new joint firm called Tote Direct. All these machines are now going into Coral and Tote shops. They will be completely installed by August.
The latest version is linked by secure radio, which is extraordinarily important. One has to avoid fraud which is very open to lottery ticket selling and assembly. These secure radio links are provided by another British firm called Paknet. The machine is used for transmitting from all Coral and Tote betting shops, of which there are nearly 900, through our great computer complex at Wigan, instantly into the racecourse pools.
Soon we expect thousands of other bookmakers to join our service, which they are already greatly interested in doing. In that terminal we have the software to take all the popular lotteries in the world. If later additions are required in years to come, that can easily be carried out. The response time for the acceptance and verification of a bet by our terminal for a lottery ticket is less than a second. That is better than anyone else has achieved anywhere in the world. As the betting slip or lottery entry goes into one side of the machine, up comes the detailed receipt for the customer. He has a valid ticket on which to apply for his winnings.
The communication costs, with the aid of this British firm, Paknet, and all the other British manufacturers of this device, are less than a penny per transaction. That is far below anything achieved anywhere else in the world, even in America. We have an all-British designed and made terminal. It costs less than one-third of any comparable machine in the world and it can do the job faster and more efficiently.
I hope that in this particular enterprise the Government are going to back Britain and British made goods rather than, as they often do, go for something more expensive and less efficient from abroad. This simple, small terminal is easily operated by anyone. Even I can understand it, and I am far from being technically minded.
The machine is ideal for putting into the 19,000 sub-post offices and 1,000 main post offices. I am authorised by the Post Office to say that it will be very happy to use our machine in all its outlets if we succeed in our application to be a lottery operator,

441
either alone or with others. I have heard that the Government have been in some trouble lately—they have been accused of getting rid of sub-post offices and doing desperate things to them to drive them out of business. This is one way in which one can keep every sub-post office in the country in business. On the nights before a big draw is made, I am sure that all sub-post masters and post mistresses will be happy to keep their offices open until 10 o'clock at night, or even later, as they are legally allowed to do. The use of sub-post offices is also ideal because everyone in the country can get to one. The footprint covers the entire nation. There may be difficulties with other forms of retail outlet. I am not saying that we should not have other forms of retail outlet, but as we have something ready made and which has long been trusted—namely, the sub-post offices and post offices—they should be able to make a little more money for themselves through having that trade. I do not see why it is necessary to think of vast and expensive retailing chains doing this work when one has all the machinery that one needs. However, I would not object to that being added if it is thought necessary, or having special arrangements made for big conurbations.
The use of our machine and the complete communications network, would significantly reduce the 15 per cent administration cost which the Government are allowing for in their plan. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that it is necessary to do that. The return to winning ticket holders or to the distributors of lottery profits, or both, should be able to be increased handsomely.
Finally, perhaps I may conclude my advertising address. We all know that there is nothing wrong with truthful advertising; it is the untruthful advertising which we dislike. I hope that those interested in supporting British designed and made equipment, and in helping racing with the obvious difficulties which face them following the introduction of the lottery, will support our application. That would be the best help that racing could get. It would also be the best and cheapest way for the Government to run the lottery and to get the most money from it.
2.48 p.m.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, I should like to make a provisional apology to your Lordships because I have an unavoidable commitment at a quarter-to six. Therefore, I apologise if I have to leave the Chamber at that time. As an irregular speaker in this House, I realise that that is most discourteous, but I hope that noble Lords will forgive me.
We have already heard from my noble friend Lord Aberdare of the tangible dangers of the introduction of a national lottery to football. I should like to speak of similar tangible dangers to another sport. My subject is one which I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, will approve. Having frequently sighted the noble Lord in the vicinity of Newmarket, Ascot, Epsom and other such places, I suspect that your Lordships will guess what my subject may be. I apologise if I repeat some of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has just made. I hope to elaborate on them.
442
I declare a personal interest in this subject as the part-owner of a very slow horse and as a steward at two race courses. In wishing to protect the best interests of the racing industry I am naturally apprehensive of the effect which a national lottery may have on the level of betting turnover. Nobody can be sure what that effect may be. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, said that this country is comprised of inveterate gamblers. He may be right and it is therefore possible that the average British punter may continue to spend the same amount on betting on horse-racing as he has always done. However, surely the potential turnover of the lottery can only emanate from two sources—from either savings or disposable income. I suggest that the lottery will not be viewed as a viable alternative to savings and therefore its turnover must come from disposable income. In a period when disposable incomes have generally been falling, it would seem likely that the average betting man will have to find his lottery stake from a proportion of what he might otherwise have spent on betting on horse-racing.
It is undoubtedly dangerous to make forecasts based on what has happened in other countries after the introduction of a national lottery. The Government have, I believe, estimated a first-year lottery turnover of £1.5 billion—or £27 per capita. However, an independent forecasting body has suggested that £4.5 billion may be nearer the mark, which equates to £79 per capita. Indeed, that happens to be close to the per capita spend in Ireland of £77. It is also true to say that the turnover in Denmark's recently launched lottery was five times underestimated. The most recent study in America concluded that lotteries reduce betting turnover by almost 14 per cent The Jockey Club and the Horseracing Advisory Council have estimated a 15 per cent decline in betting turnover in this country as a result of the introduction of the lottery. That consequently means a £9 million decline in the levy which is paid to racing. The forecast made by BOLA, which represents the bookmaking industry, which was given to us in a recent presentation to the all-party racing committee, estimates that next year there will be a normal turnover decline of almost £600 million before taking the lottery into account. It also suggests that as a result of the lottery there will be a £540 million reduction in turnover. Adding to that, the (I hope) beneficial effect of the opening of betting shops in the evening, the forecast is a net decrease in betting turnover of almost £850 million. If that were to happen, it would equate to an £18.5 million decrease in the levy paid to racing. As your Lordships know, the racing industry relies to a great extent on the levy.
It goes without saying that there must be consequent risks to the numbers employed in the racing industry. There are currently 900 trainers in this country, employing 6,000 stable employees—and that is before one takes into account those employed in the ancillary services such as hauliers, vets, farriers, forage merchants, saddlers, builders, stable suppliers and many others. Therefore, if the estimates of lottery turnover to which I have referred prove to be correct and the possible reduction in betting turnover is as

443
forecast—although obviously at this stage what will happen is anybody's guess—the racing industry will need reimbursement for the projected loss of income in order to ensure the viability of what some of us believe to be one of Britain's most traditional sports.
In order that racing can compete equally with the national lottery, I would urge your Lordships to press the Government to consider the following points: that there should be either a direct payment by the national lottery to racing or —if the Government do not consider racing to be a suitable cause—a further reduction in betting duty together with a corresponding adjustment to the levy. Furthermore, consideration should be given to a relaxation of the restrictions which the bookmaking industry suggests have severely hampered its ability to compete effectively in the United Kingdom leisure market. In particular, consideration should be given to a relaxation of restrictions on advertising and on shop design and to the possibility of allowing bookmakers to offer additional services in their shops. In essence, there need to be further changes in what seems to me to be—I know that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans would not agree—the somewhat archaic provisions of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act. Consideration should also be given to the abolition of the tax-on-tax effect which, if my mathematics is correct, makes betting duty work out at 8.5 per cent as opposed to 7.75 per cent.
In an ideal world, therefore, I would suggest that the framework for any potential reimbursement to racing should be determined before or at the time of the launch of the lottery in order that racing has the ability to carry out longer-term financial planning. In the context, a further cut in betting duty would be most welcome before the launch of the lottery. Obviously, both the bookmaking industry and the racing authorities are grateful to the Government for the most recent cut in betting duty and for the relaxation of the laws governing the evening opening of betting offices. I was personally much encouraged by the appearance of the Home Secretary—I am not sure whether it was the present or a previous Home Secretary—at a recent meeting of the all-party racing committee at which he gave every impression of being sympathetic to racing's cause. I would urge that the Government give serious consideration to the proposals that I have outlined.
2.58 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am not to be numbered among those who welcome the Bill and the idea of a national state-run lottery. I recognise that gambling has an appeal. Indeed, I spent some rather active years as chairman of the Gaming Board trying to regulate gambling within the area covered by the board, but on the clear doctrine that facilities could be made available to meet an unstimulated demand. We may be the only country in Europe without a national lottery, but somehow or other we manage to spend more on gambling than any other European country and there is certainly very wide scope for gambling in this country.
444
I view with disquiet the prospect of a large lottery with enormous prizes, and in particular an Act of Parliament which puts a specific statutory duty on the Secretary of State to do his best, within the bounds of due propriety,
"to secure that the … proceeds of the … Lottery are as great as possible".
That is to be found in Clause 4 of the Bill.
It seems to me to be a sad day when we are considering a Bill which imposes an obligation on the Government to add, I very much fear, to the gambling culture of this country, to the dream of easy wealth and to the promotion of a chance ideology in opposition to the work ethic to which the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, referred. But all that is a personal view and, having said my piece, I shall not pursue that point further.
However, there are some comments that I should like to make on the content of the Bill. I pass lightly over my distaste for having the word "etc." in the title of an Act of Parliament, although I know that I am not entirely alone in finding that particularly awful. However, for interest I should like to ask a question about the Millennium Fund. The Bill keeps referring to the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium. I wonder what that means. Does it mean that, although people are obviously going to get very excited when the year 2000 arrives, the Government take the view that that year is the year of the second millennium and that the year 2001 is the first year of the third millennium? I believe that that must be so. There was no year nought, so it seems to me that we must reach 100 or 1,000 before we complete a century or a millenium. I know that midnight services to welcome the arrival of the 20th century were held on the last day of 1900 and not 1899. Even The Times, which since then seems to have been unable to count, marked the arrival of the new century by a leader on 1st January 1901. I am rather against the Millennium Fund, but if we are to have one it would be rather nice to know what it is that we are celebrating.
The important topic that I wish to discuss relates to the impact of the Bill on charities. I recognise that here I am echoing some of the comments which have been made earlier in the debate. I should perhaps say also that I speak as vice-president of the NCVO and as president of MENCAP. There has been a good deal of discussion about the arithmetic, and it seems to me extraordinary that we should have reached this stage of the Bill without anyone being able to tell us how the sums work out.
On any estimate that one can make it looks as though the share of the proceeds which will go to charities, as to the others, will work out at not much more than 5 per cent That is markedly less than was envisaged in the original White Paper. I have heard it said on behalf of the Government that that is 5 per cent that the charities would not otherwise receive. But while it is obviously impossible to work out accurate figures at this stage, there is a distinct possibility that charity income, which is already less healthy than one would wish, could be reduced to a point at which the cut from the lottery, if kept at 5 per cent, would not make up the difference. Overall, the

445
results of the lottery could be that charities would be worse off. At best, it is difficult to see that for them there is very much in it. And since, as in Ireland, the larger charities devoting considerable resources to well-organised appeals may be able to fend for themselves, if there is a loss it is likely to fall in the main on the smaller charities.
I say that charity income may fall for the following reasons. The Government have promised that the lottery will not be heavily publicised as a scheme to benefit good causes. However, they assume, quite properly, that the good causes element will be a factor which will encourage the punter to buy tickets. Research which has been carried out —more up to date than that carried out for the Rothschild Royal Commission—confirms that some people will shy away from responding to an appeal by a local charity or taking part in a local charity's lottery on the grounds that they have already made their contribution to good causes by buying tickets in a national lottery. Even a 4 per cent diversion of expenditure —and that is putting it at the lower end of probability —would lose the charities some £120 million per year. A 7 per cent diversion would take the loss to well over £200 million.
Although we have heard a good deal about the Treasury assurances that the lottery money will be regarded as additional (I hope that Mr. Portillo's full concurrence has been obtained), that has not been written on the face of the Bill. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, that it may be difficult to do that. But if we must depend on assurances, I wonder how far we can go in resting on those assurances, not only during the lifetime of this Government but during the lifetime of the governments who are to follow.
Worse than that, I simply do not see how the Government can prevent local authorities, which are under financial pressures, cutting down on the discretionary grants which they presently give to the voluntary sector. Those sums amount to about £600 million and some of that money must be at risk. I understand that the Government have undertaken that the impact on charity income will be watched and are thinking about how that might best be carried out. I hope that if our fears turn out to be justified, a remedy will be quickly found. It is hardly for Members of this House to suggest changes in taxation, although I have noticed that previous speakers have not been so restrained. But I should perhaps put on record that relief from some of the VAT charges has been put forward as one suggestion.
A considerable number of points of comparative detail must be considered at later stages. I content myself with mentioning only two. First—and this point has already been taken—there is still ground for unease about the drafting of the clauses, which on the face of them give extensive power to the Secretary of State to intervene in the distribution of funds. It would be most undesirable for political control of funds to become possible. In any event, I do not envy the new Charity Fund having to decide between applicants for help, with or without ministerial intervention. I say en passant that I hope that it will be left with sufficient
446
discretion to help occasionally the offbeat experimental charities and not just be limited to the traditional ones.
Secondly, although the Government rather brush aside the possibility of addiction, wrongly, in my view, with prizes of the kind which are envisaged, it has been recognised that for some reason which I do not understand those instant-win scratch cards seem to encourage addictive play. I was slightly alarmed during the admirable opening speech of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to hear him speak on the assumption that they would form part of the national lottery. I should rather like to see the operators of the national lottery being banned from using those games, in spite of the doubts expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and unpopular though that might be with the operators.
In the same context I remain uneasy about the Government's decision to limit rollover to three games, since even less could mean maximum prizes of between £4 million and £8 million. The NCVO believes that those prize levels are excessive and that it will be best not to allow an accumulation of prize money.
I cannot end by saying that I welcome the Bill, but I can say that I too hope that it will be less objectionable by the time it leaves this House. I am afraid that I cannot altogether dismiss from my mind the botch-up which was made when casinos were first made legitimate in 1960—I fear by a Conservative Government. It was done in such a way that it was not long before there were signs of the Mafia moving in —until we were able to correct the position in 1968. A great deal of money is involved and it is important that the Bill should do all that it can to see that the enterprise is conducted fairly and equitably, under adequate control and reducing as far as possible the risks involved in excessive play.
3.11 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, in rising to speak in this Second Reading debate, unlike the previous speaker, the distinguished noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, I wish to express my unequivocal support for the principles behind the Bill. I should like to congratulate the Government on their vision in bringing it forward. I should like to congratulate in particular my noble friend Lord Ferrers on the simple, eloquent and, if I may say so, debonair manner in which he introduced it.
For a nation which aspires to underwrite so comprehensively the health, welfare, education and security of its citizens there is a dilemma inevitably when judgments have to be made in respect of what I might call the second-line demands, such as the arts, sport and our national heritage. There is quite literally no limit to the calls that are made on front-line services backed by a tremendous volume of political pressure. Those who ask how a government can contemplate spending public money on, say, saving a work of art for the nation in preference to further funding for the health service—even if some may think that they are misguided—are sincere.

447
Against that background of such perceptions it is hardly surprising that the arts and sport enjoy such a low priority and that so much of our heritage is neglected for want of resources. The Bill not only goes a very long way to addressing that dilemma, but it does so in style and promises to provide for millions of people some much needed enjoyment and fun.
But having rediscovered a touch of style, I hope that the Government will be more stylish still and allow your Lordships' House to transform a good Bill into an excellent Bill and to make it an enduring instrument of enhancement to our national life. For the truth of the matter is that the Bill remains flawed, perhaps seriously so, and much work remains to be done on it.
I wish to confine my remarks to those aspects of the measure that affect heritage. I must declare an interest as a commissioner of English Heritage. I need hardly say that English Heritage welcomes the Bill. Before turning to essentially heritage matters I wish to touch briefly on one aspect which affects equally all potential beneficiaries as well as the lottery ticket buyers; it is the question of taxation. If I understand the position correctly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to levy tax on lottery tickets at a rate of 12 per cent People who make a habit of calculating these things tell me that a rate of 7 per cent would achieve fiscal neutrality. I should be grateful to hear from my noble friend Lord Astor whether neutrality is intended and, if so, how a rate of 12 per cent is justified.
The scale of the work of English Heritage and the extent of its responsibilities is known to many of your Lordships. It manages some 400 historic properties and monuments. It operates grant systems for half a million listed buildings, for repairs to churches and cathedrals and for buildings in the 7,500 conservation areas in England. It is the nation's largest source of funding for archaeology and it does much else besides.
The detailed policy framework for all this is agreed with Ministers. The objectives set for English Heritage and the National Heritage Memorial Fund must be regarded from the viewpoint of Ministers as the most effective means of giving strategic direction to heritage policy. This year's grant in aid to English Heritage for all the work is £100 million. We are grateful for that, although it is nowhere near enough to cover the cost of rescuing and maintaining the long list of priority projects which are in need of attention. That is why the designation of the national heritage as a beneficiary from the lottery is both right and necessary.
However, if English Heritage believes that those areas will benefit from the introduction of the lottery it may just be disappointed. Noble Lords who thought that the lottery would allow key, but current under-funded projects, to be given a chance for successful completion may also be in for a surprise. They may not have considered the principle of additionality. Ministers have made some reassuring comments about additionality and it is difficult not to be convinced by their sincerity in making additionality a genuine issue. But it will mean that grant in aid and lottery projects will have to be separated. If English Heritage is presented with a project to which it could
448
give some money but not enough to allow the work to proceed, the lottery would not be able to make a contribution. There are projects within English Heritage's policy remit which it could not hope to fund. It is arguable that even if no public money can be found for them the very fact that they fall within its programme could debar it from applying to the lottery. That point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, and by my noble friend Lord Crathorne.
It is not difficult to see the many anomalies which could arise as a result of this byzantine rule. The projects regarded by Ministers as the most important and the hardest for sources other than government to fund—those within the programmes of English Heritage and NHMF—could find themselves no better off than they are now. The lottery will have to be reserved for those applicants next down the list. Of course, those applicants may be also be well deserving, but a distribution system which disallows any co-ordination with public policy objectives cannot be the best or the most cost-effective way of using the valuable asset which this lottery Bill will create. Furthermore, if the Treasury believes that heritage projects funded by the lottery are not truly "additional" to—separate from—those funded by grant in aid, it will cut the English Heritage/NHMF grant accordingly. The message to us is simple; if it is within our programme, the lottery cannot touch it regardless of whether we have the money for it or not.
But there is more. Ministers have stated that lottery distributions should favour capital projects. This is understandable in order that the public may see tangible evidence of the value of its contributions. However, far too many semantic distinctions are already beginning to hedge about the ability of NHMF to make good use of the £70 million-plus of new money likely to be generated for the heritage sector. We were told that the restoration funding would be acceptable, but that conservation funding would not. NHMF could give money to a library but possibly not to an archive. During the course of the debate I have heard that questioned. It would be helpful to have some reassurances on the matter.
The National Heritage Memorial Fund is a well run body. Presumably that is why it has been chosen as a distributor of lottery money. For heaven's sake, let us trust to its good judgment and to its public accountability under the Bill. That point was strongly made by my noble friend Lord Montagu. The same should apply, of course, to other distributor bodies.
Finally, I should like to point out the dangers implicit in allowing Clause 24 to stand part of the Bill in its present form. It is most welcome that Ministers amended the Bill in another place to require them to consult affected parties before directing them as to the matters they must take into account in making distributions. However, noble Lords may have noticed that Ministers are not required to provide affected bodies with detailed reasons for the making either of a direction under Clause 24 or of an order which may limit or eliminate the role of a particular distributor. That is cunning: it means that the body

449
cannot challenge the Secretary of State's decision. But 1 wonder whether that is fair. I ask Ministers to look again at that issue.
All that may sound like a catalogue of dissatisfaction. Yes, I believe that there are some concerns. However, they do not outweigh the Government's great achievement in promoting a measure which could provide the heritage sector with its greatest yet force for renewal. I have no reservations that cannot, I believe, be quite easily overcome. I wish the Bill safe passage through your Lordships' House.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I have no hesitation in supporting the Bill in principle. I have done so for a long time, having been a former member of the lottery promotion company. However, I do so now with some increasing concern as to the detail which in my view causes me to believe that the Government are about to kill the golden goose that they wish to provide. No doubt we shall be able to look in greater detail at some of the matters involved in Committee; but not, I gather, at the 12 per cent tax to which I shall return later.
I should like, first, to mention my noble friend Lord Houghton who made such an entertaining and delightful speech. He asked who was behind the Bill. The answer is that I am, together with my colleagues who form the lottery promotion company, including the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, who will speak later. My noble friend said that the Labour Party would never dream of introducing such a Bill. However, I must remind him that the Labour Party did in fact introduce such a Bill under the Government of which he was a member. It happened after consultation with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. We announced in a Budget, and put in a Finance Bill, a proposal to establish a national lottery which I assume my noble friend would have supported at that time. The difficulty that we had was that we put forward the noble Lord, Lord Lever, to defend it in the other place. He made it sound like a Treasury collection exercise—and that is the warning I give to the Government—so all the Members voted against it, supported by large numbers of football and cricket supporters' clubs who managed to whip up a tremendous lobby. I think that that was most unfounded.
I was a Minister for Sport for 11 years. The reason I believe in a national lottery above everything else, along with my colleagues and the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, who spoke earlier, is that I do not know a Minister for Sport or a Minister for the Arts since such posts were established by my noble friend Lord Wilson (when he was Prime Minister) who has ever been able to get anywhere near financing the needs of the country which he or she has decided have to be met. That is particularly the case at present.
I am sure that we shall return again and again to discuss the type of things that can be financed by millennium funds or by such other means. I believe that the greatest overriding need in the country at
450
present is to put money into community sports and arts activities in the local communities, especially inner cities and also in some of our village communities. So many of the problems in our society are created by boredom, associated with increased unemployment which many of us cannot see being arrested for some time. It seems to me that we have an overwhelming duty to do what we can to promote community activity.
I should like to make a further point. I understand that the Minister for National Heritage has said that the Government would like most of the money to be spent on capital projects. I hope that the Government will think again about that decision. It is not the building of capital projects which is desperately needed at present; it is the funding to keep them going. Wherever one looks, it is the revenue consequences that have to be considered. As a Minister, I was brought up by my officials to believe that every capital project has a revenue consequence. We must consider carefully what are the revenue consequences of the facilities that we are providing.
I should also like to mention the four noble Lords who have made speeches of special pleading in the debate. I happen to agree with the causes about which they are all making special pleadings, including horse-racing and putting money into the Football Trust. However, they must be careful how far they go down that road, otherwise they will alienate many people. Quite apart from the need to keep horse-racing and football in a healthy state, there is a mass of other sporting and artistic activities that do not enjoy those special levies and opportunities. I hope that noble Lords will think most carefully about that aspect. The merit of the Bill, and of the proposed lottery, is that it will help other sports and other activities to have some share of the available funds.
I turn now to my principal concerns. First, there is the 12 per cent tax. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, I very much welcome the appointment today of Mr. Kenneth Clarke as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has an impressive mind, although he sometimes does things of which I do not approve. However, he looks at everything afresh and anew. In my experience, and I know him quite well, he approaches matters from a fundamental point of view. Therefore, as I know he supports the lottery, I hope that he will start by looking at the ridiculous suggestion that a 12 per cent tax should be paid on it. I shall not go into detail to analyse what the take will be because other speakers have done so. I agree that the prizes must be at least 50 per cent But, if we start with 50 per cent, and then look at the capital cost of setting it up and the administrative cost of paying for the agents and everything else—and this is my great concern—I believe that the Government will be in grave danger of undermining their own purpose. I certainly do not want to see them do so in this area of activity.
I turn now to the question of the competition with the pools. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, with great interest; indeed, I think that he will concede that when I was a Minister we set up the Football Trust, together with the Football League's Alan

451
Hardacre and, of course, the companies that he mentioned. It has been a godsend to football. In recent years I have been concerned that the football pools should not be treated unfairly. However my worry has turned around now. The Government have made concessions to the football pools. For some of the reasons that I have stated, I am now very anxious that the national lottery might be treated unfairly. I am especially concerned over the question of roll-over prizes which could take them to something in the region of £3 million, £4 million or £5 million. In introducing the Bill, the Minister said:
"The roll-over will be provided so that the pools can match the lottery".
I took a note of what the noble Earl said and I believe that I have got it right. That statement astonished me. It seems to me that with £3 million, £4 million or £5 million prizes on a roll-over, the lottery would have no hope at all of competing. I ask Ministers to look again at that point. In my view, the pools are a national lottery but they are restricted in their purpose to specific objectives. We must be sure that they can compete on fair terms with each other. That includes the question of advertising, especially on television, and also the question of the large prizes. I agreed with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, that we have to have a sufficiently wide base to this operation to make it worthwhile for people to opt in.
I now wish to say a few words about the importance of keeping the administrative costs under control. I believe that that is absolutely essential. Notwithstanding the typically modest speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, I have some sympathy with his view that the Tote has much to commend it in this respect. I have tried to find out the administrative deductions for various forms of gambling to try to ascertain what might be the best course to adopt for the lottery. I have discovered that the administrative deduction from the Tote is 13.2 per cent I understand that that administrative deduction is lower than for almost any other form of gambling.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, said, the Tote already has much capital equipment in place. I do not wish to press the case of the Tote on the Home Office —I am sure that will be rationally assessed when the time comes to do so—but the extent of its deductions in administrative costs and the costs involved in its large capital projects should be considered.
We need to consider the case for allowing existing agencies to spend the money raised through the national lottery. Other noble Lords today have said that the Arts Council, the Sports Council and the Department of National Heritage should be the agencies who decide how the money is spent. They must be unfettered in that duty. The Arts Council and the Sports Council have Royal Charters. I understand that the purpose of Royal Charters is to protect the integrity of those bodies against the Executive. In recent days I have often thought about the fact that the Government appoint all the members of those bodies. That seems to me to militate against the purpose of Royal Charters. I hope that the Government will agree that, as far as is practicable,
452
those agencies should propose schemes for the Millennium Fund to enable the greatest degree of objectivity to be realised.
I wish to refer to Clause 24 which I have no doubt we shall spend much time on at a later date. I understand that the Government wish to give directions in this matter. I am not naÏve enough to consider that the Government will not wish to give general directions. Nevertheless I believe that the Government have a duty to give reasons for any directions that they give, particularly if the Government wish to restrict the help that is available to some applicants to the fund.
I end as I began by saying that in my judgment there is every reason to support this measure. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans rightly referred to ethical matters which may arise in this issue. I suppose that ethical matters may arise, but I can only inform the right reverend Prelate that the Anglican Church I attend depends heavily on the lottery that is run within it. Therefore I am a little doubtful about any ethical implications in this matter.
I believe that it would be helpful to consider the effect of some of the large-scale stockbroking gambling which goes on in this country and the way in which industry and commerce have in many ways fallen into disrepute in some areas. I believe there are much greater ethical problems in that area as that kind of gambling affects the livelihoods of many people in this country. Basically I believe that having a flutter on the national lottery will be a harmless pastime. It will be enjoyed by millions of people. If we get the financing of it right, it will be of enormous benefit to causes and bodies which most of us support.
3.35 p.m.
The Marquess of Zetland: My Lords, I, too, wish to associate myself with noble Lords on all sides of this House who have supported, or will support, this Bill today. For far too long, in my view, consumers in this country have been denied the opportunity of having what can only be described as a modest flutter in their normal High Street environment. For far too long also such good causes as the arts, sport, heritage and others, none of which are exactly flush with funds, have been denied the substantial financial benefits which can be made available through the introduction of a national lottery. I am 100 per cent behind this Bill.
As is so often the case in this country, we seem finally to be catching up with what has been happening so successfully for decades in the rest of the world. But that in itself gives us a unique opportunity to benefit from the experiences of others, and I hope that we will not make the disastrous mistake which some countries have made of allowing our national lottery in any way to replace government funding or taxation. In that respect I agree entirely with the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and many other noble Lords.
The revenue and distribution functions of our national lottery must surely be placed firmly under the control of a truly independent body, or bodies, and

453
must be kept that way. I hope that this principle can be firmly adhered to because, if it is not, our national lottery may not be the great success that I know most of us hope and believe it will be.
In this context I rather like Sir Adam Ridley's advice, given in his 1991 Arnold Goodman lecture. He said:
"It is impossible to see why any rational Government should tax its own public good—creating activities to generate resources needed to sustain those very activities. It is scarcely more sensible than asking anaemic people to give blood for their own transfusions. In fact the very idea is absurd".
There will, of course, be casualties—there always are—and the one which most particularly concerns me relates to the annual betting levy on which horse-racing depends so heavily for its existence. I speak here as a steward of the Jockey Club and also as one of the four Jockey Club nominees to the newly-formed British Horse Racing Board. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and others have already touched briefly on this subject, but it is worth repeating that British racing continues to operate under a severe lack of funding. This is not the whingeing of wealthy men—this is a genuine desire that the most noble and glorious of British sports should remain in the international front lane and should not be allowed to slide into second best, as it most surely will do over the next decade unless the state of its finances can be substantially improved.
To their eternal credit, this Government have come to appreciate the problem and, as we have already heard, have been most supportive over the past couple of years, notably in the 1992 Budget when they agreed to knock a quarter of 1 per cent off betting duty and to return the resulting sum of approximately El 1 million back to racing. That was extremely helpful and brought racing's total revenue from the off-course betting market up to some £50 million a year, or about half of what I believe is needed if the industry is to remain viable and able to compete effectively with the rest of the world.
I remind your Lordships that that figure of £50 million a year still contrasts most unfavourably with the bookmaker's take of approaching £200 million a year and still less with the Government's take in the form of betting tax of £450 million a year.
Estimates as to how much horse-race betting turnover will be lost to the lottery vary from nothing to 15 per cent Clearly, as has already been said today, there is only so much disposable income to go round. The racing industry is worried that the lottery may take as much as 15 per cent of betting turnover. I believe that that estimate is a little high and that perhaps the figure may be 10 per cent However, let us suppose that the figure is 10 per cent That would result in a direct loss to racing of more than £5 million a year. Racing simply cannot afford such a loss at this time. After all the ground that has been made up recently, and with the direct help of Government, that would be nothing less than a tragedy.
At this stage we can only guess how matters will turn out. However, it is not unreasonable to ask at the very least that the Government should commit themselves here and now to reviewing the rate of
454
betting duty on a regular basis in the light of the actual effects of the national lottery and agree to reduce the rate of duty to enable any revenue lost to racing to be offset.
Finally, it seems likely that the Government will draw a strict dividing line in the public domain between the selling of lottery tickets, on the one hand, and the very strict regulations which relate to all other forms of gambling on the other. That is all very fine and even understandable during the introductory period of the lottery. The lottery must be launched with maximum effect; no doubt with a fanfare of trumpets and with the help of many millions of pounds of promotional activity. But there will be no level playing field and I very much hope that, when all the excitement is over and the national lottery is firmly established as a wild success with the public, the Government will turn their attention to other forms of gambling; notably, perhaps, the Tote which is the only national pool betting system we have in this country and on which I believe the very survival of racing in its present form may depend.
We have heard a great deal about the Tote this afternoon from its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford. In fact, he treated us to a 10 minute commercial on the Tote. Nevertheless, and whether or not the Tote obtains the contract to operate the lottery, I hope that the Government will allow it to compete on an equal basis and in the same sort of high street outlets as the lottery. To my mind, anything else would make a mockery of British justice and of fair play.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, I greatly respect the convictions of those few noble Lords who have spoken against the concept of a national lottery this afternoon. For myself I support it unequivocally, for pragmatic reasons, believing that the benefit which it will bring to the good causes it is intended to benefit will far outweigh any damage it may do, which I do not envisage. I do not foresee any disadvantages.
I played a very small part in bringing about the lottery because I was a director of the Lottery Promotion Company, together with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. I believe that the company has completed its main mission, and I have left the company. I am not entirely at one with those who are still directors of the company as regards the shape which they want to give to the distribution process for the proceeds. But that in no way diminishes my admiration for their achievements. I should like to pay a special tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and to Mr. Denis Vaughan, the chief executive of the company. Between them those two have done more than any other individuals to bring us to the point we have now reached.
I am especially heartened by the prospects for the environment in general and the heritage in particular. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who is chairman of the National Trust but unfortunately could not be present

455
this afternoon, has asked me to say a word on behalf of the National Trust. I do so with great pleasure as I am an ex-chairman of the trust.
The trust welcomes the Bill. It finds the equal five-way split of the proceeds sensible, and enthusiastically supports the appointment of the National Heritage Memorial Fund to deal with the heritage dividend. It is saddened, as many of us are and as many noble Lords have indicated this afternoon, by the proposed size of the Treasury take. I very much hope that the Chancellor will take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in that respect.
I want to deal with two aspects of the Bill and one matter which will follow from the Bill. The first is the role of the Secretary of State. Other noble Lords have dealt with the issue. Despite setbacks, I still believe in the need to keep the Government at arm's length from the Arts Council—of which I was once chairman—the Sports Council and the National Heritage Memorial Fund. Why do the Government propose to involve the Secretary of State so heavily in the control of the bodies that they have chosen to distribute the funds? As the arrangements for the lottery are set up, we ought to establish that the Arts Council, the Sports Council and the heritage fund have the same autonomy in handling the new money as in theory, and in my experience in practice, they now enjoy in relation to their present grant. Clause 24, which lays down rules for control by the Secretary of State, needs to be, and I hope will be, amended to ensure that, while the broad principle of accountability of the distributing bodies to the Secretary of State is observed, they have a proper degree of autonomy in the distribution of the funds entrusted to them.
Why has the National Heritage Memorial Fund been such a roaring success? No doubt there are many reasons, but in my judgment it is primarily because its first chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, refused to accept or draw up guidelines to define its policy but applied common sense case by case and built up a system of case law. If he had been subject to guidance and interference from the Government, the standing of that fund would be nothing like as high as it is today.
The other aspect of the Bill which I want to mention is the proposed nature of the top distributing body. Here I believe that the Government have got it right. They want to set up a National Lottery Distribution Fund, the money initially being under the management and control of the Secretary of State. They lay down the percentages of the fund which must go to the five distributing bodies, and I believe that they have chosen the right ones. Then they give the Secretary of State the power to vary those percentages in case circumstances change. I am a little unhappy about the degree of variation allowed, but that is not a point of first importance and can be dealt with at Committee stage.
There are those—and the Lottery Promotion Company is among them; and this is where I differ from the company—who believe that there should be a charitable foundation to distribute all the funds and that that is a better way of protecting the principle of
456
additionality (that curious but useful word which has perhaps just been invented, but we all understand what it means).
I gather that under such a scheme a place would be found for representatives of the Arts Council, the Sports Council and the heritage fund on the charitable foundation's board. The hope is that their presence would ensure co-ordination between the foundation and the bodies they would represent. I am opposed to the idea of an overall charitable foundation, and I very much hope that the Government will resist it. It simply is not realistic to think that large sums can be distributed and their application and use by the recipients monitored other than by highly experienced staff. Such staff already exist in the Arts Council, the Sports Council and the National Heritage Memorial Fund. They do not need to be duplicated. In my judgment it would not only be wasteful but confusing to have two sets of people handing out public money for the same objectives. Furthermore, to put, for example, the chairman of the Arts Council on the charitable foundation board would be purely a token move, with little practical effect in preventing overlap and confusion.
Finally, I turn to a matter that is not dealt with in the Bill but follows upon it. It is the idea, now being widely canvassed, that lottery money should be spent only on new projects. I understand that the Department of National Heritage is already suggesting it in discussion with the bodies concerned. The department appears to consider that that is the best way of protecting the present level of grants, which appear, as the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, pointed out, already to have been eroded in the case of the heritage fund in anticipation of the lottery. I believe that that might be said too of the Arts Council.
Quite rightly, the departments wish to secure that the new money is additional and does not replace existing government grants or the growth that might be expected in them if there were no lottery. But while defences against the erosion of additionality are important, they are not as important as seeing that the money is spent where it is most needed. I should be sorry to see principles devised for the distribution of lottery funds more with a view to protecting the level of present funding than to achieving the wisest way of spending the money itself.
The Bill does not specify that lottery funds shall be limited to new or additional projects; and I very much hope that no such limitation will be enforced in practice. Of course, I hope that new projects will be started. A number of noble Lords have declared their own interests today. I have been closely associated with the Royal Opera House Development Fund. I strongly hope that it will receive some of the money that it needs to become an opera house worthy of the 21st century. But to limit the use of lottery money to new projects could lead to ridiculous and anomalous situations. To concentrate on new projects which will generate new revenue needs while neglecting the revenue needs of existing institutions seems to me a quite misguided sense of priorities. The fact is that

457
existing grants are nothing like enough to do all the things that are already overdue. Our first commitment ought surely to be to discharge our existing liabilities.
Let me give your Lordships one example. To fund a new visitor centre, an interpretation centre or something of that kind which would qualify as new work at an historic property at which funds are still urgently needed to complete the restoration of the building itself would be absurd. In that connection, the National Trust has a backlog of £160 million of capital repair work to attend to over the next five years. If it does not manage that repair work, the repairs will become more expensive later. I should like to believe that the lottery money could help the trust to find some of it. To disqualify those essential works, while inessential new work would qualify, is not sensible.
I should also like to believe that historic buildings belonging to private owners at which adequate public access is guaranteed would also benefit from the lottery. If some of that money is not available to the private sector, it will be a tremendous opportunity missed. It is a question of finding a suitable way of ensuring that public money from the lottery can be spent on the private sector to public advantage. I am sure that that can be done.
Therefore 1 hope that the need to protect additionality will not take absolute priority. What we want from the National Heritage Memorial Fund is more of what it does already. There must be other ways of protecting the existing level of funding than directing the funds exclusively to new projects. A simple requirement would be that the lottery money should be ring-fenced and separately accounted for. That is a start.
To recapitulate, I hope that the control to be exercised by the Secretary of State will have become more restrained by the time the Bill leaves this House. I hope that the Government will leave the distribution agencies as now proposed. On that basis, I am more than happy to support the principle of the Bill.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I make an apology to the House because, due to another commitment, I must leave by 5.30 at the latest. I should also declare an interest as I work for a charity that would very definitely hope to benefit from the proceeds generated by the national lottery.
A few years ago no one in this country would have dreamt that we would have a national lottery. I can see the point of it. I can see the purpose of it. I can understand reasons why people would not approve. However, my own feeling is that it is an idea that has come to the fore, not in the Home Office but in the Treasury. It is seen as another vehicle from which to obtain taxation.
In my view the proposed taxation rate of 12 per cent is much too high. Secondly, it is being placed on the wrong part of the proceeds. The lottery promotion companies will already be liable to pay corporation tax. They ought not to pay a tax on the money raised from the lottery.
458
The winners should pay a tax which would bring them more into line, as I understand it, with the taxation on racing betting. That would help to make it fairer between the two systems.
The Government will say that it is much easier and cheaper to collect tax from one body, one person. But a small invention that is becoming more popular in use these days is the computer. There is no reason why a computer could not be programmed quite easily to calculate the money to be collected from the winnings and pass it on to the Treasury.
The proposed taxation rate of 12 per cent, together with what I believe are rather high administration costs, and the amount to be set aside for prizes (with which I have no real argument because without good prizes people will not invest in the lottery) will allow a top rate of 26 per cent, of the proceeds available for distribution to the good causes named in the Bill. If I recall correctly, the White Paper promised 33 per cent We have a difference. I believe that we should be aiming for about 35 per cent that is a little more than the figure referred to in the White Paper.
The Government have said that they will monitor the impact on small charities. That is very difficult to do. Small charities are those which do not submit their accounts to the Charity Commission because they do not have the staff. They sometimes do not have the expertise. The people who run them are busy and do not get round to submitting them. How will the Government propose to monitor the effect of the national lottery on small charities?
In order to remedy in some degree the effect that the national lottery is likely to have on charities in general, and small charities in particular, the Government can go down two routes. One is to remove the liability for value added tax. The other is to make all donations to charity free before taxation in a similar manner to the position in the United States of America. I appreciate that the Bill may not be the vehicle to do that, and that it is a matter that we may have to leave to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn Budget. I appreciate that my noble friend on the Front Bench will feel that he can give no clue as to whether or not that is likely to occur. However, there is no reason why we ourselves should not amend the Bill to give effect to one of those channels, fully realising that such an amendment is likely to be disagreed to in the other place. It would concentrate the Treasury's consideration of the Bill and the idea.
Turning for a moment to the Millennium Fund, I wonder what is the point of it when most of the objectives can be undertaken by the other recipients of the funds to be raised by the lottery. Possibly one or two monuments will be put up; I do not recall any being put up in the year 1000, and I do not see the need for physical monuments. However, to do something for the arts, for the heritage or for charity is a worthy cause and it would live much longer than bricks and mortar.
Again, when will the Millennium Fund come to an end? Will it be on 31st December of the year 2000? What will happen to the balance of funds left in it?

459
Will they be divided between the other causes, or will they be used to set up a trust to be expended in a good way in the future?
Other noble Lords have mentioned Clause 24, particularly subsection (2). I believe that it behaves my noble friend, when he replies, to give good reasons for the clause. I quite understand that there will be need for some control and guidance, but as I read Clause 24(2) it could be used for political direction which I think no one would want.
How will the Government satisfy both Houses of Parliament and the public that there will not be a reduction in government or local authority support of the voluntary sector when balancing charitable income from the national lottery fund? The question of additionality must be made plain and how it will be monitored and covered, so that it can be seen quite clearly that the money from the fund will be over and above what the Government and local authorities would normally supply.
As regards lotteries run by charities, Part III of the Bill amends existing legislation. The charities believe that the £½ million limit for a single society's lottery should be increased to £1.25 million, to allow the charities to overcome some of the difficulties that the Bill will raise. They believe that prizes should be increased from 10 per cent to 20 per cent of the income from the lotteries, with an overall annual limit of £5 million regarding the funds to be raised.
The Government seem to be under the impression that charities can run lottery after lottery, week in week out. One can run small lotteries at a dance or a special event quite easily. But to run a major lottery requires considerable organisation, a great deal of hard work and many months of planning. Most large lotteries start with much footwork being done well beforehand, to find interesting and worthwhile prizes to give. That is difficult in this day and age when most of the commercial organisations asked do not have the money to supply the kind of prizes that charities need in order to run major lotteries.
I have spoken for quite long enough; there are plenty of others to follow me. But other matters will need to be looked at when we reach the Committee stage and I am sure that we shall then have a busy time.
4.5 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I greatly welcome the Bill which has caused so much interest and no small amount of paper. Not all the lobbying that we have received has been from supporters of the Bill and although I am unable to support the anti-lobby, it has been extremely useful to read their submissions because it helps to understand the other points of view and get one's own arguments in order.
It will come as no surprise to your Lordships who are aware of my job at the Barbican Centre to hear that I welcome the provision of the Bill for the arts. It is that aspect of the Bill that I wish to concentrate on for the major part of my speech. I do not believe that it is necessary for me to declare an interest as, probably contrary to some of your Lordships'
460
perceptions, the Barbican Centre does not receive any government funding nor is it to be likely to be the recipient of the money from the lottery.
Like every other facet of our economic and social life in this country, there is never enough money available to satisfy demand. I have to say that what never fails to amaze me is the belief that money is available, but it is the Treasury which will not hand it out. The arts world, I fear, sometimes falls into that trap too, thinking that money should be made available, not giving too much thought as to where it would or should come from. I believe passionately that more money should be available for the arts in this country, for the preservation of our national heritage and for adding to that heritage so that future generations will look back and say that the latter part of the 20th century left a marvellous legacy.
The problem, of course, is that there is nothing like enough government money available to meet the needs of the arts, and government could only meet such needs by depriving some other areas such as the National Health Service and education. None of us would subscribe to that solution.
I was looking at some figures recently and, with expenditure on health and social security taking an ever increasing proportion of total government expenditure (it took 29.5 per cent in 1970, rising through 35.5 per cent in 1980 to 42.2 per cent in 1990) it does not require great powers of deduction to realise that other areas of government expenditure which are sadly not universally regarded as essential—though of course I would take issue with that assertion—are unlikely to fare very well in an era when expenditure cuts rather than increases in government expenditure are likely. This, I believe, is why we need the lottery now. At least, that is an answer to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans.
Similarly, another area of finance for the arts is likely to be constrained; namely, local authority support. Very few art centres are in the happy position of the Barbican, which has a local authority whose commitment to the arts is greater than that of any other authority; the City of London Corporation is the third largest sponsor of the arts in this country, after the Government through the Arts Council of Great Britain and the BBC. Pressures on local authorities are very severe. When something has to give, unfortunately the arts can and do suffer.
With the introduction of the national lottery the additional funds generated, and specifically earmarked for the arts, would and will go a very long way towards meeting the needs of the arts. But, like everyone else, I believe that the funds emanating from the lottery must be additional, and not substitutional for existing government or local authority funding. Indeed, I was very heartened that the noble Earl the Minister stated that the lottery money would be additional and is not intended to supplant it.
I have studied the Bill closely, and I am bound to say that I am nothing like as suspicious as other speakers or as the various bodies that have been lobbying us. I believe that the intentions of the Government have been made clear. I am sure that if there appears to be some loose drafting it will be

461
amended to give further consolation concerning the Government's intent that the lottery money will be given to the five good causes listed.
Of course many people will say that 4.6 per cent of the total moneys raised is nothing like enough for the arts—nor for that matter for sport, charities, the national heritage and the Millennium Fund. It depends on how much is raised. If the so-called conservative estimate (conservative with a small "c") of £3 billion per annum is realised the amount of additional funding for the arts will be very significant indeed. No great mathematical brain is required to deduce that it would give an additional £138 million per annum. Putting that sum into context, it would equate to approximately 50 per cent of current government funding for the arts. By any stretch of the imagination that is a huge increase in resources—and very welcome it would be too.
At the Committee stage of the Bill I am sure that we shall have many arguments about whether 4.6 per cent is too little or indeed even too much. We shall have many arguments as to whether it is fair that the "good causes"; namely, the five beneficiaries, should get only 26 per cent At this stage, however, it behaves someone to say that anything approaching the sum that I have just mentioned would be as manna from heaven for the arts. But heaven help the Arts Council of Great Britain in its task of allocating such funds. That is not a job that I would wish to have. Solomon had a problem about deciding between two people. The noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, the chairman of the Arts Council to whom I was delighted to listen today, would wish that he had as simple a job as that of Solomon. He has already referred to the shoals of applications.
I have two concerns about the Bill as currently presented. First, the provision in Clause 25 that the proportion of the available moneys which will go to the category of beneficiary as detailed in Clause 20 may be changed by order of the Secretary of State. That does not fill me with joy. I am particularly worried that there is a built-in safeguard that not less than 5 per cent should go to a particular category. That may need some more thought. There is a very big difference between receiving 4.6 per cent of the total lottery receipts and 1.15 per cent.
Secondly, I am concerned by the lack of precise definition about the category on which the Millennium Fund moneys would be spent—particularly when I read one of the many submissions I received which suggested that the Millennium Fund moneys should be split in turn between the other four categories; namely, art, sport, the national heritage and charities. That suggestion has also been made today by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham.
At this early stage in the consideration of the Bill I wish to make a strong plea that the Millennium Fund moneys be allocated to the arts. This is not special pleading. As I have said, although I am involved in the arts I am not in receipt of government moneys. But I speak as a citizen, and as a citizen of London. Sadly, I believe that this country has badly fallen behind
462
other developed countries in the provision of grand projects which will stand the test of time and be memorials of our day for future generations.
One has only to visit Paris and consider just what changes have been made to that city during the past 20 years or so. Some of the grand projects may not be to everyone's taste, but grand, imaginative projects they certainly are, all instilling a well deserved sense of pride in the Parisians.
What have we to show in London for 40 years of comparative prosperity? The last major additions to the capital were undertaken in 1951 during the Festival of Britain. Before that we would probably have to go back as far as the imaginative developments in Kensington stimulated by Prince Albert.
Even Dublin, not the wealthiest capital city in the world, has changed beyond recognition. In its own particular millennium—the millennium of the founding of the city a few years ago—the city undertook an imaginative and interesting project sitting sculptures in many areas, thereby considerably brightening the city.
We must do something to create a legacy for the future along the lines of Paris, and even to a lesser extent Dublin. The Millennium Fund would give us that opportunity. I say to noble Lords: please do not allow us to miss out on this opportunity. The Millennium Fund must not be watered down. Having said that, I welcome the Bill.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey: My Lords, I support the principle of this Bill. However, I must first declare an interest and make at least two apologies to your Lordships. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has temporarily left the Chamber because I am afraid that he would have blown his whistle on me. This speech is another piece of special pleading. My other apology is for the fact that I may have to leave the Chamber before the end of the debate. I earn my living as a correspondent with the Daily Telegraph writing about racing and leathering away about it on television. That is the interest I wish to declare. I have been described in the tabloid press as a titled tipster. One dissatisfied customer wrote that I could not tip more rubbish if Channel 4 bought me a fork-lift truck. Probably for that reason I have been for nearly 60 years an unsuccessful punter.
I am a devoted member of NAPP (the National Association for the Protection of Punters). For all those members of NAPP and indeed all the punters of Britain—and there are over 3 million men and women who make at least one bet on a horse each week and in most cases a great deal more than one bet —I believe that the introduction of a national lottery may be good news. I emphasise the word "may" because it is far from certain.
Since 1961, when the Levy Board was set up and betting shops and casinos were legalised, the attitude of the Government towards gambling has been that of a disapproving, rather bad tempered nanny, probably from a Presbyterian background and suffering from indigestion. That has been the Government's attitude towards gambling. On that legal activity they have

463
imposed all kinds of regulations designed to make it unattractive and not so nice as many people believe it to be.
Some regulations are damaging handicaps to trade, such as the total prohibition on advertisement which my noble friend Lord Wyatt of Weeford so gloriously disregarded in his eloquent speech (I shall come to that in a moment). There is also the total prohibition so far on Sunday opening. A little evening opening has just been allowed. But Sunday opening is a vexed question and it is a matter of opinion whether or not it is desirable. For racing it is certainly desirable because without it there would be no Sunday racing, which every other major racing nation of the world enjoys. Those are two of the regulations under which the punter labours.
There are also some stupid ones. For instance, there is the regulation that the window of a betting shop must be opaque —blocked up—like windows of those shops where people go to buy dirty books, though I do not suppose that your Lordships would do that sort of thing. But one is not allowed to see through the window to the inside of a betting shop. Inside the shop, attempts are made to make it a rather uncomfortable and unwelcoming place.
Regulations are made about the kind of food that can be served. One can serve potato crisps but not sandwiches. That is nannyism, is it not? It is no business of the Government or anybody else what the proprietor of a betting shop does to make his premises attractive.
As the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, said, we are a nation of gamblers. We always will be. I respect those who have spoken from conscience against the introduction of a lottery. Their consciences are to be respected. But I believe that they are also to be disagreed with. We are a nation of gamblers and we should be allowed to pursue that legal activity in perfectly comfortable surroundings without the imposition of regulations by the nanny state.
That is why I believe that this measure may be good for punters. Now, apparently, nanny has seen the light and is becoming a gambler herself. Let us have no hedging about this matter. A lottery may be different from backing horses but it is unquestionably gambling.
I hear that a significant degree of promotion will be undertaken in order to guarantee the success of the lottery, and quite right too. There will also be a fairly relaxed regime of control. I like the sound of that. But, as my noble friend Lord Zetland said, let us have a level playing field. Let us have fair play for the various forms of gambling in this country. Let us allow the betting shops to use the same kind of advertising, publicity and comfort as the purveyors of the lottery.
If those regulations are taken away, that will be good news. But, as has been said by several noble Lords today, there is also bad news. Racing depends, rightly, on the levy and the levy depends on betting turnover. Whichever guesstimate one chooses to adopt, the one certainty—as big a certainty as Arkle used to be—is that betting turnover will fall. The money must come from somewhere. It is money which
464
people use for gambling or games of chance. Betting turnover is sure to drop, though perhaps not so much as the worst Jeremiahs fear. But, as my noble friend Lord Zetland said, racing cannot afford it.
What is the solution? I do not believe that any noble Lord would willingly suggest that racing should compete with other sports for the revenue of the lottery. That would not be desirable. My noble friend Lord Zetland and several other noble Lords do not believe that the Government will take the best action; that is, take another 0.25 per cent off the general betting duty. They have already subtracted one quarter; if they took off another quarter it would solve the problem at a stroke. However, that may be whistling in the wind.
It may be that the solution of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, —the Tote—will work. It may be that the Tote will obtain the right to run the lottery. I should like to see that happen. As he says, the revenue of the Tote comes back into racing. I do not know which solution is the best one or which is the most likely to be adopted. However, I hope that, as the Bill passes through its various stages, your Lordships will remember that the thoroughbred is also part of our heritage. I refer to the beautiful thoroughbred that we invented—or, to be more exact, we stole from the Arabs and they are now stealing back again. But that is neither here nor there. It is beautiful and part of our heritage.
Racing is in dire straits. There is already unemployment in stable yards. Hard-working stable lads are unable to find jobs. There is increasing unemployment in betting shops. The big three bookmakers say that the smallest 1,000 betting shops are in grave danger of not breaking even. If the betting turnover continues to fall, as it will if the lottery is allowed to go unchecked, there will be severe suffering and unemployment. I believe that the British way of life will be damaged. Nevertheless, I approve of the lottery. I hope that your Lordships will find a way of mitigating its effect on the sport of horse racing.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Holme said, in his admirable speech at the beginning of the debate, speakers from these Benches in both Houses have ranged from the suspicious to the outright opposed. He was suspicious; I am outright opposed.
If I oppose the Bill, as I solidly do root and branch, it is not because I am a puritan. That is one of the few adjectives which I have never heard levelled at me. In my time I have won the Tote jackpot at Ascot. As the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin, may remember, I was a devotee of an appallingly heavy gambling game called "Esmeralda", introduced into Oxford by the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl.
More seriously, none of us can be against gambling. It is at the heart of Christian belief. A recent much applauded book on Christian theodicy concludes a summary of essential belief with the statement,
"I accept that I could be wrong about all the [Christian creed] but I am ready to stake my life on the 'if that I am right. I can not do more".

465
If gambling is the essence of religion, it is also, now that Popperian philosophy has been almost universally accepted, the heart of scientific belief. And in politics, the greatest national lottery of all is occurring in Downing Street as we speak.
There is a difference between gambling and a national lottery. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, if he will forgive me for saying so, cannot really have been listening very carefully to the right reverend Prelate, who made very clearly the distinction between the kind of fund-raising affairs at church events which he was talking about and the whole principle of the national lottery. They are very different.
I oppose the Bill because I do not believe that the Government should be putting forward the lottery. This Government, above all, should be aware of this, with their strong belief in the limits of the role of government. At least, that is what they say. Indeed, over the past few years I have been less and less able to find a Bill introduced by the Government which does not run against what had always been thought to be basic Conservative beliefs, starting with their role, stigmatised yesterday by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, as the most centralising government on record.
The objections to the Government establishing a lottery were put fully before your Lordships in the admirable speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans. I have no intention of taking up your Lordships' time by repeating them. Suffice it to say that it is not a function of government to encourage gambling. It is not a function of government to blur the distinctions of what their contract with society is in the provision and support of arts and sport so that they can no longer be held accountable for what happens because it all happens in a blur on the edges.
It is for these reasons, and not those of puritanism, that I intend to raise my voice against the Second Reading of the Bill which intends so inappropriately to celebrate what will not be the third millennium of the human race, as seems to be assumed sometimes, or even of Western civilisation, but actually is the third millennium of the Christian era.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I must begin by declaring an interest in that I am and have been since its inception the co-chairman of the Lottery Promotion Company. Since that company has had no other purpose in life at all except to persuade the nation in general, and the Government in particular, that a national lottery for the good of arts, sports and the heritage was a good thing, your Lordships can imagine that I am not merely happy but absolutely delighted that the Bill should have reached your Lordships' House today.
What is more, it does indeed support all the very causes that we originally advocated: arts, sports and what we started by calling the environment and is now called heritage—I do not believe there is a difference. But one small result of the phrase being changed from environment to heritage is that people—not, I may say, those concerned with heritage—tend to think of heritage only in terms of the built environment and of
466
buildings. Our heritage is not only our buildings; it is our landscape and our countryside. I know that the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the National Trust, English Heritage and other bodies are well aware of that and need no lecture from me on the subject. But it is important that this Bill should remember that our heritage is landscape as well as townscape; that it is green as well as built.
However, it is obviously the quality of life which is the basis of this Bill and of all the endeavours which so many people have made over the years. I do not particularly like the phrase "quality of life" either. The noble Earl said that he did not much like it, but he liked the idea of it. I share his view on that. But whether one calls it the quality of life or anything else, it is one of the factors that not merely makes us all happier but on which we shall be, and are, judged. In a Europe where neighbourliness is on the increase, inquisitiveness is naturally on the increase as well. I suspect that the quality of life and the improvements to it which I foresee from this lottery will redound to our credit as our curious neighbours look more curiously at us.
In the course of the passage of the Bill in another place and in the run-up to it, including the vast amount of campaigning which has been undertaken by all kinds of bodies —and also in your Lordships' House this afternoon—it has been suggested that there are three potentially damaging features about it. The first is that it might damage us socially; and that it might damage us morally. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, who has just spoken, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans made the point very strongly and most powerfully. I cannot say that I agree with them. I do not believe that this Bill will have the smallest effect on the social and moral behaviour of the country.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I did not say anything of the sort and I do not think that the right reverend Prelate did. I said that it was inappropriate for a government to encourage it and not that it would have those effects, because I do not believe that it will.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I am delighted to be corrected. I withdraw what I said about the effects predicted by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, because he plainly did not do so, neither did the right reverend Prelate. However, there is still in my mind the notion that it is social and moral issues which we are debating this afternoon. That the Government should promote something is obviously a different case. It should be said in fairness that although the Government have produced this Bill, and therefore may be said to be promoting it, if the lottery were to happen at all the law had to be changed by somebody. A Bill has to go through your Lordships' House and another place if a lottery of any real consequence is to take place simply because of the existing limitations on the size of prizes, and so on. If the Government have promoted that then at this point I disagree with the noble Lord because I believe that not only is it appropriate, but I congratulate them on it.
However, the issues that might damage it have been slightly misconstrued in some ways. For example,

467
everybody said that this is gambling and that it might well appeal to greed and cause people to look for the quick buck and the easy way of earning money without any effort. That is a delusion because however large the prizes are, equally large are the chances against winning them. Nobody in his right mind would commit money to the lottery as an investment. He would commit a pound or two—as the noble Earl said in opening the debate—as a flutter. Which of us would not? Which of us would not be delighted if the flutter—the million-to-one chance—came off?
The difference is that if it does not come off the money is to a very large extent going to causes which one might well have promoted by putting the same pound into a collection box or be sent as a charitable donation. The money would be going to things which increase the quality of life and of which we can all be proud. As was once said in America years ago, it is a tax paid only by the willing.
The other damage which has been predicted from the Bill is to existing sporting organisations, particularly to the pools and the good work which they do, to football and to horse-racing. Both those scenarios depend upon the notion that somehow any money that goes into the national lottery must needs be taken from somewhere else. Everybody believes that the pound that buys the first lottery ticket will be a pound that would have been spent otherwise. The pools believe that it will be a pound that would have been spent on the pools. The horse-racing fraternity believes that it would have been spent on horse-racing. There are plenty of other people who might have equally good cause to suppose that it might have been spent on chocolate bars or soft drinks. Indeed, the latter is more likely.
I do not believe that any of those sporting organisations will suffer significantly—nor that charities in general will suffer. Evidence from around the world relating to the introduction of other successful lotteries shows quite the contrary, especially about the pools. It is plain that in countries that care nothing for football the football pools are at serious risk following the introduction of a lottery. However, in countries with a passion for football, such as in this country, the football pools are at almost no risk. Italy is the only country that I can think of with an almost more passionate devotion to football than ourselves, and lotteries and the pools have existed very well side by side there. Indeed, the pools are still in the lead. Therefore, I do not believe that the introduction of a national lottery would damage any particular part of society.
Perhaps I may give an arts illustration which may not seem terribly relevant to lotteries, but it is. When we opened the new National Theatre down the road which has 2,700 seats, everybody said to us, "You have only 900 seats at the Old Vic where you are now but as you will have three times that number of seats at the National, you will be taking money from the other theatres in London". They said that the other theatres in London would suffer from the creation of the National Theatre. We said, "No, we shall make a new audience. It will be new money coming into the
468
box office" —and we were right. It was new money and the rest of the theatres did not suffer as a result. A new audience did arrive and we filled those 2,700 seats. So I do not believe in the principle that there is a limited amount of money in circulation and that the introduction of a national lottery will cause damage. I believe that a lottery can exist happily and successfully without damaging other forms of gambling or charitable giving.
The other question which has worried many of your Lordships this afternoon and many people in the debate leading up to this relates to additionality. If I am not particularly fond of the phrase "quality of life" I am even less fond of the word "additionality" and I wish that it had never been coined. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, wondered how long that word had existed. I actually went down to the Library to find out and the earliest reference that I could find was in 1972. I have a feeling that Europe is responsible for it.
Additionality is certainly a worry. Everybody has expressed that worry and the Government have reassured everybody that they do not intend to use the lottery funds—or to see them used—as a substitute for government funding. Although those reassurances have been very welcome, everybody would like to see them somehow immortalised and included in the Bill, but I think that that will be almost impossible to do. I have tried to find a phrase that would achieve the ring-fencing principle, and I cannot find one.
There is, however, one way in which one could achieve that objective—although I am not sure that I recommend it. It has been much talked about this afternoon. Quite simply, it is to make the rule that lottery money can be used only for capital projects. That would ring-fence it well enough because at the moment there is no capital funding for the arts and sports. However, immediately one does that it becomes so constricting that I would not recommend your Lordships to consider it. And already exceptions would have to be made. As the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, sensibly said, a new capital project costing, say, £50 million will generate a revenue need. Unless you know that the revenue need will be met, you are in serious danger of creating a white elephant. Therefore, an endowment fund is necessary. I agree entirely with the noble Lord. I have worked out that on average an endowment fund needs about 15 times the annual income that you require to be effective if it is to be proof against inflation, however good the present news on inflation is. Therefore, that exception would have to be made.
I certainly do not believe that you could confine the capital projects to new projects. The very word "heritage" is the clue to that. It must be the sustenance of what you have as well as the creation of what you have not. I do not believe that that would do the trick.
One can only take in good faith the assurances that have been given that the money will not be used instead of existing funds; rather that it will be used as well as existing funds. We must make sure that the accounts of the national lottery are looked at separately from the accounts of the Department of National Heritage, when it receives its grant-in-aid,

469
and all other bodies which do the same. That should be sufficient to enable us to know whether the funds are going up or down.
Having said how much I welcome the Bill and how sensible I believe it is, like all other Bills it can be improved. I must declare that I believe in something that some of your Lordships this afternoon have welcomed and of which some have expressed a particular distrust; in particular, my noble friend Lord Gibson. I believe that the lottery should be run by a charitable trust. In opening the debate the noble Earl said that the Government had considered a single entity to run the lottery and had decided that there were three functions which were necessary to be separated: the operation of the lottery; its control; and the distribution of its funds. I agree that the functions are separate. I believe that there could be an overall charitable trust to perform all three functions, albeit with totally different organisations performing all of those three functions. I can see no reason why that would not work.
There are several reasons for my belief that a charitable trust would be a good idea. First, as many of your Lordships have said, in this Bill there is too much of the Secretary of State. That is nothing to do with the present incumbent of the post—if he still is the present incumbent because the news does not seem to have filtered through yet—or this Government. I am sure that the matter would be handled as responsibly as possible. Future governments may not command the same respect. There is too much potential for interference by the Secretary of State.
Just over two years ago, when we first had a debate in this House on a Motion which I moved to draw attention to the potential of a lottery, the noble Earl said that it was absolutely certain that the Government did not want a state lottery. That indeed is the case today, but it is beginning to look a bit more like a state lottery than I had quite envisaged. I believe that a charitable trust distanced from government at arm's length—that famous phrase which everybody still believes in although I believe that the arm has grown slightly longer over the years—would be valuable to the lottery, to the nation and to the Government.
Behind that there is a terrible fear that creating such a new body would create that most dreaded of all things: a new quango and a new bureaucracy. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, does not hold with my views on this issue, but even he admitted that there will be a need for a large and expert staff to look after that enormous sum of money and to see that it is spent well. Of course the Arts Council has an expert staff, as have the Sports Council and the National Heritage Fund and as, no doubt, the charity fund and the Millennium Commission will have when they con-le into existence. But I cannot believe that the existing staff of any of them will be sufficient to cope with the very complicated demands which this amount of work will make on them.
Of course I believe that all those bodies should be represented not merely as tokens, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, but as absolutely essential and that their staffs should be available to it.
470
However, I believe that other bodies, in addition to the five, should control the eventual distribution of funds. It would be a check on having the organisation in too few hands, however good those hands may be.
Then there is the reason that if the trust were a charitable trust it would sit well with other charities. That might reassure some of the charities which fear the effects of a lottery. I put forward a tentative suggestion that perhaps the charitable funds which the pools now contribute—the funds of which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, spoke so eloquently today—would be part of the same kind of funds. I do not suggest a merger; simply a merger of good intentions towards the good causes involved.
Furthermore, it would be easier to avoid the making of excessive profits. I believe that in the operation of a lottery there should be good profits to be made from the trade involved in countless operations; for instance, the ticket printing, the computerisation and the vast financial services, let alone the small operations of selling the tickets around the country and the publicity. An enormous amount of trade is involved which should generate a great deal of work and profit. However, I do not believe that before the money reaches the good causes it should be subject to a large syphoning off for a percentage of profit. A charitable foundation would make that easier to achieve. It would make it much easier to choose those operatives and consortia which saw the good causes as the natural beneficiaries rather than themselves.
Finally, there is the famous question of tax. I cannot believe that merely because the trust is a charitable trust the Treasury will immediately remove the tax. Many of your Lordships have said that the rate is too high and many have said, as I say, that there should be no tax at all. For a start, it is not government money. It is said that the tax will be levied in order to offset the loss of revenue from other sources. At the same time all the money going into the good causes would have been applied for from the Government and the Government should have supplied it. Therefore, at the same time as removing a small amount of revenue the Government will have been saved an enormous amount of capital demand from other sources.
For all those reasons I warn your Lordships that I shall table an amendment to ensure that the whole operation is run by a charitable trust. That will not damage the Bill nor its effects and intentions. I believe that it will improve the Bill. Let me not end on a note of complaint and say that as a result of the lottery I foresee a gold or at least a silver age for the environment of this country. I welcome the Bill and I commend it to your Lordships. I hope that the House gives it a benevolent Second Reading.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, one of the advantages of speaking towards the end of a long debate is that other noble Lords have made the points which one intended to make and have done so better than one would have

471
done oneself. Your Lordships will be delighted to hear that throughout the afternoon I have been striking out whole paragraphs and pages from my speech.
I welcome the Bill and appreciate its arrival in this House. It is time that we had a national lottery in this country and I welcome it. I believe that it is a good idea and that we should give it our support. The Bill was not perfect when it entered another place and it had been much improved when it left. I hope that there is much that we can do in this House to improve the Bill still further.
I intend this afternoon—or this evening, as it is rapidly becoming—to confine my remarks to charities, in particular to the smaller charities. A national lottery will be good for sport, for our national heritage and for art galleries. I welcome too the arrival of the Millennium Fund, which I hope will be exciting and innovative. All that is good and I hope that all noble Lords will welcome it. However, we must not do so unless we are convinced that the charities which lurk not fashionably or prettily underneath are well protected. They need to be well protected. The national lottery must not succeed at the expense of loss of income to charities. I say that for a variety of reasons. However, if charities fail, I suppose that, ultimately, the Government will have to pick up the tab for that failure. That would not be in the Government's interest.
In another place the Government accepted the arguments of the pools operators that they may need assistance so that their employees do not risk unemployment. That is fine. However, we must equally be aware of the people who work for charities, who earn considerably less. Their employment is no less important. I believe that they too need to be protected.
The Government have said that charities will be all right under the Bill. Nevertheless, I have to say that I, and many other noble Lords, doubt that considerably. They will need to work hard to convince us that that is true. We have been told that the national lottery could have an income of £1.5 billion a year. Other people have said that the income could be about £4 billion a year. We do know that 25 per cent of that income, whatever it will be, will go to what are now called the "good causes"—that is, the various different bodies that will distribute the money.
The noble Lord who has just spoken said that the £1.5 billion or the £4 billion of income that will come into the lottery will have to come from somewhere. The noble Lord thinks that it will come from spending that would have been made on chocolate bars or items bought in corner shops. That may be true. Indeed, the pools operators may think that it will come from money that would have been spent on the pools or betting on horse races. However, it may also come from donations that would have gone into flag day boxes in street collections. Moreover, it may come from money that would have been given by way of the ordinary donations that people in the country make with enormous generosity every year. It may also come from the money that would have gone to the
472
existing charities' lotteries. Therefore, we need to be aware that, wherever the money is coming from, it is part of expenditure that already exists.
The National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which I know will be making many presentations to your Lordships during the passage of the Bill, estimates that the loss of charity income will be something in the region of £200 million a year. That is a lot of money to be made up elsewhere. My particular interest is in the smaller charities. Any loss of income that arises will affect them rather than the larger charities. The lotteries run by the smaller charities at present bring in an income of about £250 million a year. The 1976 Act does not make that very easy at the moment. Moreover, the way that the Act is monitored makes it even less easy. We need to ensure that the new big brother of lotteries—that is, the national lottery—does not in any way harm those smaller, existing charity lotteries. In another place, the Government used Ireland as an example to show that that will not happen. I suspect that the report was read rather selectively. When I read it, and looked at it in detail it seemed to show that, in the two years since the national lottery in Ireland was established, the charity lottery income has fallen by about 60 per cent from £250 million to £100 million. That is a big drop.
The Government have recognised that there are some problems. They made promises during the passage of the Bill in another place that they would amend the Bill; for example, I believe that they are to table amendments to prevent restrictive practices. Under the Bill as it stands, charities are allowed lotteries with a total annual sale of some £5 million a year, but not more than £500,000 per lottery. That means that they would have to run 10 lotteries each year. That is not physically possible. In other words, to reach the £5 million threshold, they would need 10 lotteries of £500,000 each. That cannot be done. In making that suggestion in another place, I believe that my honourable friend the Minister had not quite calculated it correctly. He had not seen that that would happen.
We have suggested previously that the prize money, which currently stands at £50,000 per lottery or £500,000 per year, should be raised and doubled to £100,000 per lottery or a turnover of £ 1 million a year if there were 10 lotteries. However, we know that cannot be the case. The Minister has made a slip. He has suggested something that could not happen. The other suggestion he made—this is the most extraordinary suggestion—is that charities could run two lotteries simultaneously with £50,000 prizes. But what on earth can be the point in doing that? It would involve double the paperwork, double the administrative costs and double the auditing. Surely he must realise that it would be simpler to run one lottery at twice the size. As I have said, I am convinced that was a mistake the Minister made. I am sure that he will wish to correct that at some stage either by tabling an amendment of his own or by allowing us to table an amendment.
It is important to realise what is at stake here. Unlike the pools, charities are not profit-making organisations. I wish to protect the smaller and less

473
fashionable charities from collapse. That is what they will face if they lose the income that they currently receive. Although the Government suggest that charities would benefit from the national lottery—we have heard the reasons for that this afternoon and no doubt we shall hear them again—closer examination shows, as I have said, that charities could lose between £100 million a year from general donations and £150 million a year from their own lotteries. That is a great deal of money. If the national lottery has an income of £1.5 billion, as has been suggested, charities will receive from that £75 million a year at best as against a potential loss of £350 million. I do not believe any noble Lord would suggest that is anything other than a bad deal.
I am particularly worried about this matter as for four years I have been the chairman of a small charity called the Addiction Recovery Foundation. That charity has survived solely on the benefits of existing charity lotteries. Recently I received, with a happy smile on my face, a cheque on behalf of that charity from the charity lottery with which we are involved. On that occasion I met many other smiling chairmen of small charities. I am not talking about glamorous charities. These are not the big charities one reads about in the newspapers. I am talking about small charities which have four or five underpaid members of staff. Those charities constitute the backbone of small charitable giving and of the independent sector that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, so carefully described to your Lordships a little earlier.
It is those charities which need to be protected. Without the protection that the existing small charity lotteries give them, I do not believe they will survive. If there is no charity lottery income, there will be no small charities. The Government need to take that message on board. I greatly welcome the Bill but the Government must convince your Lordships that the smaller charities will not suffer as a result of the national lottery and that they will continue to be able to benefit from their lotteries as they have in the past. At the moment I am not convinced that that will be the case but I hope that the Government can correct that impression during the passage of the Bill.
4.58 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, as the 28th speaker in this evening's Second Reading debate I, like the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, feel it is difficult to produce some original remarks. However, I simply wish to add my support to the Bill. I wish to focus primarily on the contributions that will be made from the national lottery to the enhancement of sport and sporting facilities in Britain.
As a keen sporting enthusiast and one who has participated in several debates in your Lordships' House on the need for better sporting facilities and training, I warmly welcome the boost that the lottery will give to the development of sporting facilities and programmes at all levels from Olympic programmes to community projects. The Sports Council's recently published document on its vision for sport in the 1990s covers the proposed construction and upgrading of national facilities, specialist facilities and community
474
facilities. It also covers the provision of specialist support services such as training programmes. That provision could to a large degree be implemented with the funds provided by the lottery added to the existing government and sponsorship funding of such organisations as the Foundation for Sports and the Arts and of course the football pools.
It was heartening to hear the Minister's reassurance in his opening speech that government funding of the arts, sport and heritage will not be cut in consequence of the increased funding of national lottery contributions. However, I wish to add my voice to those of noble Lords who are concerned about the distribution of the net proceeds of the national lottery and the extent to which the Treasury may inhibit the efficient distribution of lottery moneys.
Like many noble Lords who have spoken, I feel that there needs to be a clearer definition in Clause 24 of those situations in which the Secretary of State may be empowered to give directions to the distributors as to the distribution of lottery moneys. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that reasons should be given when the Secretary of State invokes that power.
I should also like the Minister to clarify the ruling on joint funding of grants in aid and lottery proceeds of certain projects. As I understand the situation, lottery moneys could not be used to ensure that a project, for example a sporting project, could proceed when some but not enough Sports Council money was available. That would mean that many key projects within the Sports Council's programme which have already been agreed with the Secretary of State might never be completed due to insufficient funds being available. As the distributors of national lottery funds are required to publish their accounts and submit annual reports on their activities surely the Government can be a little more flexible on this issue of joint funding.
I also have sympathy with those who have called for more adequate provision in the Bill to ensure fair competition with the major pools operators. It appears to be unfair that there is no equality between the pools operators and the national lottery operators on the methods of advertising. I can only presuppose that the logic is that if pools operators are also provided with concessions to advertise on television that may have a major detrimental impact on the success of the national lottery operators. As the Foundation for Sports and the Arts receives a major contribution from the pools operators I feel that it is only fair that the pools operators are also given the fullest opportunity to compete effectively and fairly with the national lottery operatives.
An anxiety expressed by the British Olympic Association is that lottery proceeds will mostly be devoted to capital projects, again a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. Can the Minister advise me as to whether lottery proceeds will also be given to Olympic projects?
I should also like to add my support to the calls from many noble Lords, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Holme of Cheltenham,

475
for the Government to fix a minimum allocation, arguably in excess of 35 per cent of lottery proceeds, to good causes.
I also have sympathy with the criticism which most of your Lordships have raised today that the Treasury is getting far too large a slice of the cake. As the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, mentioned, after the Cabinet reshuffle today perhaps the new Chancellor will take a more sympathetic view of those calls.
Several noble Lords mentioned the need to distribute net lottery funds equitably to areas where there are few or totally inadequate facilities. I was pleased to read in the Sports Council's report Sport in the Nineties—New Horizons that considerable emphasis has been placed on funding to upgrade, build and refurbish community facilities and to promote participation initiatives in areas where those facilities are totally inadequate. Clearly, the provision of proper sporting and recreational facilities in the inner cities can only help to play a major role in improving the community spirit and well-being of all, both old and young.
I shall not detain your Lordships any longer. I join in welcoming the Bill. I hope that the Minister can give us some assurance as to the concerns that have been raised today. It is reassuring that we shall soon no longer be the only black sheep in Europe with no national lottery.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I, too, welcome this Bill. There has been much discussion today on its possible effects on various enterprises and employment. Who will win or lose must, for now, be a matter for speculation, except that it will be great fun for the participants and beneficial to many good causes and to the Treasury.
Most of the points that I wish to make have been well covered by others. I will limit myself to three. First, I join those who question whether the national lottery should include instant lotteries. These are already well established as charity fundraisers. They are potentially addictive; and statements in another place that they would extend the social range of lottery participants, raise more for charities (net of charities shut out by the national lottery) and be essential for the viability of the national lottery are to my mind questionable. I hope that the Government will prove open to argument in Committee.
Secondly, I would like to congratulate the Government on the concept of the Millennium Fund, and in particular on the fund's combination of support for both large and small ideas, but in each case with the Millennium Fund as a crucial and major contributor.
I urge them to apply this concept to the lottery's other beneficiaries so that we can say, "We did these things with our lottery", whereas, if the money is spread evenly around, with fair shares for each good cause, parcelled out per capita, per community, by some manic extension of the Goschen-Barnett formula, it will do nothing and mean nothing.
Thirdly, I hope that we will find a way in
476
Committee to discourage the recent rush of undesirable, facile "games of skill" such as the telephone games run by commercial radio, ITV and now even the BBC. These are characterised by large prizes in relation to the price of a chance and an undisclosed or unlimited number of chances sold, leading to a derisory average percentage return to the punter.
My noble friends will immediately recognise these as the characteristics of the frequent Conservative Party raffles. But my strictures are directed only against those games run for commercial gain as opposed to worthy causes.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, first, I must apologise for having to miss the earlier stages of the debate because of an unavoidable and longstanding engagement. I shall not speak for long on this occasion. However, I wish to add my voice to those who unreservedly welcome and support the Bill as an overdue measure to introduce a national lottery to this country.
Some of your Lordships have regretted that the Treasury's tax take was to be as high as 12 per cent I, of course, share that regret, but long years of experience of the Treasury, inside and outside, had led me to fear worse. When the figure of 12 per cent was announced, I stood aghast at the Treasury's moderation.
The only other point to which I wish to advert is that of additionality. I believe the principle of additionality to be exceedingly important in relation to the proceeds of the national lottery, and I need not underline the reasons for that after the debate today. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, that it is not possible to see any satisfactory way whereby an assurance of additionality can be written into the provisions of the Bill. For the reasons stated by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, I do not believe that we should insert a provision that the proceeds should be spent only on capital projects. It would be unduly restricting, although I hope that the national lottery proceeds will make possible the carrying out of many capital projects which could not otherwise take place. Nor do I see other ways in which we could sensibly and practicably introduce a statutory reinforcement of additionality into the Bill. I think that we shall have to rely upon the good sense, good faith and steadfastness of the funding bodies and the good faith of the Government in giving effect to the assurances that they have offered. I hope that, in his response to the debate, the Minister will repeat those assurances this afternoon and that the accounting provisions will enable us to reinforce that.
When we come to the Committee stage, I wonder whether we should consider reinforcing the Government's willingness to carry out those intentions by a small change in the supplementary part of the Bill which would make any power of the Secretary of State to give directions, as well as to make orders or regulations exercisable by statutory instrument. That would make the issue of directions, particularly under

477
Clause 24, subject to statutory instrument and therefore liable to run the gauntlet of the vigilance of your Lordships and another place.
I hope that it will be possible to make some such change in the Bill as it passes through the Committee stage in this House.
5.11 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in introducing the debate, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers —whose absence I entirely understand—referred to 1066 And All That and the phrase "a Bad Thing". It is obviously tempting for a number of noble Lords to think of gambling as being a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. For myself, I would not dare to do that. I do not happen to be a gambler but I am always conscious of Arthur Hugh Clough's verse:
"Condoning sins that you're inclined to,
By damning those that you've no mind to".
I should not care to run that risk.
The reference to 1066 And All That brings out the differences between myself and my noble friend Lord Donoughue. He described himself as a cavalier, whereas I have been a roundhead since elementary school. I remind him that, although he is described by Sellar and Yeatman as being "wrong but romantic", I am described as being "right but repulsive". I propose to continue being right but repulsive.
We have heard in this debate an extraordinary amount of special pleading for good causes. I do not say that in any pejorative sense. I think it is entirely proper that the House should bring together so many people who have knowledge of the objects from which they hope to obtain money through the National Lottery etc. Bill. If I cast my eye down the list of speakers, I see the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, whose interest is the Royal Fine Arts Commission; the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, for the National Heritage Memorial Fund; the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, the Football Trust; the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, English Heritage; the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, no special interest, but I shall come back to his magnificent speech later. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, spoke for the Foundation for Sport and the Arts; the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, the Arts Council; the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, again no special interest but an interesting suggestion in her speech that the national lottery might provide greater independence from government for the charities. I wish to come back to that as well because I am not entirely convinced by her ingenious arguments.
We see the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, whose interest is the National Heritage Memorial Fund; the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, the Tote; the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, horse-racing; the noble Lord, Lord Allen, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations; the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, English Heritage; my noble friend Lord Howell is the vice-president of Warwickshire County Cricket Club —as good an interest as anyone would wish to declare. The noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, is the third of the speakers today who own racecourses. I understand that he owns Redcar; the noble Lord, Lord
478
Cavendish, owns or is interested in Cartmel, and my noble friend Lord Donoughue in Towcester. So there we have it.
Lord Donoughue: I do not own it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I said that my noble friend was interested in it. There we have another considerable and worthwhile interest. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, spoke for the Royal Opera House; the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, charities, particularly those for the disabled, on which he is expert; the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for the Barbican; the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, is a distinguished racing commentator; the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, had no interest, but again I think his views deserve further attention. The interest of the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, is in the Lottery Promotion Company and the London Philharmonic Orchestra, and he is a former colleague on the GLC on the arts side. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is involved in many charities; and the noble Lord, Lord St. John, is concerned very much with sport. I could not identify any interests for the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but I shall try again. The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, is of course the distinguished chairman of the Victoria and Albert Museum and a director of the Royal Opera House. This is the House of Lords at its best. These are not financial interests; or very rarely are they financial interests—and if they are they have not been expressed in any improper way. These are the interests of people who are deeply concerned with the way in which the proceeds from the national lottery (or should I call it the national lottery et cetera?) are to be distributed.
We must look at the question of distribution. It has concerned a number of noble Lords and it is a matter that still concerns the Opposition. In the way that the Bill is presented the good causes turn out to be the residual beneficiaries. The fixed amount of money goes to the Treasury and to the operators. There is presumably a minimum amount that can be risked for prizes. Below a certain level (and nobody quite knows what level that is) the lottery risks failure.
I should like to suggest an alternative solution to the distribution problem. I put it forward not as a fixed element of party policy but as an opening stake, as it were, in the debate in Committee. I should like to suggest that what should be fixed is the amount for prizes (let us say 50 per cent) and the amount for good causes (let us say 35 per cent); that the Treasury should appoint the operators and that the Treasury and the operators should fight it out for the remaining 15 per cent.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: And every single per cent which goes in operating expenses should be taken away from the Treasury's share. I am sure that the Government Front Bench will agree that that is an entirely Thatcherite and politically correct point of view. I hope that they will agree to amendments, if I can frame them, to give effect to that idea. If they do not like that, I have an alternative. It is that the profit for the operators should be a fixed proportion of the

479
amount which goes to the good causes so that they have a strong incentive to get more money going to the good causes.
There are severe threats to the smooth operation of this Bill. They have been referred to at length and I need do no more than summarise the issues. The first is the loss to charities. Charities are different from sports and the arts in the extent to which they depend, not so much on other lotteries—of course sports and the arts depend on lotteries as well—but in the extent to which, by definition, they depend on giving. It is the whole range of giving with which we must be concerned. It is there that the risk for charities of losing money to the national lottery is at its greatest. The NCVO has estimated (I do not think one can say "calculated") that they would lose something over £200 million—a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, referred—from their existing revenue. The basis for that estimate is a survey of people who at present give to charities.
The problem cannot be underestimated. We have to find, in Committee and in the later stages of the Bill, some way of dealing with it. The answer may, as the NCVO suggests, lie in a VAT refund. I am quite certain that, whether or not that is correct, there must be a review by the Secretary of State at regular and fairly frequent intervals of the effect of the national lottery on charity receipts from all sources.
The NCVO also suggests, and a number of noble Lords have referred to this, that there should be some relaxation of the rules about what are called small lotteries. In particular, I was impressed by the argument of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which runs a lottery four times a year in its magazine—it is very cheap to run because there are no mailing costs—that the restriction on both the amount of prizes and the amount to be taken in an individual lottery is not fair on those who can run only a limited number of lotteries a year compared with those who can run 10 lotteries a year. Again, I believe that that point needs to be looked at.
We also need to consider the issue of the top limit on prizes, which it is suggested—I believe that there is some sense in the suggestion—should be treated as a percentage of the sales rather than the fixed figure quoted in the Bill. There are also suggestions which deserve discussion about whether there should be something kept special for charities' lotteries; for example, instant lottery facilities. So there are threats of loss of income to the charities. When we consider Part III of the Bill, which I might describe as the Home Office part of the Bill, there will be significant amendments on those points from these Benches.
The second major threat, which has been rehearsed on a number of occasions, is the question of additionality. My noble friend Lord Donoughue said that, if it were a choice between the Treasury's word or its bond, he would rather have the bond. Most people have agreed with that. However difficult it may be, we must be suspicious that the Treasury will take the opportunity of the availability of a national lottery to reduce its own expenditure. That way the Treasury has it coming and going. It is "heads I win", in the
480
sense that it gets the 12 per cent from the national lottery, and "tails you lose", in the sense that it has to authorise less expenditure by the spending departments on the objects of the national lottery.
We have to try very seriously to ring-fence Treasury expenditure in some way. I do not feel that the right solution would be to restrict it to capital. A number of noble Lords pointed out that, first of all, that would lead to some sub-optimisation. We might get poorer projects funded when better and more deserving projects were not funded. It is also true, as has been pointed out, that all capital involves expenditure and unless the capital includes an endowment for the upkeep of the building (or whatever it is that is being paid for), that could be extremely damaging.
Those are all relatively detailed matters. In closing I want to turn to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. Although I do not agree with everything that he said, his view of the matter is very profound. I remind the House that he said that we must not get into a situation in which having a state lottery turns us into a lottery state. We are already some way along that road. We have started over a number of years with relatively inoffensive lotteries in our public services. Nobody can object very much to having a lottery for school trips or new equipment for a ward in a hospital. But when we reach the stage—as we have—that substantial parts of our education budget, health budget and many other budgets which ought to be the responsibility of Government become the responsibility of either charities or users of those services in the form of lottery tickets, collecting boxes or whatever, I suggest that we have gone too far.
I am not certain in my mind what the effect of the national lottery as proposed will be in that respect. But I am certain that if we allow lottery thinking to take over from social responsibility we shall have done a disservice to ourselves and to our descendants.
5.25 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate, as I knew we would. Your Lordships always have an astonishing repertoire of expertise on almost any subject. The number of noble Lords who have taken part in today's debate shows how many are knowledgeable about, have an interest in, or are hooked on gambling in all its different aspects, and some are especially concerned with what happens to the proceeds.
We have witnessed the predictable, but not particularly edifying, spectacle of many noble Lords —in the most elegant of ways—holding out their hands in supplication that the proceeds of the lottery should go in the direction of their interests. Their views and interests have been noted. At the other end of the spectrum we had the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans supported by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I am sure that we all respect their views, even though we may not hold to them. It is right that their views should be expressed in your Lordships' House in this debate.
The idea of a national lottery is not a trivial one. We are launching an enterprise which has the potential to make a significant impact on the life of

481
this country through the way in which the lottery is sold and through the effect of the additional resources which will be made available to the good causes.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, was broadly positive about the lottery. He spoke of the Protestant work ethic. We are all in favour of that. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, was more reserved about the prospect of a lottery, as was his noble friend Lady Seear who gave it what she called a "reluctant" welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, with his wide experience in the sporting world and as a sporting Minister, reminded your Lordships that in the past the Labour Party supported the idea of a national lottery.
However, many noble Lords were concerned about additionality and spending, including the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, with his experience of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, a former chairman of English Heritage, the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, chairman of the Arts Council, and my noble friend Lord Crathorne, a member of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. I was delighted also to see that my noble friend Lord Rothschild was able to be here during the earlier part of the debate.
The Government have always made clear that funds provided by the national lottery would be additional to public expenditure. Transparency of accounts and the presumption in favour of capital projects will assist in that. The distribution bodies, in distributing funds, will wish to bear in mind the advantages of minimising the overlap of their programmes funded from Government expenditure.
I must remind the House that the distributing bodies will be independent of government but will remain answerable to Parliament. In making grants the distribution bodies, with the exception of the National Lottery Charities Board, will be expected to give priority to capital grants. That is a practical approach; otherwise the lottery money would be silted up with running costs. We expect the distributors to give capital grants normally when running costs from another source are assured. The other source may be private sector or indeed the local authority. However, the Government have accepted that the running costs may be paid in exceptional circumstances, either through endowment or revenue grant.
It should be remembered that a capital project may not mean only a new building; it may mean an extension, a major refurbishment, a new roof or perhaps a total rewiring. I shall study some of the detailed points in regard to conservation that were made by my noble friend Lord Cavendish, who is a commissioner of English Heritage.
Your Lordships would expect me to say that taxation is a matter for the Chancellor. Indeed, that is exactly what I do say. It is a matter for the new Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, without making any reference to personalities, the noble Viscount is responding to the debate on behalf of the Government and not on behalf of any specific Minister or Secretary of State.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I realise that too. But we believe that the Chancellor's modest portion should be seen as a reasonable share of the total. I was glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, who understands the working of the Treasury better than most, took the same view.
We have no intention of taxing winnings in the national lottery. In this country winnings in other lotteries are not taxed and, indeed, the top prize in the football pools which has been more than £2 million in the past, is not taxed. Research shows that a tax on winnings is a great disincentive to players, particularly when one considers that the rate of tax on winnings would have to be perhaps twice that on stakes, given the proportion of turnover which is paid out in prizes. Indeed, in Holland there is a flourishing black market in winning lottery tickets in order to avoid taxation.
The rate of this taxation was established by my right honourable friend the Chancellor. The Government always made it clear that the national lottery would have to be taxed in order to compensate for taxation forgone from the general consumer expenditure from which lottery spending is likely to be drawn. While I understand the desire which noble Lords have expressed to establish on the face of the Bill a guaranteed percentage for good causes—for example, 35 per cent—that would inevitably have the adverse effect of reducing the money which would be available for those good causes. A fixed percentage of 35 per cent would necessarily squeeze the percentage available for prizes. There is no doubt that that would reduce the turnover of the lottery. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that 25 per cent of £2 billion is more than 35 per cent of £1 billion. The important thing is to maximise the actual return for good causes, which is a statutory duty for the Secretary of State and the director general made under Clause 4 of the Bill.
We are also quite clear that material should be available at the point of sale which makes clear how the net proceeds of the lottery are going to be divided in terms of good causes. The model we have proposed for managing the net proceeds of the lottery which will go to form the national lottery distribution fund gives the distributing bodies considerable flexibility. When they need funds to pay to beneficiaries they draw it down. Until then it will be invested by the National Investment and Loans Office, earning a very reasonable and risk-averse rate of return. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and I are not far apart in our view about the national lottery. The noble Lord referred to competition. The operators of the lottery will be bidding against each other with precisely the object of maximising the proceeds to good causes.
Concern was expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and my noble friend Lord Lucas about the effect of the lottery on charitable income. My noble friend Lord Mancroft mentioned particularly the effect on small charities. There were also suggestions about a charitable foundation, something on which I know the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, is keen. The noble Lord has worked perhaps harder than anyone else for a national lottery in this country.

483
As I said, a number of concerns have been expressed about the effect of the introduction of the national lottery on charitable incomes. I can fully understand the natural concern of charities in the face of change. It is a major development which is bound to have an effect on charities. We must remember that some changes are for the good. Charities are a major beneficiary from the proceeds of the national lottery and these are new funds. We have benefited those charities which run their own lotteries by changing the rules which govern them and increasing various limits to allow them to run bigger and more profitable lotteries. The National Lottery Charities Board will be a unique body in British life; an independent body with access to an enormous store of funds with which to fund the voluntary sector in whatever way it wishes.
There are those who are worried about the introduction of a national lottery and who suggest that the Irish charity scene is similar to the one in this country. Some will tell you that charities have suffered as a result of the introduction of a national lottery in Ireland. But there are some suggestions that the national lottery has stimulated a new and sophisticated market for charity scratch cards. The motivation for participating in a national lottery and in charitable lotteries is quite different. Therefore, I believe that with the change in the rules we have prepared in this country charitable lotteries will continue to thrive long after the introduction of the national lottery. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will see that the national lottery is an opportunity for establishing something that is uniquely beneficial to charities.
My noble friend Lord Lucas asked about scratch cards. Some have called for the national lottery not to be allowed to use scratch cards. That is not realistic. In other countries scratch cards account for 40 per cent of the sales of state lotteries and form an important part of the lottery income.
Of course we shall monitor the effect on charities. Regular, permanent and comprehensive monitoring would be bureaucratic and expensive. It will not produce conclusive evidence since changes would be hard to measure and their specific causes hard to prove. However, we are considering how best to assess, in general terms, the effect of the lottery and changes in charitable income once the lottery is established. But I can assure your Lordships that we will be taking this forward in consultation with the voluntary sector.
There have also been concerns expressed about raising the limits of small lotteries. We have done so, but to increase the limits on small lotteries further would significantly alter the character of those lotteries. They would cease being small lotteries but would clearly become large lotteries. It is a matter of judgment as to when a small lottery becomes large. I suspect that the kinds of figures which my noble friend Lord Mancroft mentioned are far too high. However, I believe that we shall be able to look forward to further discussion on this matter at Committee stage of the Bill.
It has been argued that the national lottery would be better if it were established as a charitable
484
foundation which would run the operation of a lottery as well as overseeing the distribution of the proceeds. That approach would fly in the face of the results of the consultation which was categorical in suggesting that it was essential that operation was separate from distribution since different skills are required for each.
There has been some suggestion that such a model could be run as a non-profit making venture. Let us explore that for a moment. Even the proponents of that option accept that the suppliers of lottery services such as the ticket printers, the computer companies, advertising agencies, retail outlets, and so on, will expect to make a profit if they are to undertake the business. The shareholders who put up the large amounts of capital required for the systems would also rightly expect a return on their capital. Therefore, the costs are unavoidable. The issue is not whether the profit element can be avoided in order to liberate more money for good causes—it cannot—but whether the oversight of a charitable board will be run more professionally and successfully by the private sector.
I believe that it has been proven time and time again, when it comes to ensuring the bottom line, that private sector disciplines are paramount. The model we have chosen under which private sector operators will bid against each other for a licence to run the lottery has competition built in which will ensure that costs are kept low and the returns to good causes are as high as possible.
The model which we have chosen for distribution has the virtues of economy, allowing separate and appropriate expertise to be applied in that distribution. It has full accountability to Parliament enshrined within. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that that accountability must be preserved at all costs. Were the national lottery to be a charitable foundation that would have no bearing on the Chancellor's ability to raise tax on it. It offers no apparent advantage.
We believe that a lottery is a respectable venture. We should be proud of our future national lottery. We do not need to disguise it under the unnecessary cloak of charitable respectability. The proceeds of the lottery are for good causes and that is its purpose.
Some concern has been expressed about Clause 24 and its effect, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and my noble friend Lord Crathorne. Concern has also been expressed about the distributing bodies.
The noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, is chairman of one of the most important distributing bodies. I believe that he was quite right to say that the proceeds will generate work, wealth, civic pride and encourage the arts. A national lottery will also encourage tourism in this country.
We have also heard questions about the Millennium Fund. I must give a certain amount of credit to the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, who has always pushed the idea of the Millennium Fund. He must be pleased with what is happening. Perhaps I may turn specifically to—
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, before the Minister leaves the Millennium Fund, may I have an answer to my question about what is meant by "the millennium"?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, if the noble Lord will curb his enthusiasm for a moment, I shall come to that.
Much concern has been expressed about the provisions of Clause 24 which will allow the Secretary of State to specify bodies which should not receive money. We are clear that that provision is intended to be used where there may be a conflict of interest and where a distributing body might be tempted to fund a body in which it had a controlling interest. I have noted your Lordships' concern and undertake to take this provision away to see whether anything can be done to improve the clause.
I turn now to the Millennium Fund about which I have been asked various questions. Clause 27 provides that no further sums shall be paid to the Millennium Commission after 31st December 2000. Unless the Secretary of State returns to Parliament with further proposals, the money would then be equally divided among the remaining four categories. Of course, the end of the second millennium is not strictly until the end of the year 2000, but it is likely that people will not wait until then before they celebrate the millennium. As a result, the Bill is drafted to cover both so that the Millennium Commission can fund long-term projects.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, put forward questions about the Millennium Commission. I found his comments about it rather surprising. There is no question of the Millennium Commission funding, for example, pre-election jamborees. On the contrary, the commissioners are independent of government and, indeed, one member will be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in another place. The commission will pursue high-minded ideals and will enable projects to take place which will be of pride to generations to come.
I turn now to the National Heritage Memorial Fund. It was chosen primarily for the range of its coverage, which includes the natural as well as the built heritage. It covers also the acquisition of objects as well as of buildings. No other body in the heritage field covers such a large range.
The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, asked about money being separately accounted for in the funds. Clause 32 allows for separate accounts for lottery funds to be kept by distributor bodies. They will be presented to Parliament annually. The money which the National Heritage Memorial Fund distributes from the lottery will clearly be different from its money for programmed expenditure. It will not be subject to annuality. The National Heritage Memorial Fund itself will not be able to invest the money from the lottery. As I have said previously, that money will be held on its behalf by the National Debt Commissioners and, of course, it will be treated separately. The trustees of the fund and the other distributor bodies, such as the Sports Council, must work effectively and properly within their powers to undertake all the projects that they fund.
The purpose of Clause 24 is to provide a framework within which the bodies can continue to operate. It is not intended that the Government will interfere with the individual decisions of those bodies, but there will be a need to set the rules on, for example, financial
486
systems and controls and to ensure that there is a fair coverage across the countries of the United Kingdom in relation to the broad policy. That is what Clause 24 is about.
I have been asked about the owners of private houses. The National Heritage Memorial Fund does not fund private individuals. That practice will be followed and applied to lottery funds. In order to qualify, a private individual will need to form the property in question into a charitable trust.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, asked about Clause 25. Any change in the percentages going to each of the five sectors may be made only on an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That will necessitate a full debate on the relative needs and priorities of the arts, sport, heritage, charities and the Millennium Commission. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that he envisages that kind of debate perhaps once in each Parliament.
I turn now to the wider issues as regards gambling and the issues raised by the right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley. I am sorry that my noble friend is no longer in his place. I welcome his support. I am sure that he would have made as equally as good a bishop as many of the right reverend Prelates who sit on the Bishops' Bench. We are lucky because instead he is the distinguished chairman of the Royal Fine Arts Commission. I am sure that those who apply for funds from the Millennium Commission will welcome the advice that they can obtain from my noble friend's organisation.
Lord Howell: My Lords, he is in the wrong church, too.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I noted the reservations expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Albans but I must disagree with some of his remarks. I do not believe that the national lottery will be any more disreputable than existing lotteries which sell tickets to mend the church roof, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, reminded us. The right reverend Prelate ended on a slightly more positive note and I accept his genuine concerns.
The Government's policy on gambling is based on the principle that the state should interfere as little as possible in the individual's liberty to take part in various forms of gambling but that controls are necessary to prevent crime, to ensure that punters are aware what they are letting themselves in for and to protect the vulnerable, in particular young people. It is no part of government policy to prevent people gambling.
I turn now to deal with issues as regards the pools, roll-over, the Football Trust chaired by my noble friend Lord Aberdare which does such a valuable job for football grounds, and the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, of which my noble friend Lord Brabazon is vice-chairman. As regards roll-over, the Government are committed to introducing in Committee a provision which will ensure that the pools are allowed to roll over in equal measure to the national lottery. That measure will take account of the fact that the pools companies are unregulated and can

487
alter their rules at will—a situation which is the reverse of that of the national lottery. Under the proposals which the pools companies caused to be put before another place they would have been able to roll over up to 25 times a year. I believe that moderation as regards the rolling over of prizes is to be encouraged warmly. Our proposals will be fair and moderate in their outlook.
In any event, both the pools and the national lottery will be restricted in their roll over to not more than three consecutive occasions. That will protect against scams although the possibility of three roll overs is extremely unlikely.
My noble friend Lord Aberdare expressed concern about the income to football as a result of the introduction of the national lottery. There is an assumption that income from the Football Trust and the pools companies will fall because of the national lottery. There is no evidence that the income of the pools companies will fall and that, therefore, the contribution by the Treasury in pools betting duty foregone will diminish.
The Government make no secret of their appreciation of the work of the Foundation for Sport and the Arts. During this year it is expected that it will make grants in excess of £60 million, helping tens of thousands of projects often, as my noble friend pointed out, at the grass roots of those activities. That body performs a welcome function in the world of the arts and sport.
My noble friend also asked me about advertising. I can confirm that the relevant ITC and radio authority codes will be amended to allow the pools and other gambling companies to sponsor TV and radio programmes other than those programmes directly related to those forms of gambling.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, as chairman of the Tote, sold it extremely well to your Lordships, as he always does. He was anxious about betting turnover, as were my noble friends Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, Lord De La Warr and Lord Zetland, who is a member of the new British Horse Racing Board.
The national lottery, as is the case with state lotteries throughout the world, will divert expenditure largely from general consumption and not necessarily from gambling. In Ireland, for example, there is no evidence that betting declined as a result of the national lottery. Indeed, it increased following the introduction of the lottery. Therefore it does not follow that the levy will reduce here. Indeed, lotteries are not viewed as gambling by those who participate. As someone who will be using the facilities of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, at Epsom and Ascot I assure the noble Lord that I shall continue to do so when the national lottery is introduced.
The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, put in a bid for the Tote to run the lottery. That would depend on the Tote's powers being altered. We have no preconceived ideas as to who should run the lottery. It will be up to the director general to decide which is the best organisation to run the lottery with propriety and to achieve the best return for good causes. I look forward
488
to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, producing an amendment when we shall be able to discuss the matter further. He was right in saying that Post Office Counters Limited has made clear that it will be interested in the retailing opportunities offered by the lottery. In order for any sub-post office, the counters network or any small business to sell lottery tickets all that will be needed is a contract with the operator.
For something as new and fundamentally far-reaching for our nation as the national lottery it is important that it is approached in a careful, constructive and non-partisan way. Your Lordships have done so today. I realise that there have been anxieties and I hope that I have been able to reassure your Lordships on a number of those. We shall be able further to clarify the issues in Committee and I shall study carefully in Hansard what has been said today.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, asked your Lordships to put up their hands if they intended to buy a lottery ticket. I shall not go as far as that; I merely ask your Lordships that the Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Royal Assent
5.52 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Charities Act,

Clean Air Act,

Radioactive Substances Act,

Carrying of Knives, etc (Scotland) Act,

Disability (Grants) Act,

Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act,

Foreign Compensation (Amendment) Act, Non-Domestic Rating Act,

Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act,

Midland Metro Act,

Midland Metro (No. 2) Act,

London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) Act,

London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) (No. 2) Act.

Railways Bill
5.54 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Osteopaths Bill
5.55 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
A little over a year ago I had the privilege of opening the Second Reading debate on a similar Bill standing in my name on the Order Paper. As the House will know, that Bill fell when Parliament was dissolved on the calling of a general election last year. I am, therefore, delighted today to open the Second

489
Reading debate on the new Osteopaths Bill. I am also very pleased that events over the past year have moved ahead considerably and that the osteopathic profession is now closer than ever to achieving the goal of statutory regulation which it has been actively pursuing for the past 60 years.
Osteopathy is a system of diagnosis and treatment which emphasises methods of recognising and alleviating structural and mechanical problems of the body. Within recent years, osteopathic treatment and training have become increasingly scientific and comprehensive and the discipline has become increasingly popular; indeed, it is now the most widely used of the so-called "complementary" therapies. Moreover, in recent years the medical profession has come to recognise osteopathy as a discipline which complements conventional medical treatment and which enhances the range of possible therapeutic options available to patients.
Given the increasingly common instances of cross-referral between general practitioners and osteopaths, it is not now unusual for an osteopath to be treating a patient who is concurrently receiving medication from his or her doctor. That is in stark contrast to the position that prevailed some 20 to 25 years ago when it was regarded as improper for a doctor to associate with complementary practitioners. At that time, a doctor referring a patient to a non-medically qualified osteopath would have fallen foul of the recommendations of the General Medical Council on professional conduct and discipline.
Osteopathic treatment involves the use of predominantly gentle manual methods of manipulation. It utilises a diagnostic procedure similar to conventional medical examination and pays particular attention to obtaining a detailed assessment of the patient's musculoskeletal system. However, as the law currently stands, anyone may call him or herself an osteopath and may then begin practice in the United Kingdom. There is no obligation under law to undergo formal training of any kind, or to comply with standards of professional competence or ethical practice. Thus, a patient has no guarantee that a person claiming to be an osteopath is competent or fit to practise as one.
However a system of voluntary registration operated by several independent registering bodies currently exists. The largest is the General Council and Register of Osteopaths. It has approximately 1,700 members which is about three-quarters of all professionally registered osteopaths. But, by its very nature, a voluntary system is unable to enforce registration or to compel practitioners to comply with standards of competence or conduct.
The central object of the Osteopaths Bill now before your Lordships is to replace those voluntary schemes with a system of statutory registration for osteopaths, similar to those which already exist for many other professional groups, including the key health professions. That would be achieved through the establishment of the General Osteopathic Council which would be responsible for developing, promoting and regulating the education and practice of the profession of osteopathy through the UK. A statutory register of osteopaths would form the core of the
490
proposed scheme. Practitioners wishing to use the professional title of "osteopath" would be required to be on that register which would be maintained by a registrar appointed by the General Osteopathic Council. Copies of the register would be published annually and a master copy would be available for public inspection at any reasonable time.
Entry to the register would be based on prescribed standards of training, good character and good health. An important provision in the Bill would place practitioners under an obligation to declare any previous criminal convictions—including spent convictions—if asked, when applying for registration, thus helping to provide members of the public with an additional assurance as to a registered practitioner's character and bona fides. That is of particular significance given both the contact nature of osteopathic treatment and recognition that most practitioners will continue to practise in the private sector following the introduction of statutory registration.
The Bill also makes provision to ensure that as many osteopaths in current practice as possible, who might not hold a qualification entitling them to automatic registration, may be admitted on to the register and brought within the scope of the statutory scheme on the basis of lawful, safe and competent practice. The Bill would also establish four statutory committees of the General Osteopathic Council—the Education Committee, the Investigating Committee, the Professional Conduct Committee and the Health Committee.
The Education Committee would have the responsibility of promoting high standards of education in osteopathy and of providing the general council with advice on all matters concerning education, training and examinations in osteopathy. The Education Committee would also be empowered to appoint visitors to visit educational institutions providing courses of study, examinations or tests of competence in osteopathy, and to report back to the committee on the nature and quality of the instruction provided.
The Investigating Committee, the Professional Conduct Committee and the Health Committee would collectively provide the "fitness to practise" machinery to ensure that an allegation made against an osteopath concerning his or her professional conduct, competence or fitness to practise osteopathy would be properly investigated and effectively dealt with.
The Bill will therefore provide clear assurances to the public that in future all osteopaths will be appropriately trained, properly qualified and fully competent in all aspects of clinical osteopathic practice and that their professional conduct and continuing competence will be effectively regulated by a statutory council.
This latest Osteopaths Bill—like the one I introduced last Session—is modelled on the recommendations for statutory regulation presented in the report of the Kings Fund Working Party on Osteopathy. This working party was set up in the autumn of 1989 under the very able and distinguished

491
chairmanship of the right honourable Sir Thomas Bingham (then a Lord Justice of Appeal and now Master of the Rolls).
The working party's terms of reference were,
"Having regard to the growing public demand for osteopathic treatment and increasing support, both professional and political, for early legislation to establish a statutory register to regulate the education, training and practice of osteopathy for the benefit and protection of patients, to consider the scope and content of such legislation and to make recommendations and report".
I was pleased to serve as a member of the working party, and I am convinced that its report, published after two years of careful deliberation and very widespread consultation, marked a significant milestone on the osteopathic profession's road to statutory regulation.
Many noble Lords will know that following the publication of the report of the working party on osteopathy, the Kings Fund set up a working party on chiropractic. The report of this working party was published on 5th May this year and similarly recommends the introduction of statutory regulation for that profession. I know that the chiropractors are eagerly hoping to be able to sponsor a similar Bill in the next Session and are following the passage of this Bill with keen interest. Some noble Lords may inquire as to why both professions are not included in this Bill. Quite simply the two professions, though clearly allied, are sufficiently different in several respects to warrant separate consideration. A Bill designed to embrace both would be too detailed and complex to be handled as a private Member's measure.
At the beginning of my speech I referred to a number of very significant developments that have occurred since I last stood here to speak on an Osteopaths Bill. If noble Lords will pardon the metaphor, I should now like to put some flesh on these bones. Following the general election, the osteopathic profession—personified in the form of its dedicated foremost protagonist, Simon Fielding—successfully persuaded the honourable Member for Cambridgeshire North-East to take this Bill through all its stages in another place. As I have said, it was modelled on the recommendations of the working party but has been drafted afresh, taking account of views expressed by about 10 other government departments and the experiences of other statutory bodies, especially the General Medical Council.
It has been scrutinised in the finest detail in another place and is now, I suggest, a formidable and robust piece of legislation embodying the most up-to-date thinking on professional self-regulation. It is a Bill of which the profession and all those who have contributed to its formulation can feel greatly and justly proud.
In moving its Second Reading today I should like to commend the Bill to your Lordships—in the words of the honourable Member the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health —as "a finished product".
Noble Lords will know that the Bill is a Private Member's Bill and as such has a very fragile existence. Without seeking to dramatise the situation, perhaps I
492
may say that any amendment made to the Bill at this stage could mean gambling on its future success and endangering its chance of returning to another place by 2nd July. If it missed that date, regardless of the reason, or if insufficient time were found to be available for one or more amendments to be debated, the Bill could be lost, even at that late stage.
I do not suggest in any way that we should give this Bill anything less than the same careful consideration that this House gives to all legislation. Neither I, the osteopathic profession nor anyone else involved with the Bill would wish to see a defective or deficient piece of legislation appear on the statute book. However, many people are of the opinion that this particular piece of legislation is long overdue. The statutory scheme proposed in the Bill enjoys all-party support and has been warmly welcomed by many other professional groups, including the medical profession, the allied professions and consumer organisations. Indeed, the BMA has said:
"The BMA supports this legislation seeking to regulate the education and training of osteopaths in the United Kingdom. We believe it is entirely appropriate that those wishing to practise osteopathy should have to register to do so, and we would welcome such a register as a guarantee of professional conduct and integrity.
"Regulation of osteopaths by statute should offer greater protection to patients from the potential harm of treatment by unskilled and unauthorised practitioners. The objective of greater safeguards for the public health remains the overriding goal of the Association in all policy matters".
Those views are shared by the Conference of Medical Royal Colleges and Faculties and by the senior bodies representing, for example, the nursing profession.
I hope that it would not be out of place for me to say that this House has already indicated its approval of and support for the principles underpinning the scheme when it gave a Second Reading and approved amendments in Committee to the Bill which I introduced in the last Session.
I have mentioned that this latest Bill has been meticulously scrutinised by all relevant government departments and in another place. I should perhaps add that that scrutiny took place outside the strictures of traditional party influences and with the express purpose of providing the profession with the finest possible piece of legislation. I believe that that aim has been achieved and it is on that basis that I urge noble Lords to give this Bill a fair wind and a safe and speedy passage. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Walton of Detchant.)
6.8 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I shall be brief, but I want to congratulate once again the noble Lord, Lord Walton, on bringing in this slightly different and improved version of the Bill which he presented to your Lordships' House on 31st January 1992. On that occasion several of us said that it was appropriate that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, as a former president of the BMA with distinguished medical experience should introduce a Bill of this nature and that that showed the extent to which the medical profession and osteopaths had come together. I congratulate the noble Lord on sustaining the Bill with enthusiasm.

493
I wish to endorse the noble Lord's plea—although he said that it was not a plea—that the Bill should not be amended so that the Bill does not have to return to another place. We know what they always do to legislation which we send back from this House. Let us send back a clean piece of paper.
As the noble Lord said, since January 1992 there have been very significant developments. First, there is the progress by the osteopaths themselves. They are far more ready and prepared for the application of the Bill. As has also been said, since 1992 the chiropractics are ready.
I am grateful, as I am sure we all are, to the King's Fund for having sponsored the working party and the Bill which has now been presented; and for the fact that the Prince of Wales lent his support to the Bill now before us. I believe that Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales is giving her support to the chiropractic Bill, which I hope will come before us in the next Session.
As I said on the last occasion, I believe that if the Government support the Bill it should be introduced by the Government. It is a pity that the chiropractic Bill should depend upon the vagaries—the good luck or otherwise—of those whose names are in the ballot for Private Members' Bills.
Finally, I wish to quote what I believe to be the very important statement that was quoted in the previous debate. It indicates the way in which treatments carried out by osteopaths may come within the scope of the National Health Service. One presumes that it will apply to other complementary therapies when they receive the same treatment in both Houses of Parliament. The statement was made on 3rd December in a letter sent by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health to the then chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on alternative and complementary therapies. Incidentally, I had intended to state at the beginning of my speech that it is in my capacity as joint president of the all-party parliamentary group with the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, that I welcome the Bill. The statement reads:
"Any GP therefore may employ a complementary therapist to offer NHS treatment within his practice … The critical point in the case of both fundholding and nonfundholding GPs, is that the GP remains clinically accountable for the care offered by the complementary therapist. It is not a 'referral' system whereby one registered practitioner refers a patient for treatment to another. It is a 'delegation' system where the GP asks another professional to provide care for which he remains clinically accountable. It is therefore for the individual GP to decide in the case of each individual patient whether the alternative therapist offers the most appropriate care to treat that patient's condition".— [Official Report, 31/1/92; col. 1599.]
When that statement was made, it was an important step forward for alternative and complementary therapists, provided that they receive the approval which I hope the Bill will provide. When the Minister replies I hope that she will confirm that what was said by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at that time still stands today. I hope that the Bill has every possible success.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am empowered to say that, although this is a Private Member's Bill, my party is wholly behind it. I also convey the good wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley. He too would have spoken in favour of it if he had been able to be present. We are sorry that he cannot be present.
It is absolutely right that the osteopathic profession, which has proved itself over a long period of time, should be recognised in this way. It is right in principle. I have a long history of being looked after by a qualified osteopath, as has my family, and she has kept us in good health. I speak therefore with gratitude today.
I shall not venture to go through all the matters that I raised on the previous Second Reading in your Lordships' House. If any noble Lords should be so curious that they wish to know, they can read my speech in Hansard. I wish the Bill a good wind. I hope that no one delays it in any way. I hope that it is speedily followed by the chiropractors' Bill.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I warmly welcome this Bill as it reappears in altered form in your Lordships' House after an interval of 16 months. I congratulate the King's Fund for taking on the task of surveying the field of osteopathy and, under Sir Thomas Bingham, producing an admirable report which has led to the Bill which is now before us; and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant on all his hard work and on the clarity and skill with which he has once again introduced this Bill. I should also like to join in paying a special tribute to Simon Fielding, who has worked so tirelessly on behalf of his fellow osteopaths to get and keep this whole show on the road.
I speak, like many of your Lordships, as a satisfied customer of this most orthodox of the unorthodox professions, and also as joint chairman of the Parliamentary Group for Alternative and Complementary Medicine. As Chairman of the British Acupuncture Accreditation Board, I have a particular interest in seeing how complementary health care professions can regulate their affairs, unite their members, and gain acceptance from society and government. In saying this I should like to repeat what I said on the last occasion about the dangers of public acceptability. In welcoming osteopathy to its place in the sun, with all its attendant benefits, we should do nothing that could lead it to lose its soul or, to put it another way, to abandon its unique therapeutic flavour. In the drive for respectability this can all too easily happen.
It is interesting to note how new ideas and techniques gain acceptance, particularly in the world of medicine. At first the newcomer is ignored. If he does not go away, he is rubbished—"dangerous quackery", "no scientific basis", and so on. If he still does not go away, after a period of time there are small pockets of acceptance: "some usefulness in a limited range of conditions". Eventually, with the passage of

495
time and the retirement of the old guard, acceptance becomes general. It is not scientific logic that drives this process. Nothing significant has changed in the technique or therapy itself. It is the climate surrounding it that changes.
I believe this has lessons for the future. Osteopathy began in the last century, in the days of Lister and Pasteur. Less than 20 years ago, sections of the medical profession were still refusing to have anything to do with it. If patients are to be well served—and this, after all, is what the whole business is about—we must see a drastic shortening of this timescale. As I said, this has to do with attitudes of mind. The chiropractors (as we have heard, another 100 year-old profession) will soon be coming forward with their own Bill, thanks again to the support of the King's Fund. Acupuncture, homoeopathy and others may come after. But they will not do so unless from the side of medical science there is a real willingness to engage with hitherto unfamiliar concepts. There are signs in the air of a new openness, and this is encouraging. Without it, it is patients in the end who will suffer.
This Bill is a landmark. The fact that it might have come a generation or two ago should not prevent us from rejoicing today. It could be said to have broken the back of the resistance to non-mainstream methods of healing, if that is not the wrong metaphor to use in an osteopathic context. I am sure that we will all wish it a speedy passage through its remaining stages on to the statute book.
6.18 p.m.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I should like, as another grateful patient, to welcome this Bill. In November last year I had a very painful back. The banqueting manager of my club, noticing my problem, told me that when he put his back out carrying cases of champagne about, he went to the British School of Osteopathy in Suffolk Street to be put right. Before treatment I could barely sit in the Chamber without pain for more than 15 minutes at a time. After two treatments, I was able to sit in my place for the entire Second Reading proceedings of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill.
During those treatments by a senior tutor and female student from New Zealand, there was discussion on the Bill previous to this one, also piloted through this House by my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant. It became clear to me that osteopaths are proud of the recognition that this Bill will give them as members of a disciplined and caring profession. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will complete its parliamentary passage quickly.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, as many noble Lords know, I have an interest to declare in that I have been for many years associated with the Osteopathic Educational Foundation. That has brought me into close contact with the work and organisation of the profession. I should like to thank
496
the noble Lord, Lord Walton, for all his very hard work on behalf of osteopathy and for bringing back to this House this new and improved version of the Bill.
It goes without saying that I wholeheartedly support this impressive piece of legislation. I am sure that noble Lords will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that it is long overdue. I extend my thanks not only to the King's Fund, and in particular to the chief executive, Robert Maxwell, but also to Her Majesty's Government and the Department of Health for all their support and hard work which will, I believe, ensure that this Bill safely reaches the statute book. We should also acknowledge the central role played by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, in the establishment of the original King's Fund Working Party on Osteopathy, which was so ably chaired by Lord Justice Bingham. I should also like to say that had it not been for the virtually single-handed efforts over the past seven years of Simon Fielding, we should not be debating this Bill today.
Perhaps I may return for a moment to the work of the Osteopathic Educational Foundation, which I mentioned a moment ago. I am proud to have been its chairman for some 25 years. The foundation was originally established 46 years ago to help support and develop the educational infrastructure of the osteopathic profession.
In recent years, however, it has become increasingly necessary for it to divert considerable amounts of money to support students enrolled upon full-time courses, who, through no fault of their own, suddenly find themselves unable to pay their fees and support themselves. That situation has been greatly exacerbated following the Government's decision three years ago to introduce a scheme which has now become known as the "switch to fees" policy. This policy aimed to reduce the degree of centralised funding for public sector higher education institutions while increasing the level of grant for individual students. Thus it was hoped to reward those institutions which could attract higher numbers of students.
However, in practice the policy penalises severely those students who attend full-time degree courses in osteopathy at the major private teaching institutions. Students at these schools receive only a fraction of the grant awarded to students attending public sector institutions. For example, students embarking upon a four-year full-time degree course in osteopathy receive only £695 towards fees which are currently in the region of £5,000 a year. It is worth noting that students who undertake a clinical course at a public sector institution receive grants well in excess of £4,000. I should add that the costs of training and the level of fees charged by private institutions compare very favourably with the cost of training comparable health care professionals in the public sector.
The other side of this coin is the difficulty that private osteopathic schools face in attracting a steady flow of students who have not only the necessary qualifications but also the financial resources that are required. It seems to me inconsistent for the Government on the one hand to support the establishment of osteopathy as a recognised profession regulated by statute and, on the other hand, to

497
deny an appropriate level of student funding to allow young men and women to train for this most worthwhile profession.
I therefore ask my noble friend whether she would take up this important matter with her colleagues in the Department for Education. I sincerely hope that after enactment of the Bill, students wishing to study for a career in osteopathy will be eligible for the same amount of grant funding as clinical students attending public sector institutions. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it would be a tragedy if, at the moment of its coming of age, osteopathy were to be starved of new graduates, who are the very life-blood of any profession.
6.25 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will allow a second intervention. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, on the skilful preparation of this Bill and the simple way in which a complex problem has been resolved. I was particularly gratified to hear the noble Lord confess the gradual conversion of the medical profession to some of the complementary systems. Long may it continue.
There are many other disciplines of complementary medicine which have formal training, general councils, rules of conduct and professional qualifications of university standard. I look forward to the day when they, too, are all brought forward to professional status and recognition by the BMA.
The many users of complementary medicine are already converted but I fear that the BMA still has a few miles to go along that particular damascene road. The noble Lord is assured of my greatest support in helping it along that road. I wish the Bill well.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we support this measure without reservation. I ought to say how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, for his masterly exposition, which was clear, precise and short—which is not always our experience. Apart from that, he has laboured mightily and long in this particular vineyard and I hope that he now sees the fruits within his grasp. In particular we ought to recognise the contribution of Sir Thomas Bingham, who is now Master of the Rolls. He offers another example of the enormous service that the senior judiciary give to the public in this country quite apart from their judicial duties. He is only the last of a series which includes the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, on Hillsborough; Lord Justice Butler-Sloss on Cleveland; and Mr. Justice Popplewell on Bradford, to pick just a few examples at random.
This is legislation which follows the earlier models in respect of doctors, pharmacists and veterinary surgeons, among others. It seems to us that the principle which underlies it and which we support is that there cannot be an unrestricted free market in the provision of services without regulation in the field of health care and medicine. It is very good for us therefore, after this long day that we have shared
498
together, to see that all sides of your Lordships' House recognise and endorse that fundamental socialist principle. It is a comfort at this time of the evening.
There is only one question. It will not be the subject of amendment for the reasons indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. There is a possible source of injustice. In Clause 30(14) there is a specific power for an appeal tribunal to award costs; that is, for or against the appellant. There is no such specific provision earlier. It is capable of bringing about injustice. On occasions I have professionally represented veterinary surgeons, doctors and pharmacists in front of the equivalents of the professional conduct committees. Needless to say those people were all acquitted. But on their acquittal there was a gap which did not allow them to recover their costs at that stage before going to the appeal tribunal.
By way of seeking to be helpful, I respectfully suggest that in the rule giving opportunities and powers in Clause 26, some thought should be given to the provision of a power either from the health committee or the professional conduct committee—it should be both—to award costs in circumstances where the charges are dismissed. Other than that, we hope that the Bill will have a safe passage and we repeat our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and his colleagues on the working party.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to begin my remarks by echoing the words of congratulation and support to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, on bringing this excellent Bill to your Lordships' House. His tenacity and determination are to be admired. He has lived by the adage of, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try and try again". I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that it is most fitting that a physician of the distinction and eminence of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, should be guiding this specific Bill through your Lordships' House.
The Osteopaths Bill is a first-class piece of legislation which the Government not only wholly support, but are keen to see take its place on the statute book. The current Bill builds on the solid foundations laid by the Kings Fund Working Party on Osteopathy—of which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, was a member—to become the most modern Bill of its kind, and possibly, too, the envy of other professional groups.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, has already described how osteopathy is a system of diagnosis and treatment which lays its main emphasis on the structural and mechanical problems of the body. Given that anthropologists believe the human frame has still not adapted to the upright position, despite nearly a million years of practice, it is surprising to learn that osteopathy was developed only a century or so ago in the United States of America. As a word of encouragement to the osteopathic profession, I understand that the same anthropologists believe that it will take a further million years before we finally

499
master the art of standing properly: we shall therefore be calling on the services of osteopaths for a good many years to come.
I listened with interest to noble Lords who have benefited from osteopathic treatment, including the noble Earl, Lord Kintore. The need for such treatment is perhaps not altogether surprising given the "semi-recumbent posture" many of us are forced to adopt in a vain effort to get comfortable on seats described by one osteopath as "an ergonomist's nightmare". Since the earliest days of its development, osteopathic treatment has been popular with the public. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, it is the most widely used of the treatments many refer to as "complementary therapies".
The Bill is designed not only to protect the public, but to encourage the General Osteopathic Council to develop and promote the profession still further. That is a much broader remit than the statutory bodies of other comparable schemes and signals a new and exciting model for self-regulation for the future. The General Osteopathic Council would, if the Bill were enacted, be the flag-ship of the profession. Unlike, say, doctors, who have the General Medical Council and the British Medical Association, registered osteopaths cannot hope or be expected to support a large professional infrastructure. The profession's limited resources will therefore need to be concentrated within the General Osteopathic Council to ensure that the new and innovative statutory scheme starts life on a firm footing.
All that points to the prospect of great change for the profession. However, I should like to urge the profession not to jeopardise its current stability through premature action. The existing registering and professional bodies need to retain their current standards and identity, and individual practitioners to continue to support their current registering bodies. Not to do so could undermine all that has been achieved so far. It could also call into question the professional integrity and character of those who abandon their voluntary schemes.
I should also like to encourage the profession to exercise patience. If the Bill is successful, it could be well into 1994 before the General Osteopathic Council meets for the first time, and possibly two years or more before the statutory register opens.
Statutory regulation will also bring a set of new and quite different challenges. A brand new council will replace the current systems of voluntary registration. As the transition takes place, the council will be in need of encouragement and support, both practical and moral. Such support would not only need to come from individual members of the profession but also from the existing registering bodies. It might also need to be of a sacrificial nature to ensure that the statutory scheme gets off to a sound start. This might mean, for example, sharing manpower resources and expertise with the General Osteopathic Council until it finds a permanent home and its own staff. Those appointed to serve on the new council, and especially the osteopathic members, will need to be prepared to dedicate a considerable amount of time to their
500
council duties. In the early stages of the scheme, some may have the additional burden of continuing to serve on one of the voluntary registration bodies.
Financial challenges would also need to be met, such as the initial setting up and running costs and any research and educational initiatives. Osteopathy is an energetic and fast developing profession. I am sure that many members of the public as well as commerce and industry would wish to be associated with, and help to support financially, the establishment of the new General Osteopathic Council.
I should perhaps mention that the passage of the Bill is not in any way related to the availability or otherwise of osteopathy in the NHS. But to put the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, at rest I endorse the views contained in the letter of my ministerial colleague and would also add that we are aware that a growing number of general practitioners who are fund holders are employing the services of osteopaths. But as with all other services, the purchase of osteopathy is a matter for local 'decision based on the assessed health needs of the local population, competing priorities and available resources.
I have mentioned already that osteopathy is still a relatively young profession. In the United Kingdom, over half the profession has been qualified for less than 10 years. There is, therefore, much to be said for encouraging the development of group osteopathic practices which combine a spread of experience and expertise. This would provide younger members of the profession with contact with peers and senior colleagues and give them the opportunity to enhance their professional development. Such local practices could also provide a single central resource both for the public and local GPs.
It is hoped that statutory regulation will stimulate the continued growth of the profession and encourage more people to consider osteopathy as a career. We also anticipate that statutory regulation will help to foster closer working relationships between doctors and the osteopathic profession.
I know that the passage of the Bill has sparked off discussions on the wider subject of alternative and complementary therapies which have been mentioned in the debates. Your Lordships are no doubt aware of the recent report Complementary Therapies in the NHS published by the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts. This shows that the NHS is prepared to purchase more complementary therapies but also reveals that NHS authorities want a more thorough review of all the available evidence to assess the effectiveness of those treatments.
I am pleased to announce today that the department is planning to fund a research project that will look at the impact complementary therapists—such as osteopaths, chiropractors, acupuncturists and homoeopathy—have on prescribing patterns, cost of drugs, hospital referral practices, patient satisfaction and repeat attendances, by surveying a representative sample of GP practices. The study will be carried out by the Medical Care Research Unit in Sheffield. It will cost £80,000 and take two years to complete.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on the announcement that she has just made. It is very good news indeed.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. My noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, who has worked so tirelessly for the osteopathic profession for nearly a quarter of a century, raised the question of the switch of fees and the policy that was introduced by the Department of Education in 1990–91. The purpose of the switch was to promote effectiveness of institutions of higher education and to encourage them to exploit spare capacity. In principle the policy is neutral in financial terms although I sympathise with the situation of the students affected, as mentioned by my noble friend, since this mechanism cannot be applied to private colleges as the colleges do not receive any direct government funding. But I am prepared to accede to the request made by my noble friend and to take it up with my noble friend the Minister for Education.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, mentioned the right of appeal and attendant costs. Although I can appreciate that there is an issue here, I am very pleased that he has given us an assurance that he will not press it because, as is very apparent this afternoon in your Lordships' House, we are all very anxious that this Bill should be passed and enacted.
Finally, I should like to underscore what the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, said about your Lordships' consideration of this Bill. The Bill has been exhaustively considered during its passage in another place. It is based on the same principles as the noble Lord's Bill in the last Session to which your Lordships gave considerable encouragement and support. On behalf of the Government, and in the knowledge that the Bill has all-party support, I commend it to the House as a finished product.
Perhaps I may just add that many of your Lordships—it was also mentioned this evening—will be aware of the personal commitment Simon Fielding has put into securing statutory regulation for the osteopathic profession. Last Christmas he sent me a Christmas card. On it was depicted a cartoon drawing of the Palace of Westminster in silhouette, with two voices coming from the inside. The first said "What about the Osteopaths Bill?" to which the second replied, "Pay it! Pay it!" In asking the same question, "What about the Osteopaths Bill?" to your Lordships this evening, I would urge the reply to be "Pass it! Pass it!".
6.41 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I do not propose to detain your Lordships for very much longer. I simply thank those of your Lordships who felt able to support this Bill in tonight's debate. I wish also to reiterate the thanks and the gratitude which I feel not only to Simon Fielding, Robert Maxwell of the King's Fund and Sir Thomas Bingham for initiating the process which has finally led to this piece of legislation getting this far. I shall also be grateful if the Minister will convey my personal thanks to the
502
staff of her department who have worked so hard on this Bill in preparing it and in seeing that it was acceptable to so many government departments.
I want only to respond to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, by saying that I personally hope, as a member of the medical profession, to do what I can to collaborate with, and to see the furtherance of the ambitions of, the complementary therapists to whose work he has referred. This is subject only to our being satisfied, as we are now with the osteopaths and the chiropractors, that these therapies are of demonstrable effectiveness and that they will contribute, as we all wish to see, to the future improvement of human health. I am sure that that is something which I would wish to promote to the best of my ability.
I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that I appreciate the point he has made about the potential injustice which might arise. My belief is that that issue is one which, if it were passed on to the osteopathic council, when established, could be met by a modification in the rules that the council may make. I do not believe that it would require any amendment on the face of the Bill.
I again thank all noble Lords for the work which has gone into this Bill. I very much hope that your Lordships will agree that the Bill should now be read a second time.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Humanitarian Needs and the UN System
6.43 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that the UN system is adequate to meet the humanitarian demands increasingly being placed on it in Bosnia, Cambodia, The Horn, Mozambique, Angola and elsewhere, and whether they consider that the balance between preventive and relief operations is appropriate.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset how much I—together with, I am sure, noble Lords on all sides of the House—am looking forward to and anticipating the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. She brings to this House a very special mixture of ability, experience and compassion—the last quality much needed in our materialist age. Whatever the differences which I am sad may have arisen tactically between us from time to time, I greatly look forward to working with her on some of the most important issues for humanity in the years ahead.
I tremble to think how history will judge us. Amidst our introspective preoccupation with domestic and Western European affairs, we have just about managed to find a few brief minutes, as everybody goes home for the Spring Bank Holiday, to debate the wider issues of humanity.
Millions in the world have died prematurely in recent years; millions more are currently at risk and many millions more will die in the years ahead unnecessarily and preventably because of the failure of

503
will—of political will—to take effective action in time. Over and over again, not least in the priorities of Westminster and Whitehall, we see that, historically, tactics have become the enemy of strategy.
As the Secretary General of International Alert, with which I am glad to do some work, has recently argued in a challenging paper, even a cursory glance at the list of countries currently affected by massive refugee flows, developmental destruction or stagnation, and social and political instability, reveals that the vast majority of those states are victims of violent internal conflicts. It is also self-evident that even the "cleanest" of high technology wars is destructive of civilian lives, infrastructure, services, homes, crops and industrial plant —in fact, of all the basic elements of a decent society. In countries and regions where the high-tech revolution has not yet brought the benefits of Stealth bombers or laser-guided munitions, old-fashioned mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, landmines, Kalashnikovs and other derivations from the arsenals built up during the Cold War are wreaking immeasurable horrors on people, property, the environment and hopes for the future.
The Secretary General of International Alert has rightly underlined that no humanitarian aid worker in the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Liberia, Angola, Mozambique, Cambodia or dozens of other countries needs any lessons on the myriad of ways in which war cripples the delivery of humanitarian assistance or dilutes its impact, compounding and multiplying human suffering. Fieldworkers, he argues, are painfully aware that there are obvious lacunae between humanitarian action, human rights protection and promotion, development goals and conflict resolution. What has emerged most clearly from the horrors of recent and current conflicts is that a strategic concept is needed to unite humanitarian action, human rights promotion, development and conflict resolution in co-operation towards a single form of action—war prevention.
In 1991, the last year for which I have comprehensive statistics, the total number of major armed conflicts in which battle-related deaths exceeded 1,000 people was 35—God knows the number of consequential deaths. The indications are that this year there are more than 40 such conflicts, with new outbreaks in the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and the South. The great paradox is that, while the international community has developed elaborate and extensive mechanisms for preventing or mitigating inter-state wars, it is internal conflicts which have become the predominant global security problem.
In the early 1960s, the UN proclaimed that there were no more refugees in Europe: the massive displacements caused by the Second World War had been absorbed. By contrast, this year, the UNHCR reports that there are 1 million refugees in Europe produced by war in the former Yugoslavia alone, and the number of people seeking asylum in Europe has risen from 70,000 in 1983 to 750,000 last year. But the grim reality is that the European figures represent only a fraction of the 18 million refugees worldwide and the
504
further 15 million internally displaced people without even the status of refugee. Some well placed experts estimate that by the end of the next decade that total could more than triple. The relationship between internal conflict and refugees is starkly evident: Afghanistan, more than 6 million; Palestinians, 2.6 million; Mozambique, 1.5 million; Ethiopia/Eritrea, about half a million; Somalia close to 1 million—and so, disturbingly, on.
Those huge movements of people are not surprising when research shows that civilian populations make up the vast majority of the victims of these wars—more than 80 per cent of the casualties in most cases —and that women, children and the elderly are the principal victims. It is rare to find a conflict that does not involve a complex matrix of causes; for example, race, ethnicity, identity, ideology, governance and authority and competition for resources.
What acutely aggravates the nightmare is that increasingly lethal small arms are now readily available worldwide. Arms control agreements have focused on weapons of mass' destruction and on sophisticated weapons systems, but most of the casualties of current dirty, so-called little wars are coming from small arms, land-mines and mortars. In Cambodia alone there are believed to be 7 million land-mines, one for every inhabitant. An estimated 700 amputations per month are currently being performed on Cambodian land-mine victims.
The need effectively to curb the arms trade is arguably every bit as high a humanitarian priority, central to the task facing the noble Baroness opposite, as any mobilisation of relief supplies. I say that with passion because earlier this year one of my old dear colleagues at Oxfam, Llidio Candieiro, was killed by a mine in Mozambique while exploring a new route to deliver urgently needed relief.
The UN arms register, which first reported on 30th April, covers seven types of conventional weapons but none of the comparatively low-tech ones which cause most of that human suffering. Perhaps more than any other weapon type, land-mines have an indiscriminate effect upon civilians. They obstruct the return of refugees, block the delivery of relief supplies and hinder the rehabilitation of land for agriculture.
Why is it that the Government's record is so slow as regards effective action? During the past seven months the US and France have both announced moratoria on the export of land-mines. Why has Britain not done so? As I understand it, we have not yet even ratified the 1980 convention on inhumane weapons, the relevant international accord which at least seeks to restrict the use of mines against civilians. Why can the Government not see that that is directly relevant to the humanitarian endeavours of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker?
The UN faces an unprecedented challenge in the scale of suffering caused by conflict. If it is not meeting that challenge with the effectiveness which the victims deserve and global security demands, the responsibility for failure lies inescapably with its member governments, not least our own. The UN has no existence other than the governments which comprise it.
This autumn the General Assembly of the UN will debate the future of the Security Council. The UK Government are determined to retain for the UK the privilege of permanent membership of the Security Council with the power of veto. Only five nations in the world enjoy that status. It places immense responsibilities for leadership on the UK Government. They must demonstrate by their commitment, vision and action that the UK justifies that status. We should be in the lead in rebuilding a UN which is both more effective and more clearly driven by universal humanitarian principles. We should be the first to recognise that the cost of humanitarian programmes would be nowhere near as great if the world community invested more energy and time in preventing conflict in the first place. Pre-emptive diplomacy and conflict resolution should constantly be at the top of its agenda.
In Bosnia we were too late to be proactive a long time ago. In other parts of the Balkans we may not be. The UN's first example of the preventive deployment of peace-keepers in Macedonia is most welcome and should be urgently expanded. In Somalia active UN diplomacy did not begin until 1992, whereas preventive diplomacy much earlier could well have prevented the scale of the conflict and famine which resulted.
Yet even before preventive diplomacy for deployment of peace-keepers can be pursued, any response depends upon timely and accurate early warning. Current resources devoted to early warning and prevention are minute in comparison with those allocated to the reactive measure of peacemaking or peace-keeping at the end of a conflict.
The United Kingdom Government should pursue vigorously the objective of enabling the United Nations to integrate all its early warning activities and to establish effective channels for the rapid communication of information on human rights and humanitarian crises. The vast knowledge of nongovernmental organisations and the UN specialised agencies should be effectively used by those responsible within the UN for political affairs, security and conflict prevention.
I said that resources for prevention are small compared with those for peacekeeping. That is glaringly true. But resources for peacekeeping expenditure are now 1.4 billion US dollars compared with the world's military expenditure of 922 billion US dollars. Despite the massive increase in UN peacekeeping since the beginning of 1992 the world chooses to spend 1.4 US dollars on peacekeeping for every 1,000 US dollars of military expenditure. And still in the foreign ministries of the world they rub their eyes and ask, "Why is there a world of increasing disorder?".
The beginning of the answer is depressing. Governments do not care enough to provide the resources to prevent it. I regret to say that the United Kingdom's unbalanced priorities are worse than the world average. For every one US dollar we spend on peacekeeping our military expenditure is 1,441 US dollars. This year for the first time the United States Congress has set aside a reserve fund for unexpected
506
peacekeeping needs during 1993. Perhaps it would be helpful for the United Kingdom to do the same. All experts predict that the demands for peacekeeping will increase. Yet money is not enough, and it is true that it has not always been effectively used by the United Nations in the past. The current restructuring of the UN is therefore extremely welcome and must achieve a well-managed, cost-effective and accountable system which can inspire donor confidence. Too many UN relief operations have been plagued by lack of co-ordination between different parts of the UN system. As the operations have also taken on peacekeeping and political roles, more UN departments have become involved without always adequate integrated direction.
The people at risk, the innocent, deserve better. They need improvements in co-ordination between different agencies in New York and Geneva. In particular, one specifically appointed person accountable to the Secretary-General should be given personal responsibility for co-ordinating UN humanitarian, diplomatic and peacekeeping activities in each crisis. Without that, bureaucratic complexities between different parts of the system will inevitably undermine the operation.
The United Kingdom has an ideal opportunity to argue for this when the new UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs, established in April 1992, is reviewed by the UN's Economic and Social Council in a few weeks' time and by the General Assembly in the autumn. Another opportunity for the UK will be at the UN world conference on human rights in Vienna next month. It is time the world recognised unequivocally that human beings in distress have a right to relief. That is not clear in current international human rights law. The conference should affirm that and propose moves for it to become incorporated into international law.
The right to relief, like all human rights, needs mechanisms to enforce it. Moving towards that, it is now rightly recognised that international conflicts, and the humanitarian needs arising from them, can be a basis for the UN Security Council to authorise military intervention to protect relief and civilians if all other means have failed. It is vital that so-called humanitarian interventions should be implemented consistently and transparently, based upon clear humanitarian criteria alone and never upon the arbitrary priorities of key individual member states. At present this is not the reality. The United Kingdom could play a major role by helping to codify and establish such criteria to ensure that intervention takes place where and when needs arise.
The number of internal armed conflicts, their economic and social consequences, the death, bereavement and suffering which they cause, the floods of refugees and the proliferation of weapons of all kinds leave no room for illusions. Traditional methods of global governance are in chaos. They have failed. A new strategic vision is imperative if the world community is to learn how to prevent war. War machines within individual states and international crime syndicates have the capacity to generate violence on an exponential scale. By contrast,

507
attempts at war prevention have been piecemeal, tardy and inadequate. They have proved impotent in the face of spiralling violence.
The optimism generated by the end of the cold war has withered painfully. George Bush was wrong. Our new world is in disorder, not order. But the much quoted Francis Fukuyama was also wrong. History has not come to an end; it has accelerated rapidly, seemingly out of control. We are locked together in a highly interdependent world. We cannot get off. Maastricht will quickly be seen as an irresponsible diversion unless, with it under our belt, we can focus on the major realities which threaten the future of humanity.
If the United Kingdom aspires to the world status implicit in permanent membership of the Security Council, we must be seen and felt to lead in building a system of global governance geared to the needs of the 21st century. We must be second to none in providing, and ensuring that others play their part in providing, the resources without which all the Foreign Secretary's Chatham House speeches will evaporate in the heat of conflict. Time is not on our side. We must speedily learn the lessons of the past four years and apply them without delay.
7 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, thank your Lordships for the very warm welcome that I have received since I have been here. I have begun to learn that, if I can walk a little more slowly and think a little more deeply, I should be able to adapt myself reasonably well from another place.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for tabling the Motion and for having spoken with such eloquence and knowledge about it. As he said, it is a matter of extreme seriousness and there are few people in this House or in the other place who bring to it the same knowledge and experience as he does. Indeed, I am proud this evening to be sandwiched between two colleagues from the other place whom I respect as much as I do the noble Lord, Lord Judd and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. Both of them are peculiarly well qualified to speak this evening.
I am also very fortunate this evening in having drawn the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, as the Minister who is to respond to the debate. There are few people on the Government Front Bench who I respect more. I know of her concern for the matters that we are discussing; I know how hard she has worked in attempting to give a greater British contribution in all these matters; and I could not have chosen or asked for a Minister who I would be more pleased to have respond to the debate than the noble Baroness.
Perhaps I may begin my speech by saying that I echo much of what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees is the agency of the United Nations about which I intend mainly to speak this evening in a short maiden speech. It could be said, as it is said in Handel's "Messiah" that the UNHCR has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pointed out,
508
every month that passes, that particular agency of the United Nations is called upon to do yet more than it has done before as one area after another in the world slides into chaos and the break-up of such order as it had. It is the UNHCR that is so frequently called upon to pick up the pieces.
Yet, in its humanitarian work—work, as the noble Lord said, which now extends to 18 million refugees worldwide and to 15 million displaced people; a figure that grows every day by many hundreds like a ratchet, for it moves always upwards and rarely downwards —the United Nations High Commission for Refugees finds itself increasingly without the resources to do its job. I have here the current estimate for 1993 for the one area to which I wish to address most of my remarks; namely, the former Yugoslavia. I refer to the most recent report last week of the UNHCR which shows a need for 420 million dollars to meet its estimated requirements for 1993 alone of which, so far at the end of May, it had 130 million dollars; that is to say, little more than one-third of the amount actually required. Of course a number of countries have contributed substantially to that figure. In the whole period since the UNHCR began working in the former Yugoslavia it has received 767 million dollars in all. The United Kingdom has contributed 43 million dollars, the Federal Republic of Germany 50 million dollars, the United States 73 million dollars and, true to their long tradition of distinguished international service, the relatively sparsely populated Scandinavian countries have contributed no less than 60 million dollars, and that is much the largest proportional contribution of any country.
Nevertheless the United Nations High Commission for Refugees is literally living from hand to mouth. In some cases it is unable to pay those who render it dedicated service. When I was recently in Bosnia and Croatia I came across some people who had not been paid for a couple of months because there appeared to be no money with which to pay them. Your Lordships will know, because there are harrowing stories in the newspapers, how desperate the situation is in some parts of Bosnia today. At the end of last month and early this month when I was in Sarajevo people could still obtain fresh bread every day. I read that last week the bakery stopped work because there was no fuel to feed it as the fuel had been stopped outside Sarajevo. It is difficult to describe what it is like to see children dodging down the streets—many of them marked by snipers from the hills surrounding Sarajevo—in a desperate attempt to get water, bread and other supplies for their families.
We know that the United Nations' allies are now moving towards a fresh policy for the former Yugoslavia and specifically for Bosnia. It is to that matter that I wish to address a few remarks, with your Lordships' indulgence, this evening. We have now heard of what are called safe havens. That is a strange term, for its reality is not what its name implies. It sounds as if it should result in a calm and soothing outcome but there are many questions about the safe havens policy and I wish to raise three of them this evening.

509
First, we do not yet know whether supplies of necessary food and other materials will get through to the safe havens because it is not yet clear what mandate the United Nations' forces will have in Bosnia to get them through. As one British soldier said to me at Sarajevo airport, "Any cowboy with a kalashnikov can turn back UN convoys of many lorries carrying necessary supplies". We still do not have the mandate that will enable us to get those convoys through.
My second question concerns the largest of the enclaves in terms of population. Some 700,000 men, women and children, many but not all of whom are Bosnian Moslems, are entrapped today in the enclave o Tuzla. There is a large military airport in Tuzla. It. has still not been opened and as of yesterday when I rang up the UNHCR for the latest information, I was told that there were still grave difficulties in getting Bosnian Serb agreement to opening Tuzla airport. I might point out that the Bosnian Serbs have no recognised sovereign country which would confer upon them legitimacy. But Tuzla Airport might constitute the one safe way to get supplies through.
The third question that I need to ask stems from the words of the right honourable gentleman the Foreign Secretary who said in another place last month:
"The political process is not dead and sooner or later, for the reasons I have put before the House, the parties must, and will, come back to it ".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/4/93; col. 1172.]
The right honourable gentleman, the Foreign Secretary, clearly views the safe enclaves policy as a way to negotiate for some return to a more sound and lasting political settlement. The right honourable gentleman also said in a letter that he sent me on 6th May:
"It is particularly important to contain the fighting and not precipitate its spread into other parts of the Balkans".
The third question, therefore, concerns the placing of monitors on the Bosnian-Serb border, rejected by the president of the rump Yugoslavia, Mr. Costić, and questioned by Mr. Karadzic, the leader of the Bosnian Serbs, at a time when many reports indicate that arms supplies are still getting through Serbia towards the Bosnian Serbs. When the right honourable gentleman gave that very sound warning he did not know what we have learnt in the past days. The latest article which appeared in the International Herald Tribune by Mr. Butoski regarding the situation in Kosovo indicates that daily the number of artillery points, troop mobilisations and supplies are increasing, indicating the possibility of an attack once the present business in Bosnia is concluded.
I want to mention one other point before I end with a few questions for the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. These relate to a wider issue raised by my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Judd. He mentioned that we are looking for a new form of order in the world following the end of the cold war and following the creation of a new enemy. The enemy is not the Soviet Union but the chaos and disorder which are beginning increasingly to sweep through the world. It is much harder to deal with chaos than with a certain and concrete enemy.
510
So far we have no answers, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, implied. We have the beginnings of a few answers: the work of the CSCE in the area of conflict resolution; the work done by some voluntary agencies on conciliation and arbitration and other answers to the conflicts in the world; and the gradual transformation of NATO, so powerfully underlined last week when Manfred Wormer, the Secretary-General, echoed the words of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, saying that what is needed is political will, not military force.
We have one great asset in that respect, for the distinguished conduct of British forces in the former Bosnia indicates that, more than perhaps any other country in the world, not least because of the long drawn out and sometimes miserable experience of British troops in Northern Ireland, this country has almost a unique experience of police action in attempting to protect the lives of civilians in the face of brutal behaviour by terrorists, guerrillas and others.
What we need, therefore, are new departures in a number of areas. I shall refer to just one such departure. Looking back on the history of the Bosnian conflict many of us now recognise that it began with too precipitate a recognition first of Slovenia and then of Croatia. Given the history of Croatia, we should at least have insisted on safeguards for the minorities in that country and recognition of their rights.
I was pleased the other day to receive a letter from the Commissioner for External Affairs of the European Commission, Mr. Hans van den Broek, dated 10th May, stating:
"The failure to act in a timely fashion and to react energetically has disappointed American opinion and - even worse - European opinion.
I agree with you on the importance for the EC to establish clear links between membership and treatment of minorities".
I believe that that is an encouraging route down which to go.
I end, therefore, by asking the noble Baroness to comment on three questions which I wish to put to her. The first is whether Her Majesty's Government will be seeking the stronger mandate necessary to get convoys of humanitarian aid through to the pathetic enclaves now suffering from a lack of water, power and food and all the other necessary means of life. Have we at last the willingness to get those supplies through?
I ask, secondly, whether air strikes will only protect soldiers. For, important as that is, are we really going to say that, if the snipers' aim is good enough to pick out children but not soldiers, air strikes will never be called down upon those responsible for those snipers' bullets and those mortar shells?
I ask, finally, whether Her Majesty's Government will insist upon United Nations monitors being placed on the Serbia-Bosnia border to ensure that Serbia's word is kept and that, when she says "We are doing nothing to supply the Bosnian Serbs in the business of ethnic cleansing", it will have clear evidence that her words and her deeds are identical.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, it is my particular pleasure to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—I find the title difficult to say—on a very thoughtful, compassionate and challenging maiden speech. I was glad that she concentrated on UNHCR because I believe that it has one of the most difficult tasks at the present time.
For those of us who have known the noble Baroness for many years—and there are many in this Chamber who have—it is an enormous pleasure to have her in this House with us. I shall never forget the first occasion on which I met her. She was only 21 —not long ago. I was then secretary of the Council for Education in World Citizenship. She applied for a job; and I would not appoint her because she was too good. I said, "I want someone who will stay for two years, and I know that within nine months someone else will pick her up, and quickly". I lost her to someone else's advantage.
Having worked with her in the Cabinet of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, she will be an enormous asset to the House. I shall not go into any subsequent political difficulties. She is the heart and soul of any group she joins; and if she leaves a group she takes away a hunk of heart and soul too. To have the noble Baroness in the Chamber means that all of us will be enriched. Her speech today demonstrated that.
I want to thank, too, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for his very challenging, constructive, moving and passionate opening speech as regards this short debate. It is a short debate but it is concerned with two questions which certainly are not simple. Many problems arise within those questions. I shall not say anything about Bosnia. I agreed with everything said by the noble Baroness whom I have already congratulated. I cannot even refer to her as my noble friend, can I? I shall not refer to the Horn of Africa, Mozambique or Angola.
The UN system was set up in 1945. In that same year I was appointed to the staff of the United Nations Association. That was an exciting challenge. However, for most of the years in which we have worked with the UN it has been unable, because of a divided world or because of a veto, to accept the challenges that came before it. Now it is accepting those challenges, and all of a sudden they plunge upon us, huge and powerful. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, is right to ask the question: is the UN able to accept them? Is the structure right? We cannot answer those questions quickly.
Our commitment is very important. In a debate in another place on 23rd February, I was delighted that Dr. Jack Cunningham reminded that House that Clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution—often debated—includes in Clause 4(7) the Labour Party's commitment to support for the United Nations. It is in our very constitution.
We had many bad years. We now see demands brought upon the United Nations which are so huge that in a sense it cannot cope because, as the noble Baroness and my noble friend have said, there is not the money. The bills are not being paid to allow the job to be done.
512
At the time of the debate on 23rd February, there were 13 operations up and running; 259 peacekeepers in Jerusalem, 1,120 deployed between Israel and Syria; 5,643 in the Lebanon; 353 in Kuwait, including 18 Britons; in the Western Sahara, 332 peacekeepers, including 15 Britons; in Angola, 221. In Somalia at that stage—though it is different now—a 28,000-strong unified task force was led by the Americans with their own 18,000 troops. In Cambodia, about which I shall say more in a moment, there are 15,549 peacekeepers, including 122 Britons. In Latin America, there are 227 peacekeepers in El Salvador; in Europe—in Cyprus—a force of 2,159, including 612 Britons. Then there are the two different forces in the former Yugoslavia with nearly 21,000 people, including 2,804 Britons. That is an enormous task, at a time when the UN must expect that it will get many other demands upon its services. I shall come back to that in a moment.
We may think that some of the tasks are being carried out without all that much success. We see the great tragedies in the former. Yugoslavia, tragedies which are not the fault of the United Nations, certainly not the fault of David Owen and not the fault of the negotiators. They are the fault of aggressive nationalists determined to hang on to their own territory.
As regards Cambodia, I find it exciting that what many of us might have thought three or four weeks ago would be in a sense another failure for the UN, looks as though it may turn out as a triumph. It is the biggest UN operation that there has ever been. I was delighted to see Cambodia set aside two decades of conflict and widespread fears of violence, when enthusiastic crowds turned out for the first day of voting in elections, disturbed more by rain than guerrillas or gunfire. That was the first day and it looks as though by the time the voting ends, which I believe is today, a higher proportion of the people of Cambodia will have voted under the care of the UN than voted in the United States in the last presidential election, and certainly far more than voted in our elections.
I believe that this is a triumph for the United Nations. I also saw a heading in the Guardian of 25th May:
"Unarmed Khmer Rouge soldiers turn out to vote",
and when the soldiers went to cast their vote in free elections, it was the first time they had ever had that opportunity in their lives. That is the good news and I am one of the Martyn Lewis brigade who think that every now and again we should applaud the good news and tell the world about it.
I believe that there will be many more calls upon the United Nations in all kinds of ways and all parts of the world. There are conflicts in the former Soviet Union: in Azerbaijan, Tadjikistan, Abhazia, where I was recently. I think that there, as well as in places like Burma, to which I have no doubt my noble friend Lord Bottomley will refer, democracy seems to have disappeared. Opposition leaders elected to power are now restrained, restricted and unable to carry out their work. East Timor; Kurdistan, which I shall visit

513
soon; and Tibet are all areas where it is quite legitimate to expect that there will be demands for UN assistance in one form or another in the days to come.
We have to ask, as my noble friend Lord Judd did: are we equipped? Have we got the money? Do we have the troops set aside and trained? It may be that our own British contingents will not be able to play their fair part if they are not properly trained and if they are tied down with other matters.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby —I shall always have trouble with her name—as Shirley said, for 20 years the UNHCR has been helping more than 28 million refugees. I have seen the work that it has done in many parts of the world, with great sympathy, understanding and often now in great danger. Between 1981 and 1992 the number of refugees—now, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, nearly 20 million—more than doubled, from 8 million to 18 million: another 20 million are displaced in their own lands.
The UNHCR has an enormous task to face. It is doing it well. I mentioned Cambodia. One of the good bits of news from Cambodia last month was that the United Nations High Commissioner, visited and officially closed the last camp for Cambodian refugees in Thailand, one year after it began a voluntary repatriation programme for some 375,000 Cambodians. More than 236,000 Cambodians have been resettled in the United States, Canada and Australia, from camps in Thailand and elsewhere.
But, when we look at the appalling financial situation, not just for UNHCR but for the whole of the UN, we see that it is heading for a time when it will simply have to say no to demands for further help. The latest figures, published a couple of months ago, show that contributions outstanding from the member states to the United Nations totalled 1,250,390,098 dollars. That is a huge sum, a very high proportion of which was due from the United States. The country that can afford to pay most is the most indebted. Britain's record is not bad. We pay on the dot. Let us give credit where credit is due. There is not much credit around, but let us give it when it is due.
The American situation is an appalling one. Will the UN be forced at some stage to say: "No, we cannot send in forces, observers and supplies; we simply do not have the money to pay for them?" I believe that we all have to take part in a great campaign to get the people to recognise that it is their organisation.
I was recently looking at an article by Erskine Childers. He was reminding us that the current cost of the totality of the UN systems—worldwide emergency, peace-keeping and humanitarian relief—is estimated at about 4 billion dollars, which is equal to the combined budgets of the police and fire departments of New York City. It is quite comparable to the budget of the city of Birmingham. Yet that is the entire budget of the UN for the whole of the world, giving service for 180 countries. There are now huge numbers of people working for the UN: 51,000 serving in some 180 countries. The demands are enormous. So I believe we have to tell the public where their responsibility lies.
514
I end by congratulating my friends in the United Nations Association who have put together a set of proposals on An Agenda for Peace to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in another place with a whole series of proposals which are very constructive and which emphasise, in the mood of the speech given by my noble friend in opening the debate, that priority must always be given to the prevention of conflict. Criteria to allow UN fact-finding and humanitarian assistance without state consent should be elaborated and agreed. I could continue if I had the time.
We must see that the UN has an opportunity of doing a great deal of preventive diplomacy; of stopping wars rather than having to deal with them when they occur. I am delighted that the Select Committee in another place is having a look at the sort of proposals that can go to Her Majesty's Government and I hope that Her Majesty's Government are studying this very important responsibility.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Ennals, and in particular to join him in the tributes that he paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. I recall with pleasure that I spoke for her on her first adoption meeting as a candidate for Parliament. How worthily she performed those duties.
It was my privilege to be a member of the United Kingdom delegation to the United Nations in 1946, 1947 and 1949. The leader of the delegation was Ernest Bevin, then the Foreign Secretary. My responsibility was to represent Britain on the Trusteeship Committee, which was concerned with the colonies of the European Powers and the dependent territories in different parts of the world. Other members of the committee were Field Marshal Smuts, Foster Dulles of the United States and Gromyko of the Soviet Union. After the 1946 committee meeting, Field Marshal Smuts prevailed upon Clement Attlee, the Prime Minister, to send me on an official visit to South Africa.
Field Marshal Smuts was one of the most outstanding men I have ever met. He once told me that there could be no peace or security in southern Africa except on the basis of equality of the races. He said to me, "I know what you are going to say to me: 'Why don't you do something about it?' Well, I have, and that is why I want the help of my young revolutionary friend. I have provided for Indians to be represented in the South African Parliament." He said that it would not have been possible to have direct representation. But the Indians rejected the proposal and rioted. If they had accepted the principle of representation, it would eventually have led to the Africans making equal demands and in due course by evolutionary means it would have brought about a non-racial establishment. That in turn would have brought the Indians and the South Africans together. "But," he said, "I failed and following that I lost my parliamentary seats." In due course he lost power, the Afrikaners took over and apartheid followed. It is still

515
in being, but fortunately it looks as though things are moving in such a direction that we shall soon see an end to it.
As my noble friend Lord Judd said, we must today meet the world's increasing humanitarian needs. Humanitarian agencies, such as Oxfam, face a major increase in human suffering as a result of conflicts within states. Fifty-four per cent of Oxfam expenditure is now devoted to the victims of those conflicts.
The United Nations, in its Charter written in July 1945, has traditionally seen threats to international peace as the only criterion for military intervention. From those conflicts there are 80 million refugees, including one million in Europe and 15 million persons displaced in their own countries. They represent an enormous humanitarian need and, while conflict prevents their return, a continuing demand on the resources of the donor countries.
Most of the casualties of the world's internal conflicts arise from small arms, landmines and mortars. Yet traditionally the United Nations has concentrated its disarmament efforts upon sophisticated weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps more than any other weapon type, landmines are having a disastrous effect on communities. The United States and France announced moratoria on the export of landmines in 1992. The United Kingdom has not yet ratified the current international legislation on the use of landmines contained in the 1980 United Nations Inhuman Weapons Convention.
In conclusion, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Judd on bringing this matter forward for debate, and compliment him enormously on the way in which he opened the discussion.
7.35 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, on her fascinating and fluent maiden speech. Unlike those who have spoken before me, I think I am one of the only hereditary Peers present this evening and it was a great pleasure indeed to hear her. I hope that we shall have many more valuable contributions from the noble Baroness in the foreseeable future.
When I decided to put my name down to speak in this evening's debate, I did so with the objective of expressing my reservations about the efficacy of the United Nations system in meeting the humanitarian demands placed upon it. However, that naturally begs the question as to why the United Nations is not able to cope adequately with meeting the humanitarian demands in such countries as Bosnia, Cambodia, The Horn, Mozambique, Angola and elsewhere. So what can be done to remedy the situation?
As I understand it, the United Nations charter's stated aims are to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; and to help solve international problems, which includes humanitarian relief. However, the charter appears to be a document in the main about inter-state
516
conflicts. The situation, as other noble Lords have mentioned today, has changed dramatically since the end of the cold war.
If one spans the problem areas of the world from the former Republics of Yugoslavia to China, from El Salvador to Somalia, communal violence and civil war are posing a major serious threat to world security. Clearly there has been more recognition of late of the role and powers of the United Nations in the debate over what action should be taken by the international community in endeavouring to subdue and quell the tragic wars in Bosnia and Somalia, and the consequential demands for humanitarian relief.
A running theme in the discussion of the role and efficacy of the United Nations is that member states are not giving the United Nations the resources, either financially or in terms of personnel, to do the job required of it. That point was elaborated by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby.
Since the Secretary General, Mr. Boutros Ghali, took over the reins at the United Nations just over a year ago, he has endeavoured to restructure and consolidate many of the activities in the larger departments. To that end he has focused UN resources in three main operational activities: Mr. Jan Eliasson, a Swedish diplomat, is responsible for humanitarian affairs; Mr. Marrack Goulding is responsible for the peacekeeping portfolio; and preventive diplomacy and peacemaking are shared on a regional basis between Mr. James Jonah of Sierra Leone, who deals with Africa and the Middle East, and Vladimar Petrovsky, who deals with Europe, Asia and the Americas.
In spite, however, of the Secretary General's endeavours to meet with greater efficacy the objectives of the United Nations, the humanitarian peacekeeping operations have of late endured fierce criticism in many of the problem areas as a result of their lack of visible success. Clearly, the adequacy of the United Nations system to meet the humanitarian demands placed on it, in such areas as Bosnia, Cambodia, The Horn, Mozambique, Angola and elsewhere is, as the Question today implies, to a large degree dependent on the efficacy of the peacekeeping role of the United Nations forces in those areas. If we look at the United Nations peacekeeping operations in Angola, Cambodia, Somalia and Bosnia, these have in the main failed or are in serious trouble not necessarily because of the technical failures of the peacekeepers but because of unresolved political problems in those countries.
A criticism which has been regularly levied against the United Nations is the lack of effective liaison between the main departments. In Bosnia and Somalia the United Nations objective has predominantly been defined as humanitarian, but as a result of the peacekeeping forces being involved in those countries, the main organisational load appears to have fallen on the shoulders of Mr. Goulding's department.
It is worth mentioning, however, that the introduction of peacekeeping forces to Somalia has to a certain degree assisted in ending the famine emergency in that country and the United Nations aid agencies have had to concentrate their activities on the

517
daunting task of resettling 2.5 million Somalis displaced by the civil war. Of these, 1 million are sitting in refugee camps outside Somalia. Neither the military nor the humanitarian agencies of the United Nations have ever undertaken a logistical task of this size. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has already elaborated on the disturbing and tragic numbers of refugees escaping civil war worldwide and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has spoken of the work and challenges facing the UNHCR.
The recent events in Bosnia and Somalia have blurred the distinction between peacekeeping and enforcement and between humanitarian assistance arid military confrontation. The Secretary General has been overtly critical of the bureaucracy and, at times, the inefficacy of the United Nations. In his Agenda for Peace report, published in June last year, he recognised that there are many situations where traditional peacekeeping is not enough and suggested the creation of peace enforcement units more heavily armed than traditional peacekeepers and authorised in certain cases to use force.
Turning to the question whether a balance between preventive and relief agencies is appropriate, it would appear that with 13 United Nations relief operations currently in place, at an annual cost, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, mentioned, of more than 4 billion dollars, there is scope for more energy to be directed at preventive action. A trend that appears to have established itself recently in developing countries has been a massive increase in urbanisation from the rural areas to the main cities, placing an enormous burden on the urban infrastructures, not just in the provision of adequate education, health care and housing needs but also resulting in massive unemployment and a rise in civil unrest and crime.
I fully support Her Majesty's Government's policy of not providing development aid to countries which do not practice "good governance". But surely we ought to be focusing our attentions not just upon providing aid and encouraging the objectives and endeavours of the United Nations but also upon encouraging such issues as agricultural reform in developing countries and ensuring that funds allocated by such organisations as the World Bank to worthwhile developments in developing countries are spent on such projects rather than in many places being channelled in part to corrupt politicians' offshore banking accounts! The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, called for more international support in encouraging agricultural reform in Africa, following his recent visit there and quoted the success of agricultural reform in India.
So, in conclusion, clearly Mr. Boutros Ghali has an uphill battle on his hands. As he acknowledged in a recent interview;
"My role is becoming more difficult not because of the absence of co-operation between the five permanent members of the Security Council or the absence of political will, but because of the multiplication of problems in Yugoslavia, El Salvador, Cambodia, Somalia, Angola, South Africa and Mozambique. The UN have never before had to deal with six or seven problems at the same time".
This reminds me of Napoleon's remark that all empires die of indigestion and poses the question
518
whether the United Nations, like so many other empires before it, will die of indigestion as a result of its inadequacies in coping with the increasing humanitarian and peacekeeping burdens facing the world today.
Clearly the United Nations is overstretched in much that it does and does not do, in many of the crises of the post cold-war world. As I am sure your Lordships are aware, more UN peacekeeping operations have been set up in the past five years than in the preceding 42 years. If the United Nations system is to have a chance of more adequately meeting the humanitarian demands on it in Bosnia, Cambodia, The Horn, Mozambique, Angola and elsewhere, it will need not just greater and more reliable resources, more specifically regular contributions from all—I stress all—member states, but also a more radically restructured organisation and a clearer definition of its various tasks and how they relate to each other. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has raised this important debate this evening and for having had the opportunity to discuss this important matter. I certainly look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
7.46 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I should like to join in offering my thanks to my noble friend Lord Judd for introducing this debate and indeed to echo his concern that it is placed as an epilogue at the end of a very important parliamentary Session. It seems to me regrettable that such an immensely important subject is not given more time.
I also join in the congratulations of other speakers to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and, in this evening of pleasant reminiscence, to recall that some years ago she personally introduced me to some important humanitarian aid work in Latin America. It is in that area of the world that I focus some special attention this evening.
I wish first to reinforce some of the points which my noble friend Lord Judd made in general terms. There has been a great deal of emphasis, both in this debate this evening and in response to the Question he asked about UN humanitarian aid earlier today, on the importance of financial resources and the concern about the fact that everybody is either a debtor to the UN or in some way relaxed in their attitude towards financial constraints on UN activity.
As well as financial resources, we must also concern ourselves and think about the resources of leadership, political morality and those of ethical authority. Perhaps they are old-fashioned and somewhat unfashionable concepts, but nonetheless they are extremely important in the context in which we speak tonight.
My noble friend referred to the fact that the UK has not yet ratified the convention on inhumane weapons. As I understand it, neither have we ratified the 1977 additional protocols to the Geneva convention which include protocols relating to the victims of civil war and outrages on personal dignity. I believe that, in particular, they include humiliating and degrading

519
treatment such as rape, which we have seen so unfortunately in the former Yugoslavia and has been referred to by previous speakers.
It seems to me that it would not cost us anything in financial resources to ratify these international agreements, but it would give us much more credibility and authority in speaking out against the kind of outrages which we have heard described. I feel that it is very sad that we have not done that.
My noble friend also referred to the forthcoming UN conference in Vienna on human rights and also to the revision of the UN department of humanitarian affairs. I hope that the UK can take a leading role in both of those fora because it seems to me that if we establish moral authority and leadership in such areas we have just as much justification for remaining in our permanent membership of the Security Council as would be derived from any contribution of forces or, ultimately, any financial contribution that we could make. We could make, in the Secretary General's terms, a real contribution to his so-called "agenda for peace" which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ennals. As I said, we can give leadership and moral authority where financial resources are perhaps more lacking.
I know that we can all be cynical about the UN's ability to deliver practical help in particular areas but, as has often been said, when we criticise the UN, all that we really do is criticise ourselves. In that spirit, I should like to spend a few minutes on Latin America and to speak particularly about Guatemala, which I think falls into the category of "elsewhere" in my noble friend's Unstarred Question. It certainly is not one of the main countries to which he draws our special attention. I am afraid that Latin America and Central America are often "elsewhere" in this country's debates on such issues. In rereading the debate in another place on the UN's peacekeeping role, which has already been referred to, I was surprised to note that Latin America and Central America were not mentioned at all.
However, as noble Lords will have seen, there was a coup in Guatemala this Tuesday. The constitution has been suspended; Congress has been dissolved; the President of the Supreme Court and the national prosecutor on human rights have been put under house arrest. That has dealt a cruel blow to the struggles of the Guatemalan people which have been going on for many decades—struggles in which they have tried to achieve internal peace and democracy and to end decades of what has been a massive and systematic violation of their human rights. I see today that some commentators have described the present situation in Guatemala as a real threat to the whole system of fragile democracy throughout Latin America—and I do not feel that that is an exaggeration. Many government leaders—President Clinton among them—and international organisations have already spoken out strongly about the coup, but obviously considerable international pressure is required to put Guatemala back on any sort of path to genuine democracy and rule of law.
520
The UN is already working there on a humanitarian basis. It is supervising camps for displaced persons of the type that have been described. I urge the Government, through the UN, to take the strongest possible line that it can on Guatemala. I understand that tonight in the European Parliament one Member is tabling a resolution to ask the EC to withdraw co-operation with the Guatemalan Government until some change is made in the present very difficult situation there. It would be appropriate for the Government now to reconsider their recent decision about our troops in Belize.
The people of Guatemala do not get on to the front pages. They are not included in the news bulletins. Even the coup has been little reported. But they are precisely in the category of people who have suffered terrible repression and internal displacement. They are the victims of land-mines and torture and of many of the horrors to which many noble Lords have referred. It is interesting that the UN has a presence there because in a way things have been seen to be getting better. In a way, the UN presence there is one of the chinks of light that has appeared recently in Guatemala's really terrible political history.
The UNHCR is there, supervising returning political refugees who were expelled a decade ago during the high point of the civil war. It is supervising them in camps established by the government, albeit in rather unsatisfactory and depressingly unattractive parts of the jungle, as I saw on a recent visit. We should be trying to exploit that international presence there by trying to exert some kind of moral suasion over President Serano.
One of the reasons why I have focused attention tonight on Guatemala and Latin America, in the sense that Guatemala represents the general problem there, is because of a very personal interest which I hope your Lordships will not regard as sentimental. I have a daughter working as a human rights monitor in one of those refugee settlements in the Ixtlahuacan Province on the Guatemalan-Mexican border. My daughter and her colleagues who work there with her are similar to the many hundreds of people from the UK who work for humanitarian purposes and human rights in many parts of the world. They expect our Government—their Government —to be at the forefront of international efforts to extend humanitarian aid and to develop peacekeeping. I believe that we owe it to them and to the tradition of British international public service which they represent, as well as to all the people whom they are trying to help, to do everything we can to strengthen and expand the UN's role so that the agenda for peace, about which the Secretary General has spoken, becomes a practical global strategy and not just a pious hope.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Judd for tabling this Question and for the very telling speech which he made to kick off the debate. Perhaps as a relative newcomer to the House, I may also extend my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady

521
Williams, on an extremely important speech. I am sure that she will be listened to in the House with very great attention.
I shall take a slightly different tack from most noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Many people here are much better equipped than I am to produce facts and figures about the UN's activities in various parts of the world, the costs involved and so on. I wish to concentrate on the issue which a number of noble Lords have pointed to but have not made their main focus; that is, what is the moral authority of the UN in acting. That is crucial for mobilising the consent both of governments and ordinary citizens for the activities of the UN.
As a number of noble Lords have said, the UN is. composed of individual states and governments. The political will of those governments to support UN initiatives cannot be conjured out of thin air. It must be drawn from and strengthened by the attitudes and beliefs of ordinary citizens. The crucial question is: what kind of moral basis and rationale can be given for what are a large number of thorough-going initiatives by the United Nations? How can we mobilise consent, agreement and support for those initiatives within the countries which are members of the United Nations?
That is extremely important when we are talking about monetary resources and cash for the UN, whether it is material in terms of food and so on or whether it is calling upon our soldiers to risk their lives. In undertaking humanitarian efforts, we must be clear on what basis people are being asked to make such contributions to the UN effort.
We are heir to two radically different approaches to this which we have not worked through ourselves in our own minds in this country, never mind elsewhere. The first is what I might call the interest approach to international politics. That is probably best summed up by my noble friend Lord Healey some 40 years ago in his contribution to New Fabian Essays in which he said:
"Nation states are political entities, not moral entities—with interests and desires, not rights and duties".
Therefore, for someone who takes that rather interest-based, realistic approach, the question of intervention is to be justified not by an appeal to what my noble friend Lord Judd spoke of as general, universal moral principles or human rights' ideals and so on but by what kind of interest we have at stake when we are called upon to contribute to a UN effort.
That idea, well articulated by my noble friend Lord Healey 40 years ago, has not disappeared. It was raised in another place quite recently by Nicholas Budgen in a question to the Foreign Secretary. He asked what is our interest in Bosnia. He asked what British interest is at stake in Bosnia as a justification for being involved there.
Of course, there is the argument that we can be involved and call upon people to make sacrifices whether financial, tax-based or in terms of the commitment to troops. We can call on the interest-based view only if it can be demonstrated that there is that kind of interest at stake. On this view it is redundant to invade the large-scale moral principles
522
on the grounds that ordinary people will not be motivated by such concerns. In a sense, that is both the strength and the weakness of the interest view. It links in with the perceptions of ordinary people about politics. Most people are not driven by abstract and universal ethical conceptions whereas they have some sense of their own state, its interest and so forth.
On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Judd was right to say that if one takes that interest-based approach in a sense it runs against the necessity that we have for collective action on a world stage. The states which are contributing to that collective activity will fiddle around with it in order to ensure that their own interests are well protected. I believe he said that they would act in arbitrary manners in the context of collective action in order to protect their own interests. Therefore, it is difficult to see how collective action could be properly based on the interest-based approach. It seems that collective action is fundamentally necessary and yet that moral base—if that is what it is—cannot do justice to it.
The alternative view is that ideas about rights and universal human rights run directly contrary to the argument of my noble friend Lord Healey; that states have interests and not rights and duties. After all, if there are universal human rights they are not the concern just of the governments under which the right-holders happen to live; those rights are the concern of everyone. As was said by my noble friend Lord Ennals, rights without the means of enforcement are pretty feeble rights. Other states have to be concerned not only with the protection of rights in other societies, but with the means of the enforcement of those rights. In those circumstances, the kind-of-rights argument provides a contrary position to that of my noble friend Lord Healey: that states have desires and interests and not rights and duties—
Lord Ennals: My Lord, my noble friend's argument is so interesting that I wish to probe it a little furtner. The article to which he referred by my noble friend Lord Healey was written 40 years ago. It was written before many international legal obligations and legally-binding covenants which have been accepted by member states. Does my noble friend agree, therefore, that now some states have legal obligations as well as interests?
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Healey now would. I did not mean to imply that he would now hold these views but I believe that in his essay he was putting what one might call Left-wing international Utopianism under a very cold shower on the grounds that he thought that it was rather sentimental.
I believe that the alternative view—the rights-based approach—gives one state a sense of duty towards individuals in other states. That is the basis of much of the present intervention, in particular when it occurs without the consent of the state in which the intervention takes place. The difficulty with that is the mirror image of the interest approach.
As I said earlier, ordinary people are not much motivated by abstract political conceptions such as

523
ideas of rights and so forth. Therefore, putting such ideas to people as the basis for intervention may well not have the kind of power that the appeal to a specific real interest in a particular form of intervention might have on the Healey arguments of 40 years ago.
The other danger of the human rights argument is twofold. First, we have to recognise that it actually constrains the idea of sovereignty, as many of the intervention actions that have gone forward in recent years clearly show. There is no point in beating about the bush about that: if we want to follow, as I do, the route taken by my noble friend Lord Judd, we must squarely face up to it and not try to get around it with all kinds of attempts to hedge the position.
The second danger is that there is the possibility —and I put it no higher than that—that we actually extend in a rather dramatic and, possibly, irrational way the sphere of our moral responsibility to other people. As John Stuart Mill once argued: we can be as responsible for our inaction which causes harm, as for our action. Trying to work out what the consequences of our inactions are in terms of the harm that they may do to other people, given that we think that we have duties to other people, is very difficult. I believe that that idea may lie behind the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, that the West was an accomplice to murder in Bosnia. If we have that kind of duty to protect people in Bosnia because they have a right to protection, then the failure to act was a kind of collusion with the position that they finally found themselves in.
Therefore, there is the danger that, if it is thought that we have a strict duty as regards aid and that people have a right to relief, as argued by my noble friend Lord Judd, then I believe that we extend enormously the sphere of human responsibility. While I think that that view is morally defensible, it is also one that requires a huge programme of education before it becomes a plausible basis for the moral under-pinning that I believe a much extended and more interventionist United Nations would actually need to ensure that the resources within member states are forthcoming to support that degree of intervention.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, one of the great pleasures of being in your Lordships' House is the delight of hearing some speeches which are so profound that one is left almost reeling at the end. Of course, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Judd for giving us the opportunity to discuss this matter. Indeed, we have heard some very good speeches, among which was the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. She too will find that the pleasure to which I referred is one of the best aspects of the House. It is as great a pleasure to listen as it is to speak. I was in fact referring especially to the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Plant. I did not expect him to make such a speech, so I am not quite able to work out the consequences that he mentioned. However, what I have to say somehow follows in the same vein. As fellow academics, my noble friend and I can indulge in
524
abstract thinking—partly because we are no good at anything else and partly because that is, perhaps, what gives us great pleasure.
I wish to concentrate on an aspect mentioned by my noble friend Lord Judd; namely, whether the UN system is adequate to meet the humanitarian demands increasingly being placed upon it. In my view, we should ask ourselves what we think of the system as such. I should like to follow my noble friend Lord Plant in the way I approach the matter. In fact, it is a pity that I cannot call him "noble and learned" because, although he is not a lawyer, he happens to be a very learned man. The problem with the UN system is that it does not actually comprise united nations; it is a union of nation states. There is a great conflict between the interests of nation states and the interests of nations as people.
We are finding out increasingly, especially in the field of humanitarian assistance, that the conflict between nation states and the people who inhabit the nation states is very often a great obstacle for the United Nations. I say that because, enshrined in Article 2 Section 7 of the UN charter is the principle of sovereignty. Unless the world actually rethinks the role and importance of sovereignty in the UN system, especially in the post-end of history of the world in which we live, there will be continual problems for the UN system as regards effectiveness in intervention. We are increasingly asking the UN to behave like a world government without the powers or resources that such a government needs, to say nothing of the moral authority that some governments have.
In many of the countries mentioned in the Unstarred Question crises have arisen because of the breakdown of the original sovereign state. Either civil war has then broken out—that is, the legitimacy of the nation state has been challenged—or there is statelessness. Somalia is a classic case of statelessness. In the case of Somalia, the UN could for the first time enter a country without an invitation, as there was no one to invite the UN to intervene, there being no state. I believe that this situation will occur more and more frequently in the future. Liberia came close to such a condition and there will be other instances of statelessness.
If there is enshrined in the United Nations a principle that the constituent members of the system are nation states rather than the people of those nation states, we shall have to redefine the terms of UN intervention. It may intervene if it considers that no state exists that has sufficient legitimacy to ensure the safety of those bodies who visit the state concerned to provide assistance. Those bodies could be nongovernmental organisations or UN bodies. When a condition of statelessness prevails and the UN intervenes, it not only has to provide humanitarian assistance but also military force.
The UN does not have its own army and has to rely on voluntary participants from its member states. As my noble friend Lord Plant said, only those nations who have vested interests in a particular conflict may wish to contribute personnel. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, covered the topic of Bosnia well. In Bosnia there is a lack of sufficient interest on the part

525
of the great powers to intervene in the way many people believe they should. While all the legal niceties are being preserved, we are not solving the problem of Bosnia.
Intervention by the UN can often be held up because of an election in one country or a referendum in another. The UN has to seek a window of opportunity when no major power is disturbed by internal elections so leaders can concentrate on matters outside their own backyard. I believe the issue of sovereignty will continue to pose problems and that we shall have to reconsider the conditions under which the UN can intervene. The UN has intervened, especially in the case of Iraq, where it took the view that certain minorities within that state were suffering because the sovereign power was not guaranteeing the rights of its own citizens.
This is a rather touchy subject because many countries, especially those who have recently achieved sovereignty in what used to be called the third world, are jealous of their sovereignty and they are resentful of the argument that intervention can take place on the ground of human rights. They criticise human rights as being Eurocentric. My answer to that is, if they do not like what is Eurocentric, why do they buy Eurocentric guns and bombs? After all, guns and bombs too are Eurocentric. What those people really object to is the concept of human rights.
As I have said, the issue of sovereignty will cause conflict. That leads me to my next point, which concerns the provision of international public goods. One view is that a nation state provides certain public goods such as law and order. If the international system is to be a properly governed system it will have to provide certain international public goods. To do that, it will need money. As many noble Lords have pointed out, the way in which the UN system is financed is far too ad hoc and too much based on chance and local political jealousies to be reliable.
I do not know whether there will ever be a time when the UN system will be able to collect taxes on its own behalf, as many people have proposed. But we are far from that because nation states may not permit it. I should love to pay some of my taxes directly to the United Nations because they might be put to better use, but I am sure that that will not be allowed.
I now move slightly closer to the question of humanitarian assistance. I hope that noble Lords will permit me to mention some ideas from an excellent speech which the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Mrs. Sadako Ogata, made at a public lecture which she gave at the London School of Economics earlier this month. She pointed out that there are three major issues which any future system that is set up for humanitarian assistance has to face.
First, she pointed out that in addition to refugees there is also the problem of people who are displaced within a country and that in evolving the mandate for interaction we had to do something about the protection of displaced and other populations. Many of the problems are caused by civil wars in which people do not cross borders and do not technically
526
become refugees. We may have to do something about that problem, and that is clearly in conflict with the doctrine of sovereignty.
The second problem which Mrs. Ogata mentioned was the fact that there are times when the mere presence of international bodies, especially international non-governmental organisations, can of itself help to protect the rights of minorities within countries. That is again a rather touchy issue for many governments, but the fact that Amnesty International or Oxfam may be present is a powerful force in protecting the rights of people within those countries. That is a matter on which we may have to evolve certain rules in the UN system in order to achieve a systematic presence of international bodies to help displaced persons.
Mrs. Ogata's third point, which I consider an important point, concerned the use of military force in the context of humanitarian assistance. That is a particular problem where there is statelessness and the local state has broken down or is challenged by rival powers. In providing humanitarian assistance in those circumstances we are asking people to risk their lives. It is difficult to ask people who are already doing tremendous voluntary work to give their lives merely because the local state cannot protect them. In that respect rules have to be evolved within the UN system for providing military assistance. Someone has to ride shotgun when food is being distributed because if they do not the food distributor will be shot. That raises its own important problem.
I believe that the present UN system is inadequate. That is not because of other problems which have rightly been pointed out by other noble Lords but because there are problems at the heart of the UN system. Those problems will have to be tackled very soon, either by an agglomeration of best practice or by a revision of the UN charter itself. Unless we face head on the problem of international governance, and local governance, we shall not be able to make the UN system as satisfactory as we should like it to be in providing the humanitarian assistance which is much needed.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, despite the number of conflicts all over the world, which have accelerated since the end of the cold war, as has been pointed out by many noble Lords, I should like to feel that there are hopeful signs. United Nations involvement, the increase of United Nations international peace keeping forces around the world, with forces coming from former cold war adversaries and now co-operating, is very gratifying. It is perhaps too early to crow as loudly as my noble friend did about the success in Cambodia, but at least it looks as though it may be a major triumph for the United Nations. Clearly problems are so great that, as many noble Lords have pointed out, the resources of the United Nations are grossly overstretched.
As my noble friend has clearly argued, prevention is better than cure. As in medicine, conflict prevention can be both primary, stopping the disease before it even starts, or secondary, snuffing it out when early

527
signs first appear. Unfortunately, now we are mainly dealing with tertiary prevention. That means making the patient, or country, feel a bit less miserable in the face of established disease or disaster. Obviously primary prevention is the ideal aim, but that is still a somewhat Utopian hope—Left-wing universal Utopianism, to use the words of my noble friend Lord Plant. That all causes of conflict and disaster are foreseen before they occur is perhaps too much to hope for. Secondary prevention in all cases should be our aim. For that the United Nations would need a much better information, or early warning, system than it has at present, as my noble friend pointed out.
Nations would need to become more open and call for United Nations assistance at early stages of trouble. The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of nations—it has been a cornerstone of international relations ever since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648—needs to be modified, although—accept the cautionary words of my noble friends.
However, that concept has been suggested by such worthy people as Sr. Perez de Cuellar, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations. In his 1991 report he stated:
"The case for not impinging on the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of States…would only be weakened if it were to carry the implication that sovereignty…includes the right of mass slaughter or of launching systematic campaigns of decimation or forced exodus of civilian populations in the name of controlling civil strife or insurrection".
Our own Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd, stated:
"Recent international law recognises the right to intervene in the affairs of another state in cases of extreme humanitarian need".
A long discourse on international law would be inappropriate at this stage. I agree with those two quotations. (This is to state the obvious—otherwise I would not have used them.) It is very important that any such interventions must have full United Nations backing and, if possible, United Nations Assembly backing, if possible not relying solely on the Security Council. I believe that the launching of a major military offensive is almost certainly in every case the wrong way to intervene, even though the alternative methods of sanctions and international political pressure may take an agonisingly long time to work.
The civilian population always loses out in a war, as has been pointed out by many noble Lords today. A particular example of that is the plight of the people of Iraq. I refer not only to the Kurds and the Shiites of the south, including the Marsh Arabs, but to almost the entire civilian population apart from a few wealthy people.
I talked yesterday to a recent visitor to Iraq, a young film producer who is the daughter of an old friend. She tells me that the population is in desperate straits, confirming the reports of Oxfam in 1991 and the Harvard studies which are ongoing, of 1992 and 1993. The government rations provide only two-thirds of the calorie requirements of the population and many thousands of people cannot make up the deficit. UNICEF estimates that between 80,000 and 100,000 children under the age of five will die this year unless sanctions are lifted. Those deaths will be from
528
malnutrition and from illnesses which are normally self-limiting or easily treated but are far worse in malnourished subjects.
There is some evidence that there is a sharp increase in childhood leukaemias. That may be due to the spent cartridges or spent cores of armour-piercing shells which contain spent uranium. I am sure that the Pentagon has denied that the radioactivity reaches toxic levels, but a case has been mentioned to me of a German investigator who arrived back in his country and was immediately arrested because he was carrying the fragments of one of the shells. It was tested for radioactivity and was found to be a dangerous substance. He was taken into custody because of it.
Basic medical supplies are lacking. Even insulin for diabetics is hard to obtain. The £1 billion equivalent of oil exports that is allowed now by Iraq in order to purchase essential food and medical supplies is not enough to maintain even a subsistence standard of living for a large part of the population. There has been 1,000 per cent inflation and wage rates have hardly risen from their level two or three years ago. Many water purification and sewage treatment plants are still out of action following the war. That war has, therefore, created far more suffering than Saddam did when he annexed Kuwait. Is it right that Iraq's population should be held to ransom in that way?
I very much hope that the noble Baroness will ask her right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary to try to find a way of allowing Iraq to sell more of its oil to alleviate the suffering. Creative diplomacy, I suggest, is urgently required.
Finally, I wish to join other noble Lords who have mentioned the particularly nasty problem of low intensity warfare with low-tech weapons such as anti-personnel land-mines. We are all familiar with the television pictures of rural people with amputated limbs. My noble friend mentioned the tragic case of his friend who was killed while distributing aid in Mozambique.
Perhaps I may add my voice to those asking whether this country is still exporting those weapons. The United States and France have ceased doing so and have agreed to a moratorium. Can we do the same? Also, there is the signing of the treaty known as "The Inhuman Weapons Convention", Protocol II, which places certain restrictions on the use of mines, booby traps and other devices. I wonder why we have not signed it. Surely because we have not signed it other countries must have been encouraged to ignore the convention, as they have done. I gather that it is being improved and reviewed. Can we participate in the process if we have not even signed it?
Before leaving this topic, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness what is being done to speed up de-mining operations in countries where they are still scattered profusely. Is the only way that the mines will be cleared to be by people stepping on them and getting killed?
In conclusion, I say how much I admire the way that the United Nations is attempting, with its scant resources, to tackle some of the worst problems in the world. We should support it fully, as well as the CSCE, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness,

529
Lady Williams, as a peace-keeping, conflict resolution body. We should help the United Nations to improve its structures so that it becomes more efficient in tackling, or pre-empting, conflicts and disasters so that they become fewer and less severe.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I apologise to the House for speaking in the gap. Colleagues may enjoy the irony that, as a keen student of the work of the Procedure Committee, I am probably the first person to be caught by the change of timing which it recently announced for giving in one's name to speak when the House was sitting at 11 o'clock. I will be extremely brief, as is the convention, but I should like to say how much I enjoyed the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. I often reflect happily on the days (like my noble friend Lord Ennals) when we worked together in another place. I am sure that she will be extremely useful in her contributions and I look forward to hearing her frequently.
I do not think that it is useful at the moment to criticise the United States as my noble friend Lord Ennals did. When one looks back over this century, the way in which the United States with its huge area, population and resources has resisted the temptation to go into an isolationist stance is quite remarkable. I think that its international effort should be recognised and that we should be very restrained in our remarks about that country, particularly at the moment, when its domestic situation is such that there is a reassessment of its attitude towards foreign and domestic balance in its output.
In the past I have spoken in this House about the Horn of Africa. That is mentioned in the Motion, so I shall say few words about it. I have also mentioned in particular the question of the problems in the Sudan.
This House has many advantages over the other place. But the other place has a procedural system of Early Day Motions, which are tabled by Members to register opinions about various events, which other Members sign if they support them. There are two Motions currently running in the other place regarding the Sudan. I mention that country particularly, not only because of my own interest, but because Dr. John Garang last week addressed an all-party meeting in the other place, which some noble Lords attended.
One of the Early Day Motions refers to human rights violations in Sudan. It attracted 92 signatures. I shall not weary noble Lords with the detail, as I have to he very brief. The second one refers to the United Nations and the Sudan, and to the appalling persecution against Christians and other religious and racial minorities there. It mentions the widespread suffering caused by its long-running civil war in the south, the famine and the indiscriminate bombings of civilians by government forces. It goes on to urge the United Nations Secretary-General to co-ordinate an international effort to bring peace to that country. It calls upon the British Government to raise these issues at the UN Security Council as a matter of priority and to encourage the Security Council to play a key role in
530
ending Sudan's civil war and safeguarding the human rights of its religious and racial minorities. That has attracted 91 signatures. That is a very great number of signatures, and I am sure that it will go on collecting signatures. It is an expression of concern by ordinary Back-Bench Members of the other place which we should welcome. I am sure that if we had a similar procedural system here, noble Lords would contribute to it in just the same measure. So I say to my noble friend Lord Judd that there is very widespread concern in this House.
The fact that debates like this one take place later on in the day is not a bad thing. Basically, it is being held at this time because the subject is not contentious. When a matter is contentious, the Whips on both sides who keep our operations running like to hold the debate fairly early on in the day for reasons which will be obvious to noble Lords. Therefore I ask my noble friend Lord Judd to take heart. I thank him for initiating this debate, and say to him that there is far more concern over this matter than in his blacker moments he may feel that there is. I thank noble Lords for their indulgence for my oversight regarding the list. But I am sure that there will be a secret satisfaction among some noble Lords that the procedural pundit has slipped up.
8.35 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, perhaps I may say how very pleased I am that we have this debate just before my departure for New York to talk with the United Nations about many of the issues that noble Lords have raised tonight. I shall add to my baggage and take some extra copies of Hansard with me.
Secondly—but it is first in importance—perhaps I may say how much I enjoyed the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. I thank her for the very kind things she said about me—quite unnecessary I assure her. It is a very long time since she made me feel very welcome in another place. Over the years we have certainly worked together on many issues. This will be no exception. She will bring to this House, as she showed tonight in an admirable maiden speech, that incisiveness, clear thinking and forward-looking mind for which she is so well known, not only in another place but also now on Merseyside.
The establishment of the Department of Humanitarian Affairs, headed by Jan Eliasson, has meant that the UN is getting better at providing relief than in the past. But the demands for that humanitarian relief just grow and grow, particularly in the areas of civil strife. It is vital that member states should provide the resources necessary to enable the United Nations to meet those needs.
As Britain is a permanent member of the Security Council and a major contributor to the UN relief operations, I could not agree more that the UN must be equipped to respond rapidly and effectively to humanitarian emergencies.
I looked up something I said in a speech to the Oxford Union some time ago. It was in 1990, when I went to the refugee camps in Jordan in the no-man's land between Jordan and Iraq that I realised just how

531
urgent it was to have some department within the UN which could bring together its different agencies. That was in September 1990. It was very difficult at that time to prompt the UN into action which was co-ordinated and which would allow those persons from Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh who had been working for good wages in Kuwait and Iraq to get out after Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait.
That was the experience which led us, with our German colleagues and our EC partners, to take to the United Nations General Assembly in the following autumn the proposal which eventually led in April 1992 to the establishment of the UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs. We continue to support fully Under-Secretary-General Eliasson in his very challenging role.
Perhaps I may point out to your Lordships that Britain was the first to contribute, with an initial 5 million US dollars, to the UN's new disaster relief fund. But we have kept up our record of contributions and in the past few months I have been able to second a senior British diplomat to Jan Eliasson's team to advise and help to sort out some of the problems of trying to co-ordinate humanitarian assistance in so many different areas of conflict simultaneously when there are enormous pressures on the UN.
We have contributed specifically to the running costs of that department's Geneva office. It is a revised version of the old UNDRO, but it has not been able to run as effectively as I know Under-Secretary-General Eliasson wishes.
We have been able to help them in the work of their special units in The Horn of Africa. We have helped them too with southern African drought, in Iraq and in the inter-agency working group which is based in Geneva, to try to knit together the disparate UN agencies which have not found it easy to work together, as I think your Lordships know only too well.
As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said in opening the debate—which we so much welcome—the review of humanitarian assistance now going on will be a major focus at this year's ECOSOC session in Geneva in July, as will the further review at the autumn's General Assembly. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others of your Lordships who raised the issue, that we have every intention of giving as much support as possible to sensible ideas of reform for better operations between the agencies, with the Department of Humanitarian Affairs having a co-ordinating, but not a dictating, role in trying to alleviate some of the most awful situations we have ever seen. The past three years of my life have been the most harrowing that I can remember.
When the noble Lord, Lord Judd, opened the debate he spoke of preventive diplomacy. I was much engaged by the line that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, took a few moments ago when he referred to primary prevention, secondary and now tertiary. I agree. There is too much tertiary prevention. We cannot inoculate against man's inhumanity to man, so inevitably there will be a majority of secondary prevention. But at least
532
it should be that and not left to ameliorating a situation as the patient dies after many years of bad experience.
Prevention is better than relief. That is why the United Nations Secretary-General's report Agenda for Peace, published last June, is so important. Peacekeeping and peacemaking, where that can be done, are totally preferable to picking up the pieces afterwards. We need better early warning mechanisms, crisis monitoring, and preventive troop deployment. I am delighted that the United Kingdom had a lot to do with the UN deploying for the first time in the new Macedonia. These are all-important measures being developed, all too slowly. I understand the frustration. We face not only the difficulty of bringing together all those nation states, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, mentioned, but we also have the cost of doing it. I refer not only to cash but also to manpower.
As I have said to your Lordships before, I am amazed and delighted by the magnificent work that British troops and civilian aid workers carry out all over the world, sometimes at the cost of their own lives, and certainly at cost to their health. It is not just in Bosnia, marvellous though they are there, but also in Somalia, Cambodia and many other places through our first-class non-governmental organisations. Britain is at least doing its share to support the United Nations in preventing crises turning into disasters. But to succeed the UN also needs others to play their part. We are working on that steadily and firmly with other governments and, wherever we can, with each agency.
Many questions have been asked this evening and I cannot possibly answer all of them. I will do my best to respond to the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and others of importance. Because I believe so much in the whole question of prevention, perhaps I can say a few words in relation to the question raised by the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Rea, and others, regarding limitations on small arms sales. All defence equipment, including small arms, has to be export licensed in this country. The total embargo on arms sales to the former Yugoslavia is complete so far as we can see, but I very much agree that when we have an embargo on small arms, which create so much destruction in a civil war, it has to be complete. I shall look further to see that we are doing all that we possibly can in this regard. I believe that we are and that the questions raised tonight, while rightly raised, have a positive answer.
The noble Lords, Lord Judd, Lord Plant of Highfield and Lord Desai, spoke about the right of humanitarian intervention. The need for humanitarian assistance is greater now than it has ever been before. I do not need to list the many countries mainly mentioned in the debate and even some that have not been mentioned, like Rwanda. I could give a longer list if time allowed. Each emergency has unique causes and characteristics. Therefore, we have to examine each individually. Sometimes this is not done as fast as we would like. The decision as to whether the UN should intervene must be made after careful consideration of the particular circumstances. We would do no good in the world at large to rush in

533
without that consideration. Obviously it is preferable that the UN agencies operate in countries with the agreement of the authorities in those countries. But in Somalia and other places it has not been possible. Where authorities deliberately deny relief to their people, as in Iraq, to which I shall return in a moment, the Security Council must act.
In cases of extreme humanitarian need, intervention without the consent of the government concerned can be justified. The principle of relief by the UN in these cases is becoming well established now but had hardly started four years ago. The UK has demonstrated its support for the principle by giving practical support to the UN operations not only by providing troops for protection duties, notably in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia, but by providing logistics experts to help make things happen. Many of those people are seconded to agencies like the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. Where there is a need I think that I am almost the first person that some of the agency heads ring up to ask from where they can get a certain expert. We have never known a year like the last year and I am very grateful to all those who volunteered to go to work in those countries.
Having talked about needing to intervene sometimes by force, I do not think it would be right to have a set of rules, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, implied in his remarks. I do not think that it is possible to do it in that way. Indeed, if we set fixed parameters for international response there would always be some group within that country which would say that that was not the situation and that the assessment against which we had applied our fixed rules was the wrong assessment. I believe that that has dangers of its own.
The second aspect is that I do not want to see a situation where we inhibit decision making and limit the flexibility for action. If we had rules under which we intervened we would probably end up having rules on what we could do when we intervened. That is a very real danger. Instead, the response should match the problem. That is why in the former Yugoslavia and in Somalia the deployment of troops to protect relief operations was the right way to go about it. However, we very much hope that in Mozambique the UN agencies will continue to operate without military protection and be able to get the food through and get on with many of the other aspects of the work that they need to carry out to bring peace and improvement to the people.
So, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, I do believe that, whether it be in Bosnia or anywhere else, if we need a stronger mandate to get humanitarian aid through, that will have to be considered by the Security Council. I shall come to her point on Tuzla in a moment. I do not believe that we can easily fight that aid through, although with the establishment of safe areas, which are going to be somewhat different from the safe havens of Northern Iraq, I believe that we shall then have an easier manner of deciding how we operate in order to facilitate the passage of the humanitarian aid past those who
534
sometimes, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, will with a single Kalashnikov impede a whole aid convoy. I believe that we saw one such situation on television earlier this week.
We are indeed proceeding to find out how we can best deploy UN monitors in relative safety on the Serbian-Bosnian border, but those discussions have not yet been concluded. As regards Tuzla, when I was in the area in January, we looked at the possibility of opening the airport there and then. The runway was in a bad state then and it is in an even worse state now. But it is a matter which is very much under consideration. If the establishment of the safe areas can go ahead with Tuzla being the one which is most likely to be protected by British UNPROFOR troops, then that would be a real possibility and one that we have sincerely examined before. We did not find it possible then and I hope that the UN will find it possible in the near future.
A number of your Lordships asked me about the resources of the UN. That of course is at the heart of the problem which we face. At the end of March 1993, 30 countries out of 178 that pay to the regular budget had paid their contributions in full. A total of 1.2 billion dollars was outstanding. The UK and other European partners and Canada all have a good track record in making payments on time and in full. We urge others to do the same. There has been a series of EC demarches to the United States, which over recent years has been catching up on arrears and is now making its new payments on time. But there is still some way to go in that.
The UK will always endeavour to pay its assessed contributions promptly and that is one of the matters we have been concentrating on in looking at the flow of financial resources for UN operations of late. In the financial year to 31st March last, the United Kingdom contributed over £250 million to the total budgets of the United Nations. I sincerely hope that the Americans will be able to meet their stated objective of clearing a number of their debts by the end of this year. If they do so, Russia will become the largest single debtor to the organisation. I am interested, as I am sure your Lordships will be, in the recent Ford Foundation study which is suggesting various ways to improve the financing of the United Nations. I sincerely hope that a number of the recommendations in that study will be approved at the forthcoming General Assembly.
There are many aspects of UN reform which need to be achieved to give us the better ability to respond. The UK has been a major proponent of the reform and the Secretary-General has made some good progress in his tenure so far in restructuring and rationalising the Secretariat to make it reflect modern realities. But there is a real problem, which I discuss frequently, about how to get the agencies to work together and to co-ordinate—and to co-ordinate between Geneva and New York, let alone in the country of operation. I can assure your Lordships that I shall leave no stone unturned to help to ensure that that co-ordination will happen in the future. It is certainly something that the UN Under-Secretary-General Eliasson is determined to do too.

535
The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, put the spotlight on Sudan. Our efforts are intensifying all the time in this respect. I had a very good discussion with the new Sudanese ambassador at the beginning of April, and our officials met Dr. Garang last week. We have made clear our deep concern about the situation between the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) and different factions. Two Members of Parliament, Tony Worthington and Robert Banks, made a successful visit there last month and more visits are planned but, above all, we are seeking to get action on the ground to the people who are dying of starvation and because of lack of medicine and who have been denied access to it for so long. We are helping the UN and other agencies, particularly the NGOs, to get on with the job which they are courageously determined to undertake.
To discuss Somalia only at the end of this short debate would not do it justice, but it might interest your Lordships to know that in the UNOSOM II organisation, Admiral Howe, who is leading it on behalf of the UN, specifically asked us for a member of staff who knew the situation there to assist him. A middle-ranking officer of my department is with him in Mogadishu. We have also recently sent out a specialist assessment team to Hargeisa up in the north-west. We shall be doing our best to ensure that we bring that programme together because one of the problems in Somalia has been to co-ordinate the many different needs since the United States forces, accompanied by Australians, Belgians and many others, did such an excellent job there.
One of the hardest things to get started when one of these terrible civil conflicts finishes is the de-mining about which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, spoke, as have many others in recent weeks. We recognise the urgent need for the expansion of mine clearance programmes. We have made sure that the UN office for the co-ordination of humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan has a major role in this regard in that country, but we have not stopped there. We have sought to help with mine clearance in Cambodia, Angola, Mozambique and many other countries. There are numerous ways of doing this. We have recommended to the UN many of the mine clearing teams which we have used successfully from ODA funds because, frankly, unless mines can be cleared at the cessation of these conflicts, no proper agricultural planting can take place and people cannot return to the land and their former lives. It is almost one of the most important actions at the end of a conflict. So we are well aware of it and are seeking to help. Indeed, where we can go, we shall do such work.
One place where we cannot go is Iraq, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred. There are many things that one could say about that country and its poor people, but there is absolutely no doubt that the humanitarian relief that is so urgently needed not only by the Kurds, the Shi'as and the Marsh Arabs, but by the population as a whole, can and should be funded by the Iraqi Government. They may sell their oil through UN Security Council Resolutions 706 and 712. The imposition of sanctions on Iraq, renewed
536
only this week by the UN Secretary-General, is the direct result of Iraq's refusal to comply with the Security Council resolutions.
Perhaps I may say that those resolutions which cover sanctions have never applied to food and medicine. That cannot be repeated too loudly, because many people seem to be unaware of that basic fact. From the very beginning we sought to make sure that the sanctions would not apply to food and medicine. Therefore, I can only say that those who abandon their own citizens, as the Iraqi Government have done, cause the rest of us enormous additional problems. I do not believe that the rest of the world will be as willing to respond to the UN's new appeal for Iraq unless the Iraqi Government too respond to the needs of their own people, which, indeed, they can do.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister say a few words about the way in which Kurds are not able to exploit their own oil within Iraq for Kurdish purposes?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am well aware of the great difficulty for the Kurdish people. They do not have the right equipment within the Kurdish area to exploit their oil. That matter is being looked at by the United Nations at this very moment, because there is no way in which one can properly supply what is needed to exploit that oil without breaking present sanctions. However, that is being studied and Mr. Barzani and Mr. Talabani have talked to me recently about that because it would help the Kurdish people at least to become self-sufficient so that they could create their own cement to rebuild their own places. I am well aware of the problem which that causes.
This has been an interesting debate—
Lord Judd: My Lords, just before the noble Baroness leaves that point, perhaps I may say that she has put us in a very difficult position because I believe that all noble Lords on this side of the House recognise her sincerity in all that she has said about the hazards which mines present. Therefore, we address our strictures not to her but to the Government as a whole. Will she make representations to her colleagues that we wish to see some specific action taken to curb the traffic in the weaponry to which she has referred and that a lead could be given if we were to accede to the international measures which are being introduced in that respect?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I assure your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that the Prime Minister has been the first to say that we should take all action possible to stop that arms trade. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that the Prime Minister proposed the UN register of arms. It is he who has said so often that if the whole world were to stop supplying arms, we should not have so much hurt to cure.
Sometimes in this House and in other places the UN has received undeserved bad press but sometimes it has been well deserved. When it is well deserved, I am, and I shall continue to be, critical. There are

537
several disappointments in what has taken place in the UN over the past year but we must not forget the extreme difficulty of the conditions under which we ask the UN and its people to act.
Secondly, there is a growing burden of expectation. Every time there is fighting and trouble the cry goes up, "Something must be done". In this country that is directed at the Government but when it is worldwide, it is usually directed at the UN. In humanitarian situations, there is simply no room to say no. If an emergency arises, however stretched the UN may be, it must respond.
Fourthly, the majority of UN work goes unnoticed. I have mentioned examples of cases where the UN has intervened successfully to save hundreds of thousands of lives over a long period of time. It rarely makes the newspapers. When we do something preventive it is usually seen by newspapers—such as the Daily Express today—as unnecessary and therefore they criticise what one does. I intend to continue to seek to help the UN in facing a humanitarian challenge which seems ever to be of greater size and complexity.
538
As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said tonight, we need the UN perhaps now more than ever. It is up to us, the member states, to continue to push it in the right direction, to encourage it and occasionally to criticise it. We must encourage the Secretary-General in his efforts to improve the efficiency of the way in which the UN system operates. I must say that the jobs being done by those in both the UNHCR and the Department of Humanitarian Affairs are absolutely crucial. We seek to help them as the people really at the forefront. But not just them—we want to help all those in the UN agencies who deliver well the job that needs to be done to relieve humanitarian suffering. All donors and developing countries should be working with these agencies. All donors should be paying up on time. If that were done I believe that we should see over time a much better situation. I can assure your Lordships that the British Government will continue to support the United Nations efforts and to make them as successful as we possibly can.
House adjourned for the Whitsun Recess at six minutes past nine o'clock until Monday, 7th June.

  WEST AFRICA: EC BEEF EXPORTS
  WEST AFRICA: EC BEEF EXPORTS
  SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: EC REHABILITATION INITIATIVE
  SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: EC REHABILITATION INITIATIVE
  BENEFIT PAYMENT DELAYS: PUBLICITY FOR COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS
  BENEFIT PAYMENT DELAYS: PUBLICITY FOR COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS
  THE COURT SERVICE: AGENCY STATUS
  THE COURT SERVICE: AGENCY STATUS
  LEGAL AID EXPENDITURE ON FRAUD CASES
  LEGAL AID EXPENDITURE ON FRAUD CASES
  BIRMINGHAM GENERAL HOSPITAL
  BIRMINGHAM GENERAL HOSPITAL
  XENOTRANSPLANTATION: CONTROLS
  XENOTRANSPLANTATION: CONTROLS
  ASSENGER AND GOODS TRANSPORT: OPERATION LICENSING
  ASSENGER AND GOODS TRANSPORT: OPERATION LICENSING
  SERVICE FACILITIES ON ROADS UPGRADED TO MOTORWAYS: SIGNING
  SERVICE FACILITIES ON ROADS UPGRADED TO MOTORWAYS: SIGNING
  DoT EXECUTIVE AGENCIES
  DoT EXECUTIVE AGENCIES
  THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY: BURDEN ON MINISTERS AND OFFICIALS
  THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY: BURDEN ON MINISTERS AND OFFICIALS