Sitting of 16 April 1996

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

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Don Dixon be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Nicholas Brown be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Greg Knight]

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Diet and Health
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research his Department has evaluated on the relationship between diet and health. [23463]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): We continually evaluate existing and new research into the relationship between nutritional aspects of diet and health and we are advised by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy.
    Mr. Sheerman: Given that the Government—especially the Department of Health—seem to have an expertise in creating panic and hysteria about the link between diet and health, I invite them to turn their attention, with that particular expertise, to the relationship between poverty and health and the fact that poverty, low benefits, the withdrawal of free school milk and the damage done to the school meals service all mean that many of our children now face a shorter life expectancy and poor health. What will the Government do to tackle that serious problem?
    Mr. Bowis: I suppose that we have to try to calm the panic that is being stirred up by the hon. Gentleman. The truth is that we monitor these things; we have task forces and groups that consider them. Surveys show that, irrespective of income, people receive adequate nutrients in their daily diet, and that people on both higher and lower incomes need to do something about their eating of fats, including saturated fats. Those on lower incomes, however, tend to eat fewer fruits and vegetables.
    All the surveys show that, increasingly, people are aware of the dietary health messages; the problem is persuading them to do something about it.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Does my hon. Friend accept that some E-additives and colourings in food can cause behavioural disorders, such as hyperactivity, especially in small children? Does he believe that there is a case for more research into the subject? Will he tell the House what research has been undertaken so far?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Advisory committees advise the Government on such matters as the effects of additions to foodstuffs. The Department of Health has a £2 million, four-year research programme—currently in its third year—inquiring into a range of issues.
    We do take these matters seriously, as my hon. Friend does, and when appropriate we learn lessons from the research and draw those lessons to the attention of the public.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Has the Minister any plans to visit the Dunn nutrition unit in Cambridge, which is doing valuable research into the relationship between diet and health? Does he feel that the prior options review, which is under way, should certainly not damage that important basic research, which is so valuable to us all?
    Mr. Bowis: I might pass on the hon. Lady's kind invitation to visit Cambridge to my noble Friend Baroness Cumberlege, who deals with such matters from day to day. We value highly the work that is done in such places, alongside all the other research, the results of which are presented to the Government.
    There is a great deal of research into diet and nutrition. Much of it is good; some of it is contradictory. We have the task of evaluating and assessing the messages that are brought to Government so that we know the best message to pass to the public.

    Salaried Dentists
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many salaried dentists are now employed in the south and west health region; and if he will make a statement. [23464]
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): The number of salaried dentists currently employed in the south and west region is 18.
    Mr. Coombs: Notwithstanding the figure that my hon. Friend has given the House, and the fact that no fewer than eight dental practices in my constituency provide national health service free dentistry to those who need it and are entitled to it, my hon. Friend will be aware that there is a perception in Swindon and elsewhere that NHS dentistry, free at the point of delivery, is not as widely available as we should like it to be. What can my hon. Friend do to put to one side the constant misinformation that is being peddled by the Opposition—exacerbated by the press—and to give assurances to my constituents and others?
    Mr. Malone: I am glad that my hon. Friend has given me the opportunity to destroy the perception which, as he rightly says, exists in the public domain because the perception is entirely false. In his

    495
    constituency there are 61 dental contracts—13 accept adult chargepayers, 18 accept non-chargepaying adults, 21 accept children and five accept emergencies. That local scene exists in the national context of an increased—a record—number of dentists providing NHS services. I am delighted to have this opportunity to destroy the perception to which my hon. Friend referred.
    Mr. McLeish: Does the Minister accept that there is a crisis facing NHS dentistry in the south and west region? Will he acknowledge the recent British Dental Association survey which showed that one patient in two has difficulty in finding an NHS dentist? Will he confirm that the Government are driving dentistry out of the NHS—even to the point that 40 per cent. of Conservative Members of Parliament believe that in 10 years' time there will be no NHS dentistry? Is it not true that, today, the basis of Tory health care rests not on what someone needs, but on where someone lives and what he can afford?
    Mr. Malone: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to look at the facts surrounding the arguments rather than simply make assertions. In the south and west region, since 30 June 1992 the number of dentists providing NHS services has increased from 2,168 to 2,235. It does not matter how much the hon. Gentleman shakes his head—that is a fact. If he says that the service is in decline and the Government are withdrawing from NHS dentistry, he should look at a number of other figures. Expenditure has increased by 57 per cent. in real terms since 1979. If the hon. Gentleman does not like that figure he can turn his attention to courses of adult treatments—sadly, he will be disappointed to find that since 1979 they have risen from 17 million to 24.9 million. He might not be content with that and might turn his attention to adult examinations—he will be disappointed again as they have risen from 15.7 million to 19.3 million. If there is a local difficulty, it will be met by either the community dental service or a salaried dentist, of which there are now 126 employed in England.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend will know that local health authorities in Dorset are keen to be able to negotiate with people who have opted out of the NHS into private dentistry so that there is a reflection, on a regional basis, of the additional costs of providing NHS dentistry. Has my hon. Friend considered the application that has been made for the ability to negotiate locally? Has he had the support of the Labour party, which seems so keen to ensure that the problem is solved once and for all?
    Mr. Malone: I shall not trouble my hon. Friend by trying to get the support of the Labour party, which appears to be purblind to what is going on in NHS dentistry. On my hon. Friend's specific point, I am delighted to be able to tell him that we are looking at more flexible ways of using the funding that is available for salaried dentists to see whether we can meet individual shortages where they arise. To put the matter in context, BDA figures show that only 500 dentists provide exclusively private dentistry in this country compared with the 15,000 plus dentists who provide NHS dentistry as well.

    Market Testing
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the chief executives of the national health service trusts to discuss market testing. [23465]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I am in regular contact with a wide range of people in the national health service, including chief executives, about ways to improve NHS services for the benefit of patients.
    Mrs. Prentice: Does the Minister acknowledge that market testing is forcing NHS clinical services, such as haematology, pathology, anaesthetics and radiography, into the private sector? Will he admit that market testing—alongside the private finance initiative—is part of the Tory Government's plan to privatise the NHS?
    Mr. Horam: The problem for the Labour party is quite the reverse: market testing of services in the NHS has saved it £1 billion since 1983. I do not know whether the Labour party would return those resources if it had to abolish or be critical of what is going on. The fact is that they are extremely small beer when it comes to clinical services, as the hon. Lady must be aware. They comprise a certain amount of pharmacy, sterile services and pharmacology and the rest is very small beer indeed.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my hon. Friend agree that market testing is not about promoting the private sector over the public sector, nor indeed the other way around? Will not the winners of competitive tenders—whether NHS, in-house or external bidders—always be determined by quality of service and value for money?
    Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend is right. The only one to gain from the market testing that has occurred is the NHS patient. We now have more resources to spend on real clinical benefits for the NHS patient.
    Mr. Barron: When will the Minister recognise that doctors and patients are very worried about the Government's drive towards market testing inside the NHS? They view market testing as a way for the Government to force NHS trusts to privatise clinical services. The cuts in health service finances are leading increasingly to either private finance or no finance for clinical support services. When will it stop? Everyone knows that the Government's agenda is to privatise the national health service—neither the clinicians nor the general public want that.
    Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman talks about our drive towards market testing. The fact is that the drive is now locally led by NHS trusts, who are going far beyond what they have been asked to do and are moving into areas such as maintenance, repairs, estate management and legal services. Market testing is providing those services with better value for money, and that is a huge gain for the ordinary patient.
    Mr. Dunn: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he receives no money from the trade union UNISON for research or office expenses? If he did, does he believe that his attitude to market testing would be different?
    Mr. Horam: I am entirely neutral on such matters.

    Emergency Services
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the British Medical Association to discuss emergency services. [23466]
    Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the British Medical Association to discuss the future provision of accident and emergency departments.[23467]
    Mr. Malone: We have regular meetings with representatives of the British Medical Association when a range of issues are discussed.
    Mr. Gunnell: What has the Minister to say to my constituent whose mother's death at Leeds general infirmary after an eight-hour wait on a trolley was followed six weeks later by the death of her uncle after a five-hour wait on a trolley at the same hospital? Should he not promise my constituent an inquiry into emergency admissions at Leeds general infirmary? Should not he be able to confirm that the resources that the Secretary of State promised in a statement before the recess will find their way into the emergency bed service in Leeds? I have not been assured that those resources will make any difference to emergency services in Leeds. Is that not a disgrace and should not my constituent be assured that she is not likely to lose more family members after they have waited on trolleys for admission to Leeds general infirmary?
    Mr. Malone: I can tell the hon. Gentleman and his constituent that the Government are committed to the improvement of emergency services, as set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health in a statement to the House not long ago. My right hon. Friend confirmed that a programme of action would follow his statement. That programme will be put in place and the resources to which my right hon. Friend referred are available to be spent in the health service. We have told health authorities that we expect them to treat emergency services as a priority when making expenditure decisions.
    Mr. Callaghan: In light of the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) and the fact that a toddler from the midlands died recently after being transferred between four hospitals which did not have an emergency bed, how can the Minister reassure the House and the nation that our emergency and accident departments will cope in the event of a major disaster—I hope that it does not happen—by road, rail or air?
    Mr. Malone: I make three points to the hon. Gentleman, who has raised a serious matter. One of his hon. Friends says, "Give us the statistics", so I shall do so. The first and most important statistic is the Government's commitment since 1980 to the development of accident and emergency services. For example, the number of consultants has been extended from 152 to 263, providing an improvement in the quality of the service. The number of other doctors has risen from 1,400 to 1,800 and the number of accident and emergency staff nurses has increased from 4,500 to 6,400. On the hon. Gentleman's specific point, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
    498
    quite rightly addressed in his statement the availability of intensive care beds. There are also lessons to be learnt from the working party that reported to the Government, for example, in the proper use of intensive care beds across the country. Those lessons will be learnt and action will follow to secure improvements.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Does my hon. Friend agree that the location of a casualty unit is critical to accident and emergency services? Does that not support the argument, while there is time, for the review and retention of the casualty unit at Oldchurch hospital in my constituency as it is close to the most populated, least mobile and least healthy south-west sector of the district, rather than pursuing the plan to base those services in the least populated, most mobile and most healthy north-east sector at Harold Wood?
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend pursues a constituency point that he has raised before. I must reiterate what I have said on the issue. The relocation of those services is based on the principle of improved quality of care for people in the locality. That can sometimes make decisions extremely difficult in the interests of the general population. I know that my hon. Friend understands that, although he continues to pursue his point.
    Mr. Dykes: Is my hon. Friend aware that he is being uncharacteristically complacent in his answers? [Interruption.] May I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend to listen to my question? Is my hon. Friend further aware that the planned closure of the accident and emergency unit at Edgware general hospital is the largest proposed closure of those vital facilities north of the river? When the accident and emergency department at Stanmore was closed 12 years ago, Edgware was promised that it would continue for ever, so its proposed closure is not acceptable to the local community. The massive campaign to save the department is continuing in greater force. Will my hon. Friend now think again, following my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's helpful answer and the correction on 19 March to the erroneous answer given by himself?
    Mr. Malone: I know that my hon. Friend pursues these matters with great interest and assiduity. He recently had a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to discuss the specific matters that he has raised. Decisions still have to be taken and they will be in due course; however, I hear what my hon. Friend says.
    Ms Harman: I know that Health Ministers want to wash their hands of responsibility for any problems in the health service, but may I press the Minister again on the two extremely serious cases that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) in which people died after waiting on trolleys in accident and emergency departments? Will the Minister at least tell the House that he is prepared to look into those cases and deal with the problems? Does he not recognise that there remains a crisis in hospital accident and emergency departments throughout the country?

    499
    Will the Minister admit that the Audit Commission report, "By Accident or Design" has now confirmed what the Secretary of State denied to the House when he last answered Health Questions? As well as agreeing to look into the cases that my hon. Friend raised, will he admit that there is a problem in accident and emergency due to the shortage of doctors and the fact that there are too few hospital beds so that patients have to wait on trolleys and cannot be admitted to hospital? Will he stop denying the crisis and start taking action to sort out the problems?
    Mr. Malone: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set out to the House a programme of work, which is being undertaken, for the provision of emergency services. On the specific point, of course I will look into the details raised in the questions by the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell). If anything further needs to be done, I shall ensure that it is done.
    On the abrogation of responsibility, the hon. Lady has again said on the Floor of the House that something needs to be done, but she has not given a single spending commitment to support what she says should be done. Until a few days ago, she had an excuse because there was a bar on tax rises from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), but that appears to have been lifted by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) and so the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) cannot hide behind that.

    Health Surveillance Committees
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the funding of health surveillance committees. [23470]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): Most health surveillance committees require funding only to cover the expenses incurred by members in carrying out their committee duties.
    Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend give the House more details of the funding of the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease surveillance unit, which has been behind the current scare about beef that we are experiencing? Does he agree that when we had a similar scare about eggs and salmonella some years ago, the public health laboratory service—especially the Bristol unit, as I remember—was behind much of the data that caused that scare? The unit alleged that the data was scientifically based, but it had to back down. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to shield such investigative units from too much public funding which may mean that political or commercial pressure is put on them to publish their results prematurely?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend puts the spotlight on the CJD surveillance unit in Edinburgh. That is funded by the Government to put resources into a better understanding of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. I do not believe that the public expect us to do anything other than ensure that research into a proper understanding of that disease is properly financed. I restated that commitment in the statements that I made to the House just before Easter.

    Human Embryos
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many human embryos have been artificially created in the past five years; how many have been destroyed through experimentation; and how many are in deep freeze. [23471]
    Mr. Horam: As I said in my answer to the hon. Gentleman on 25 March this year, the number of embryos created for in vitro fertilisation treatment from 1 August 1991 to 1994 inclusive was 302,156. During the same period, the number donated for research was 27,524 and the total number frozen was 64,161.
    Mr. Alton: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that there is a major question to be answered about the 3,000 orphaned embryos whose parents have been lost, and that perpetually freezing embryos and extending their shelf lives by another five years is not a solution to their immediate problem? What does the Minister intend to do about that? What consideration is being given to the research in France into the mutations that occur as a result of the freezing process? Does the Minister agree that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is an inappropriate watchdog because the majority of its finance comes from the clinics that it is supposed to supervise, and that that links the watchdog far too much with the burglar?
    Mr. Horam: I understand the hon. Gentleman's convictions on the subject. He will realise that he has asked a whole series of questions that I cannot fully investigate in the time available. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we hope to have a short debate soon, at which time we can go into such matters more fully.
    On the question of the 3,000 embryos whose parents the clinics are unable to trace, a great effort must be made between now and the end date to minimise that problem as much as possible. The number of couples involved is a small fraction of 3,000—the number of embryos—and so the problem is smaller than perhaps the media have allowed.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned the French research, but extensive research has been done in this country as well, at Manchester university and other places, which has not so far established any suggestion that there is any difference between a child from a frozen embryo and a child born normally. I will have to take up the other matters when we have our much-rumoured debate.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my hon. Friend consider what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) said about the HFEA? Is my hon. Friend aware that there is wide concern about some of the unnatural practices that were reported in the press this weekend?
    Mr. Horam: The House should remember that the HFEA was set up as a result of a free vote of the House. In my view, it has carried out the instructions of the House in an exemplary manner and has done a job of which we can be proud by comparison with what happens in many other countries. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). The HFEA, like other agencies, will be reviewed after five years and those points will be taken into account.

    Food Safety
    Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what scientific evidence he takes into consideration in making recommendations on the safety of food products. [23472]
    Mr. Dorrell: In developing food safety policy, the Government take expert advice from a wide range of sources, including a number of specialist advisory committees.
    Mr. Viggers: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he is advised by a range of committees made up of individuals who are pre-eminent in their field? Does he agree that, if we were to contemplate moving to a system as in the United States which has the Food and Drug Administration, it would not be possible to replicate the quality or the dependence of the advice that the Minister currently receives?
    Mr. Dorrell: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Government are right to continue to rely for advice in those important fields on independent experts gathered together in advisory committees. I think that the country and all hon. Members on both sides of the House would be well served by respecting the scientific eminence of the people who serve on those committees and by accepting the basis of the science that they offer. If they do that, they have that approach in common with every reputable scientific opinion that has been expressed about the latest row about bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is now a real concern that we should look again at the way in which advice is given about the safety of drugs and food, and that the American FDA experience is a good one? If he is not prepared to commit himself to that, will he at least say that, in future, appointments to committees, such as the important ones to which he has referred today, will be the result of widespread consultation and cross-party agreement, so that they cannot be regarded as either partisan or as excluding perfectly proper alternative views which are relevant to the debate?
    Mr. Dorrell: Such appointments already are subject to extensive consultation, not on a cross-party basis, because these questions do not lend themselves to party-political opinions, but within the scientific communities from which the scientists are drawn. Furthermore, the public has the extra safeguard that not only is the membership of such committees drawn from an extensive range of opinion within the scientific community, but each of the committees makes it clear that any scientists with an opinion on the issues within the competence of the committees are invited to put their opinions to the committees. Therefore, recruitment to the committees is open as well as the opinions that the committees themselves examine.

    Mental Health Provision
    Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the British Medical Association to discuss mental health provision. [23473]
    Mr. Bowis: Ministers meet the British Medical Association on formal and informal occasions and discuss a range of issues, including mental health.
    Ms Jackson: Did those discussions include the report of the Royal College of Psychiatrists highlighting the totally inadequate bed provision for the mentally ill in 10 out of 16 of the old regional health authorities, and the surely scandalous fact, highlighted by the Royal College of Nursing, that only one in five schizophrenia patients has any access to a community psychiatric nurse? In the light of those reports and growing public disquiet, will the Government call an immediate halt to any further bed closures and address urgently serious staff shortages so that confidence in care in the community can begin to be re-established?
    Mr. Bowis: I am aware of the reports and I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware of the action that has been taken. The Royal College of Psychiatrists produced two reports. Around the time of the first report we set up our mental health task force to consider services in London. It reported, having had discussions with each and every one of those inner London authorities. We then had my right hon. Friend's announcements earlier this year following the review of every health authority in the country as to the implementation of the care programme approach and the range and effectiveness of the spectrum of care which we seek to have in place in every health authority area.
    The hon. Lady will know that we are currently spending some £2.5 billion on the service and that my right hon. Friend announced an extra budget of some £95 million in order to bring the necessary services up to pace. We have in place a policy that is broadly accepted. It is now being implemented, pursued where appropriate by the NHS executive. I hope that the hon. Lady will support the doctors, nurses and those working on the mental health side of the NHS in the work that they are doing to make that possible.
    Mr. Sims: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the public concern about whether provision for mental health patients in the community is adequate. Will he confirm that some of the welcome additional expenditure to which he referred will be devoted to fulfilling the pledge in the draft patients charter for mental health services: that no patient will be discharged from hospital until appropriate arrangements for his or her care in the community have been made?
    Mr. Bowis: Yes, my hon. Friend is right, and I can certainly make that promise. In addition to the money from health authorities, that is precisely where the challenge fund money and, indeed, the mental illness specific grant, which is paid through local authorities, will go. It is fundamental that we have in place a spectrum of care: beds in hospitals—secure when appropriate—short-term, long-term, 48-hour and 24-hour nursing care

    503
    and the community services that mentally ill people need to support them in their homes or in supported accommodation in the community.
    Mr. Milburn: But when will the Minister accept responsibility for the state of mental health services? There are too few beds in hospitals, facilities in the community are inadequate and staffing is stretched to breaking point in both. Has not the cart has been put before the horse in too many parts of Britain, with hospital beds being closed before new and appropriate community facilities have been opened? Will he act now to restore public confidence in mental health services, before there are any further tragedies, by imposing an immediate moratorium on any further mental health bed closures?
    Mr. Bowis: That was a rather sad statement of official Labour party policy. We heard not a single extra pledge for mentally ill people, only an attempt to undermine the services that are being provided for them. Of course we take responsibility for these services. We are seeking to ensure that the policy of adequate resources and facilities being available in the community before beds are closed—which, until now, the Opposition had accepted as being the right one—is in place. All that the hon. Gentleman needs to do is to welcome it and thank the Government for seeking to implement it.

    Accident and Emergency Departments
    Mr. Atkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the Audit Commission report on accident and emergency departments of hospitals in Lancashire. [23474]
    Mr. Horam: We have received three letters on this subject.
    Mr. Atkins: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Audit Commission is independent of his Department; that its report on accident and emergency hospitals is not Government policy; and that hospitals in Chorley, Preston and Ormskirk can keep their A and E departments for as long as they want?
    Mr. Horam: Indeed, I am happy to confirm my hon. Friend's statement. The Audit Commission confirmed exactly that in a press release a few days after the report was published and it was further amplified by North West region in relation to my hon. Friend's hospitals. As he will be aware, his constituency is extremely well served by the Royal Preston hospital, Chorley and district hospital, which is new, and Ormskirk and district general hospital. He omitted to mention the formidable performance of the Lancashire ambulance service, which is, I believe, reaching 97.7 per cent. of its patients in the 19-minute response time. My hon. Friend has an excellent NHS service in his area. I am sure that he will put that across in his own inimitable way.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate and welcome the Minister's positive response about Lancashire, but has the Audit Commission investigated the growth in the number of people who are seeking to use A and E services throughout the whole kingdom, as we are getting complaints that there is not sufficient provision? Is he
    504
    satisfied that the Government have taken a United Kingdom view on that, not only his own remit in England but throughout the kingdom, or is—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been seeking to speak during Question Time but he is widening the question considerably—it relates only to Lancashire.
    Mr. Dover: Is it not far better to leave the purchasing and providing authorities to sort out exactly what is required for accident and emergency services, taking local needs into account?
    Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend is entirely right: such decisions should be made by health authorities. The Audit Commission's work was a sensible piece of research, but it was carried out on a national, hypothetical basis, and we always expect account to be taken of local factors.

    Medicinal Drugs (Deaths)
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new proposals he has to reduce deaths caused by medicinal drugs. [23475]
    Mr. Malone: We already have in place well-established systems for licensing and monitoring the safety of all medicines available in the United Kingdom, which ensure that the benefits of medicines outweigh any risks and prevent users from coming to unnecessary harm. Those systems continue to be developed, in particular to take advantage of advances in drug development.
    Mr. Flynn: Why, then, if present trends continue, will more people be killed by medicines than by road traffic accidents? The greatest killer of all is paracetamol, which is available from supermarkets, garages and other shops. Will the Minister take steps to reduce the number of deaths—currently 200 a year—by confining the sale of paracetamol to pharmacists, improving labelling and encouraging the use of safe, protective forms of paracetamol?
    Mr. Malone: I am aware of the report that my Department is currently considering, which deals with the implications of the number of tablets contained in a packet. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in the matter; we shall consider it, and report in due course.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's general point, according to yellow card reports relating to all cases in which paracetamol is a suspect drug, between 1990 and 1995 the figure fell from 65 to 49. The hon. Gentleman must see the position in context. I hope that we shall soon be able to produce more up-to-date and robust figures, and I shall ensure that they are brought to his attention.
    Mr. John Marshall: Has my hon. Friend tried to work out how the position would be affected by the abolition of prescription charges, which would deprive the national health service of substantial resources and prevent hip replacement and other operations from being carried out?
    Mr. Malone: I had not made the association made by my hon. Friend, but the consequences would be as he suggests.

    Health Care Centres
    Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the publication of business plans for the primary health care centres projected in the north-west. [23476]
    Mr. Dorrell: North West region has announced a programme of development of primary care resource centres to which it has allocated nearly £20 million. Proposals for those developments in each locality are the responsibility of local NHS management.
    Mr. Pickthall: Does it not concern the Secretary of State that, when the regional executive makes such attractive promises, it says nothing about the revenue consequences—the so-called revenue tail? How are local health authorities supposed to fund and plan the centres? Is this not a mechanism to stall such desirable developments, while making it sound as though something is being done?
    Mr. Dorrell: If it is a mechanism to stall the developments, it is remarkably unsuccessful. Eight centres in North West region are already functioning—five in Liverpool, one in Manchester, one in St Helens and one in Salford, which my hon. Friend the Minister of State opened at the beginning of March—and we are committed to bringing a further 10 on stream. I hoped that, rather than decrying this development, the hon. Gentleman would welcome an important improvement in the quality of primary health care available to his constituents and others living in the region.

    Nurses
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses are employed in the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [23477]
    Mr. Malone: There were 347,000 qualified and unqualified nurses and midwives in the NHS on 30 September 1994–27,000 more than there were 10 years ago.
    Mr. Jones: Why are two thirds of our hospital trusts finding it very difficult to recruit qualified nurses?
    Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman's point is being addressed. The ability to shape the nursing work force by developing local training programmes allows a more precise mechanism for addressing local problems. Figures on the number of nurses by areas of work show that the number of hospital nursing and midwifery staff increased from 269,000 to 285,000 between 1984 and 1994. The same applies to other areas of work.
    Mr. Jessel: My hon. Friend recently saw the excellent work of national health service nurses at Teddington Memorial hospital, which has tremendous local community support and which is the smallest NHS trust hospital in the country. Will he confirm that it will serve as the role model for all cottage and community hospitals that wish to have trust status?
    Mr. Malone: Invitations to visit my hon. Friend's constituency are always impossible to resist and when
    506
    undertaken they are memorable. I well remember my visit. That hospital is a great example, not just for my hon. Friend's constituency but for the country, of nursing roles and skills being better deployed and providing services for a local community.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 April. [23493]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. O'Hara: Has the Prime Minister yet had time to read the remarks of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), the mastermind of the Conservative campaign for the South-East Staffordshire by-election? Writing for the Rutland and Stamford Mercury just a few hours before polling, the hon. Gentleman observed that many people imagined that Labour would win the seat with ease, and he made the immortal comment that nothing could be further from the truth. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that that same hon. Member will be put in charge of all future by-elections and the general election?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would perhaps be wiser not to be quite so smug as he was a moment ago. I advise him to talk to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), who will explain that by-election losses become general election gains.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) is perfectly free to pay more tax if she wishes to do so now? Has she not blown the gaff on what the Labour party would do if it were ever elected to office? It would put up taxes—income tax and everything else—as it always has.
    The Prime Minister: I welcome the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) to the Chamber and I am delighted that she has been untied and ungagged and has been permitted to attend this afternoon. It was extremely unfair to pillory her. Just as the deputy leader of the Labour party tells us that he has joined the middle classes the hon. Lady decides to increase their taxes.
    Mr. Blair: The last person in this country to lecture us about honesty in tax is the Prime Minister—people remember the pledge not to raise VAT before the last election. What reasons would the Prime Minister give for the Conservative party's humiliating defeat in that by-election?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about taxes—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He raised it. Perhaps he would care to refer to the

    507
    unattributable briefing that he gave on the plane, and subsequently denied, in which he made it clear that taxes would go up at £40,000 and higher. Subsequently, when challenged it was claimed that the conversation never took place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]
    Mr. Blair: It is interesting that they always want me to answer the questions: in a few months' time they will get their wish.
    Is not one reason for the Conservative defeat perhaps the fact that people do not want their railway system broken into 100 different companies and sold on the cheap; they do not want the sale laced with sweeteners paid for from taxpayers' money; and they do not want hundreds of millions of pounds spent on the sale? In fact, the vast majority of people want that money to be spent on improving the system as a public service.
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that paying a dividend to shareholders is a sweetener, it shows how little he actually understands about the private sector system. It is clear, for all his weasel words, that he simply does not understand how the private sector works. The sooner that he learns, the sooner people might take seriously the ludicrous suggestion that the Labour party understands the modern economy.
    Mr. Blair: What we do understand is that the public do not want their railway system broken up and sold. Is not an underlying reason for the Conservative party defeat the fact that people simply do not trust the Conservatives any more? They do not trust them on railways, on tax or on the health service. The sooner they get the chance to say so loud and clear, the better for Britain.
    The Prime Minister: I suppose that it is best to reprise the old favourites while one has the chance. When talking about the Labour party and the railway service, the right hon. Gentleman should recall that the Labour Government closed more than 600 stations; we have opened more than 220. Under Labour, fares rose by 20 per cent.; we have frozen them in line with the retail prices index and they will drop. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the costs of privatisation, he should bear in mind the fact that there will be £10 billion of new private sector investment to improve the services for rail users. That could not have happened in the public sector; it did not happen in the public sector—
    Mr. Prescott: We did it.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may say, "We did it", but I can tell him what the Labour Government did—they closed station after station after station. We have opened them and I will not let the right hon. Gentleman forget that.
    Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the good news of the week—that retail beef sales in Britain are back to 85 per cent. of what they were before the beef scare?
    The Prime Minister: I am glad that the beef market is recovering. Even the Commission President and the Agriculture Commissioner now admit that British beef is safe. It is abundantly clear that, as we have always
    508
    maintained, the export ban on British beef imposed by the Community was motivated more by the interests of other countries' beef markets than by public health. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Agriculture Minister will announce shortly, we have decided to take legal action against the totally unjustified ban on British beef.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise that the problem with the railways is not more competition but the way in which the Government have sought to go about it? Is he aware that that has resulted in 70 per cent. of passenger services in London and the south-east getting worse since privatisation started; in £69 million of taxpayers' money being spent to make Railtrack shares saleable; and in a £900 million increase in the salaries of Railtrack directors? Is not it perfectly clear that if the Government get their way with our railways, passenger trains will take second place to gravy trains?—[Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) suggests from a sedentary position that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has the same scriptwriter as the Leader of the Opposition. That is true.
    The right hon. Member for Yeovil is wrong. Taking Railtrack back into public ownership would cripple the economy, as the Liberal Democrats said in their transport document. The right hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand that the £69 million is a dividend payment.
    As for the service that the industry offers, I invite the right hon. Gentleman to consider the extra 600 trains a week that South West Trains will be running. Would those trains be running if the industry was still nationalised? What happened to the special offers for senior citizens, including £1 travel days, when the industry was in the public sector? What about the programme of improvements to stations, passenger facilities, lighting, security and waiting rooms? Those improvements are being made when the industry is in the private sector. They were not made when it was in the public sector, when the attitude of those in the public sector disgracefully let down the travelling public. We intend to improve that attitude.
    Mr. Dover: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, under his leadership, Conservative Members will faithfully serve and look after the interests of the working class, in marked contrast to some Opposition Members?
    The Prime Minister: The deputy leader of the Labour party is blushing. It is such an agreeable and unusual sight that I shall not add to his embarrassment.
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 April. [23494]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Michie: Does the Prime Minister understand the outrage that is felt when almost £1 million of profit from the publicly owned Railtrack is to go towards huge

    509
    bonuses to just six directors of a privatised rail company? Is not that an example of taking from the many and giving to the few?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is really concerned about taking from the many and giving to the few—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will come directly to the hon. Gentleman's question in my own way—he might, first, have a look at his own local authority, which might collect the £558 million of debt that it is owed.
    Mr. Michie: Rubbish.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says "rubbish". Yes; in collecting its debts, Sheffield is rubbish. It does not collect its debts or make its interest payments, and it has massive council tax arrears. That is what Labour is like in power, in the phrase of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
    On the bonus payment, Railtrack is proposing precisely the type of long-term performance bonus that has been recommended by Greenbury and urged on us by Opposition Front Benchers.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 April. [23495]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a fair tax system is a low-tax system? Did he see the article in the Sunday Express, in which the leader of the Labour party told journalists that the top rate of tax would be raised for those on £30,000 or more? That figure was subsequently quickly amended to £40,000 and subsequently denied altogether by the Labour party's spin doctors. Does he agree that the unscripted remarks by the Labour transport spokesman are a very useful contribution to the debate on the Labour party's tax policy?
    Madam Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, questions should be related to the Government's responsibilities. We will now take the next question.
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 April. [23496]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Illsley: Is the Prime Minister aware that, as of 1 April, thousands of disabled people will lose up to £30 a week as a result of his Government's decision to withdraw reduced earnings allowance and to replace it with retirement allowance? Will the Prime Minister reconsider that decision in view of the extreme hardship that that decision will cause to less-well-off members of our society?
    The Prime Minister: We have taken a number of measures to improve the particular circumstances of people who are disabled. That is clear across a range of disability benefits and in the Disability Discrimination Act that the House passed just last year. If the hon. Gentleman is advocating more expenditure, I hope that—
    Mr. Illsley indicated dissent.
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is not advocating more expenditure than at present, I fail to understand what his question is about. If he is, I would like to know precisely how he is going to fund it and how much the tax increase will be for that and the many other areas where Labour wishes to spend more.
    Mr. Brooke: As the cricket season starts, does my right hon. Friend take encouragement from the fact that this summer at the Oval we shall see the 50th anniversary of the longest and largest stand for the last wicket in the history of English cricket? Does he recognise that nothing in cricket exasperates the Opposition or cheers up the batting side as much?
    The Prime Minister: As it happens, I was aware of that particular anniversary. I look forward at the Oval to seeing many performances like that by Surrey, and perhaps by England. I have absolutely no doubt that, politically, we shall see their equivalent.

HIV/AIDS Test
3.30 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Health what is the reliability of HIV/AIDS tests carried out under the NHS in the past 12 months and what assurances there are about the method of re-testing in case the tests have proved unreliable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of this question. There is every reason to have confidence in our HIV testing system, even after the recent need to withdraw a particular test kit. Since this Abbott test was introduced in July 1995, some 125,000 tests have been performed, 25,000 of which used this particular kit.
Re-testing of stored samples for those who had been tested using this kit started over the Easter weekend and is largely complete. So far, with more than 90 per cent. of stored samples retested, all but three cases have been reconfirmed as negative. Those three are being further investigated.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the Minister, but ask him to draw some conclusions that he can put into action as a result of this public health incident, that involving oral contraceptives last autumn and that related to bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
Is not the message of those three incidents that Government agencies need to work not only with the voluntary sector but with the press to ensure that there is neither over-reaction, as there was in the case of oral contraceptives and BSE, nor delayed under-reaction, as was the case with the HIV/AIDS test, which meant that the voluntary sector and hospitals had to cope over a bank holiday weekend without the necessary information? Can we have a proper system that provides information as quickly as possible and takes the press into the confidence of the Department of Health, just as the police often take journalists into their confidence when discussing a serious matter of criminal law?
Mr. Bowis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he handled the matter on Good Friday when talking to the media. That was helpful, as was the response of Dr. Macara of the British Medical Association, the work of the various helplines, including those of Lighthouse, the Terence Higgins Trust, the National Aids Trust and the BBC, which went into action to calm people's worries and disseminate a message that had been put out on the radio by the deputy chief medical officer, Dr. Winyard.
Of course, we shall look at the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised to see what lessons may be learned. When leaks occur, they can be difficult to deal with; when a leak occurs on a bank holiday, he will understand that it is even more difficult to deal with. Of course, matters
512
need to be reviewed by Abbott where the problem arose, but we shall examine the way in which the information was handled once it had arrived with us.
There will always be a difficult balance to strike in such matters between providing individuals with information and waiting for the necessary handling arrangements to be put in place. That is the balance that we try to get right.
Ms Harriet Harman: Will the Minister confirm that the company withdrew the faulty tests from United Kingdom use on 25 March? When did he personally know of the problem with the faulty HIV tests? Why did the news not become public until 11 days later, on Good Friday, at the start of the Easter break? Did not that delay cause needless anxiety for thousands of people who were left to worry throughout Easter? Did it not cause needless problems for hospital doctors, general practitioners, clinics and voluntary organisations, which were not properly informed and left in the dark?
How many people does the Minister expect will be told that they are HIV-positive despite having already had a negative test result? Will he review procedures and report back to the House on consultation with relevant organisations and back-up arrangements for such future health problems? Is this not yet another example—it is exactly the same as the contraceptive pill announcement—of the Government's delay, mishandling and incompetence?
Mr. Bowis: I answered most of the hon. Lady's questions in responding to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). No doubt she will look carefully at Hansard so that I do not have to repeat them. The unnecessary worry was caused by the leak—that is why the worry occurred.
The hon. Lady is also inaccurate about the dates. In fact, the information from Abbott's was first sent to the Medical Devices Agency at 5.15 pm on 29 March. She asked when I personally heard about it. I heard about it personally on Good Friday. In the meantime, the matter had been looked at in the preceding days by officials in our Department. A conscious decision was taken—I would have thought that the hon. Lady would understand it—that, having made arrangements for the announcements to be made after the bank holiday weekend, it would be better to make those announcements after the bank holiday weekend, so that the information did not cause worries when professional and technical advice and retesting facilities were not available. That, to me, is common sense, and that was what was done.
I am sorry that the hon. Lady, unlike the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, did not put out an understanding, soothing and calming message to the public who might be worried. Instead, she has immediately tried to make party political capital out of the matter, which does her no credit and will cause many people who have no need to worry an anxiety that they could have done without. I hope that, in future, she will first consider the interests of people who have such tests and not the interests of her own party.

BSE
3.37 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): With permission, I should like to make a statement on bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
In my previous statement on 3 April, I stated that there were signs that confidence was returning. I am very pleased to tell that House that matters have continued to improve. The latest reports that I have are that consumption is at roughly 85 per cent. of pre-crisis levels and that cattle throughput in markets is nearing 60 per cent. of previous levels. That is encouraging, since it is only by restoring confidence in beef that the industry's future will be secured for the long term. The measures that I am about to announce are geared to the achievement of that aim.
I have consistently made it clear that the Government are determined to ensure a viable future for the essential sectors in the beef chain—farmers, the slaughterhouse sector, manufacturers and renderers. I shall take farmers first. I announced on 28 March that the European Union calf premium scheme would be opened in the United Kingdom. The scheme will open next week, and will be run by the intervention board. Slightly more than £100 will be paid for each qualifying calf.
The House is aware that animals slaughtered at 30 months of age or more are now excluded from the food chain, and of the expectation that farmers would be compensated by an EC scheme. I can announce today that such a scheme will come into effect in the week beginning 29 April, and will also be run by the intervention board. Depending on the weight of the animals, farmers could receive nearly £500 per animal—effectively the cull cow price. The Government will bear the costs of the slaughter and destruction of the animals.
I recognise that some producers of steers and heifers normally plan to bring their animals to market at over 30 months, and will not have had time to adjust their production systems. Such animals would typically fetch significantly more than cull cows. I am pleased to announce today that the Government will pay a nationally funded supplement to the basic premium in respect of such steers and heifers, at a rate that reflects the historic differences between cow prices and those for steers and heifers.
The supplement will be payable for six months, which will allow producers time to adapt their marketing programmes to the new circumstances. The cost is likely to be up to £80 million. In general, the total return for animals over 30 months should not be greater than the market price of animals below 30 months going for consumption. The market is, however, turbulent at present, and it would be helpful for producers to be clear about the position when the scheme comes into operation. Accordingly, the top-up will be set at no less than 25p a kilo for the first four weeks that the scheme is in operation.
In the longer run, we need arrangements to allow back on the market meat from breeds—specialist breeds, for example—that often do not mature until after 30 months. Many of the animals concerned are in herds with no history of BSE. The case for exempting such animals from the 30-month rule is strong. As a matter of urgency, my officials are working up the technical elements of a scheme that would allow clearly defined exemptions to be made.
514
On 3 April, I reported extensions in the coverage of beef intervention. On 12 April, a further widening of the categories of intervention applicable in the United Kingdom, and the removal of weight limits, were agreed. For the first time, intervention on young bulls will be possible in the United Kingdom.
More generally, I am also pursuing with food retailers and manufacturers ideas for quality assurance schemes to help restore confidence in British beef. As a result, I can announce that we are proceeding as a matter of urgency with arrangements to improve animal identification and traceability. I hope to be in a position to introduce a scheme of mandatory animal passports for that purpose with effect from 1 June. That will make a valuable contribution to the development of marketing strategies by retailers and manufacturers to persuade consumers that our beef is of the highest quality.
I believe that those measures taken together, in addition to those that we have already announced, will provide the essential support that our beef farming sector needs.
As for manufacturers, on 12 April I amended the emergency control order to allow imports of beef from animals over 30 months of age produced in certain third countries that traditionally supply the United Kingdom, in which there is no history of BSE. That was necessary to prevent closures in parts of the meat manufacturing industry which for technical reasons are heavily dependent on imports of older beef. I should emphasise that my decision to lift the ban on imports does not apply to imports from EU countries.
As for the slaughtering sector, in my recent statements I have informed the House of the additional resources that we are giving the Meat Hygiene Service to ensure rigorous enforcement of the rules on hygiene in slaughterhouses, especially in connection with specified bovine offals.
We have now received a report from Coopers and Lybrand, which was appointed on 4 April to quantify the economic difficulties facing the slaughterhouse sector. I have today placed in the Library a copy of that report, with minor excisions for reasons of commercial confidentiality. Coopers and Lybrand concluded that there is a substantial "blockage" in the slaughtering sector, valued at about £132 million at pre-crisis price levels, which is undermining the financial viability of many companies, to the extent that in the absence of action, widespread company failures are likely soon. Against that background, I believe that exceptional assistance is justified.
I can announce today that I propose to introduce an aid scheme which will inject £110 million into the slaughtering sector. It will consist of two elements. The first is that all slaughterhouses that continue to slaughter bovines will receive payment based on their throughput of cattle in 1995–96. The payment will be made in two stages, with 80 per cent. to be paid immediately, and the remaining 20 per cent. to be paid in two months' time. This assistance will replace the proposal to relieve slaughterhouses from Meat Hygiene Service red meat inspection charges to which I referred on 3 April. Assistance will be paid at the rate of around £8.75 for every bovine slaughtered during 1995–96, giving a total of £30 million to be paid under this head.
The second element is that the Government will introduce arrangements for purchasing and disposing of the blockage, which has already been identified and

515
audited under the supervision of Coopers and Lybrand. The intervention board will purchase those stocks at a valuation of 65 per cent. of the pre-crisis market price and will take responsibility for their secure disposal. The board will enter into discussions with the trade associations on the detailed mechanisms. We estimate that the total cost of this second aid will be £80 million, making £110 million of aid overall.
Pending parliamentary approval, which will be sought by way of supplementary estimates, necessary expenditure for the aid and for the top-up payment to producers of animals over 30 months old, to which I referred a few moments ago, will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.
The slaughtering sector was recognised, before the latest crisis, to have substantial over-capacity, and Coopers and Lybrand has confirmed that view. Rationalisation is therefore necessary. The substantial package of support I have announced should, however, provide a breathing space during which companies can adjust to the new market circumstances and make rational decisions about their future operations. Without that support, we risked the disorderly collapse of a sector on which a secure and efficient beef supply chain crucially depends.
I am, of course, aware that there may be other sectors that have stocks that they cannot bring to market. The support I have announced today is based on the particular circumstances and the role of the slaughtering sector. The Government therefore do not consider that equivalent assistance should be paid to other sectors. In the interests of public health and market confidence, however, I am asking the Intervention Board to accept responsibility for the disposal of unsaleable stocks currently held in the United Kingdom, at Government expense, if requested to do so.
The waste material, offals and carcase meat resulting from the actions I am announcing today will be treated primarily by rendering, with the resultant material to be disposed of by the best practicable environmental option. The ways and means of this are being discussed urgently with the industries concerned. That indicates the importance of the rendering industry to the beef chain. I announced previously a temporary subsidy for renderers, and first payments will be made this week.
The announcements I have made provide a comprehensive system of support for the essential links in the beef chain. They should enable the industry to plan for the future with confidence. However, there are two other aspects on which the House will wish to know the Government's position. I refer to the EC ban on UK exports and the possibility of selective culling to accelerate the decline in the incidence of BSE.
The Government will make every effort to secure the speedy elimination of the ban by whatever means are most likely to prove effective, including, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier, a legal challenge which will be made shortly in the European Court of Justice.
On selective culling, my experts are looking carefully at whether a cost-effective scheme could be devised. That remains to be seen. However, I should say at once that the picture that some have painted of a mass slaughtering
516
policy involving millions of cattle, in other words affecting a large proportion of the British herd, is wholly unreal.
The Government have no intention of adopting any such measure, which would be unacceptable on many grounds. The models we are considering involve limited numbers of individual animals—in the low tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands, far less millions, which is sometimes described—and do not provide for the slaughter of whole herds.
If an acceptable scheme can be devised—that is, one that is likely to reduce the incidence of BSE significantly at acceptable cost—the Government will consult on the details with all those interested before taking matters forward. We would implement the scheme only if we were satisfied that to do so was to the clear benefit of the United Kingdom beef industry—for example, if there were a direct understanding about the lifting of the EC ban.
The past few weeks have been a time of great concern for all those who work in the beef industry. As a Member of the House representing a rural constituency, I share the significant anxiety felt by all those who farm and whose livelihood depends on the beef industry. The extensive package of measures that I have announced today should go a long way to reassure farmers and other essential sectors of the beef industry that they can rely on the full support of the Government in this, their hour of need.
Dr. Gavin Strang: I remind the Minister that full confidence in the safety of British beef will return only when all the measures he has announced are in place and properly enforced. In that context, when does he expect all the measures that he has announced since 20 March 1996 to be brought into operation? Will he give the House an assurance that he is satisfied that the appalling breaches in the measures to keep the BSE agent out of our food that were revealed a few months ago will not be repeated?
I welcome many of the support arrangements that the Minister announced for the industry. Obviously, we shall want to examine the figures, but I welcome in principle his decision to accept that compensation for prime quality beef animals over 30 months should in principle be higher than for the lower value cull cows.
I welcome the Minister's announcement about the movement of the large quantities of beef that are now held in our cold stores and throughout the country. Will he give us some assurance that he believes that that will now get the market moving?
On the calf slaughter premium, I believe that the whole House will agree that it is a sad day when dairy farmers are now to be paid slightly more than £100 to slaughter a calf shortly after its birth. I ask the Minister to keep a close eye on this measure and to recognise that a balance should be struck between the interests of the beef industry, which is being hit hard, and those of the dairy sector.
I welcome the measures that the Minister announced about the quality assurance scheme or schemes. They are a far cry from the Prime Minister's initial response to this proposal when we made it. I strongly support the Minister's view that traceability is vital. This creates an opportunity to develop a range of schemes and to build up consumer confidence in beef—and perhaps, in the longer term, in other products—in a way that perhaps we should have done in years gone by.

517
Will the Minister give us an idea how long it will take to move all the beef that is currently in store? I do not mean the beef that is being taken into intervention—I welcome what the Minister said about intervention.
Is the Minister aware that the British Veterinary Association has warned that potentially very serious welfare problems are developing on our farms because large numbers of cattle aged more than 30 months are now being held? They have to be housed and fed, and farmers know that they will not be turned into beef, so the quality of the animal will not affect the level of compensation. I note that the Minister announced that the slaughter of those cattle aged over 30 months will come into operation on 29 April, but that is some time ahead.
Will the Minister look carefully at that issue? In that context, there is a lesson to be learned, not just about the importance of the Meat Hygiene Service—I welcome the additional resources that the Minister announced for it earlier—but about the importance of the state veterinary service and the work it does, on the ground, with the veterinary profession.
Has the Minister reached any conclusions—perhaps provisional—with the Secretary of State for the Environment about the disposal of the huge amount of waste that will be generated by the measures?
Does the Minister recognise that there has been widespread concern about the possibility of an additional selective slaughter programme involving the widespread slaughter of healthy animals? What he said today seems to suggest that he is responding to that concern. Has he consulted the industry about the limited figures that he announced today?
When will we receive the details of the additional slaughter programme? Obviously, as long as it is hanging over the industry, it will involve some uncertainty. The Minister advised the House a few weeks ago that he believed that it would be some years before we had a live test for BSE. In view of the recent discussion on the matter, is that still his view?
It is vital that the ban on the export of British beef and beef products is lifted. Is it true that any legal action is likely to take months to reach the courts? Will the Minister assure the House that such action cannot be a substitute for energetic political and diplomatic action to secure an agreed lifting of that ban?
Following the announcement on 20 March that the new CJD cases were likely to be linked with BSE, the Minister said:
"I do not believe that this information should damage consumer confidence and thus the beef market."—[Official Report, 20 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 387.]
Is it not clear that that was a remarkable misjudgment on the Government's part? Does it not explain why the Government seem to have been totally unprepared for the scale of the crisis that hit the beef industry following the announcements on 20 March?
While the Government have announced some useful measures, four weeks later there is still a crisis, and thousands of livelihoods are still at stake.
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman began by saying that it was important to restore consumer confidence. That is, of course, entirely right, and unless that happens, the health
518
of the British beef industry will not be restored. Part of the responsibility for the damage to consumer confidence lies with comments made not by the hon. Gentleman, but by some of his right hon. and hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman rebukes me for having said on a previous occasion that there was no reason why consumer confidence should be damaged; there was and is no reason why it should be damaged, because British beef is safe. It is perfectly true that confidence has been damaged, but that is a wholly different point.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the important matter of enforcing the SBO controls in the slaughterhouses—that is important; we have emphasised its importance, and we are putting in more resources. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the latest audit figures on that matter are encouraging.
The hon. Gentleman has asked me to keep an eye on calf slaughter, and I certainly will.
On a small point of clarification, the sum of £103 is payable to the slaughterer rather than the farmer involved.
By purchasing the overhang of beef in the abattoirs, we can achieve at least two things. First, we shall have clear physical space, which is desirable in some slaughterhouses, and, secondly, we shall provide some liquidity for slaughterhouse and abattoir owners so that they can more readily purchase beef in the marketplace.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the quality assurance scheme. I am focusing most on how to devise an exemption scheme for the 30-month-plus beast in respect of herds that may be described as self-contained and are not fed on material that is likely to cause BSE and so on. I am reluctant to look too closely at present at a quality assurance scheme in respect of cattle under the age of 30 months, as the proposition must be that all British beef from cattle under the age of 30 months is safe.
The hon. Gentleman is correct about traceability: it is an important point, and I hope that we shall come up with a passport system around 1 June. The hon. Gentleman made a point about the slaughter of cull cows. We must get on with that with all possible dispatch, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the measure. He paid tribute to the Meat Hygiene Service and to the state veterinary service, and so do I. The hon. Gentleman asked about the disposal of waste. There is substantial surplus capacity in the rendering industry, and most of the rendering in respect of cull cows will be done by that industry.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about a selective cull. I hope that what I have said in my statement today will reassure him and others: any cull that is designed to accelerate the reduction of BSE must be carefully targeted, and justified statistically according to scientific analysis. As to a live test, I regret to say that, so far as we can judge, there is no prospect of the early introduction of such a test. I wish that it were otherwise, but it does not appear to be so.
As to legal action, the hon. Gentleman is clearly correct when he says that substantive action could take a long time. However, it is possible also to seek interim relief, and that is what we shall do. The hon. Gentleman is also correct to say that negotiations are as important as legal action in the process.
Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the most pressing point made to

519
me in the past three weeks concerns the disposal of prime cattle aged more than 30 months? Therefore, I am very glad that he has announced a scheme that will effectively provide 111p per live kilo for disposal. Will he go a little further with regard to slow-maturing cattle, such as Highlanders and Galloways, which will almost inevitably be more than 30 months old when they go to market? Will he find some exemption system for those cattle?
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those comments. As I have said before, he knows more about the subject than almost anyone else in this place. His support for the top-up figure of 110p per kilo is very welcome, and I acknowledge it with thanks.
My right hon. Friend makes an important point about the slow-maturing herds, of which he has given an example. For that reason, we are looking at the possibility of devising an exemption scheme for cattle aged more than 30 months so as to permit those beasts to enter the food chain. It is an important point. We must make it plain that it is a justified exemption from the 30-month rule that does not prejudice human health in any way. We are working on it urgently.
Mr. Paul Tyler: The Minister knows that the Liberal Democrats have given cross-party support to the twin objectives of restoring consumer confidence and seeking to lift the ban in Europe. We welcome the Minister's statement, but our reaction is: why could it not have been made sooner? It is evident from the Minister's statement that many of the measures proposed in the package fall within United Kingdom Government jurisdiction, and do not depend upon the European Commission's approval.
Having said that, what has the Minister to say on the subject of the further delay for exempted breeds, which is obviously an extremely important point, given that cattle that have not had any potential exposure to contaminated feed must clearly, on the scientific evidence, be removed from any culling scheme? What will he tell those distraught farmers who are still waiting to hear what will happen? The Minister says that he seeks a scheme in the "longer term". What does he mean by that? What statutory powers does the Minister have to order the destruction of a healthy beef animal under animal disease legislation?
What representations has the Minister received from the farming unions on the level of compensation? Surely there should be compensation for the cull cow price before the crisis and before the market collapsed, rather than at the current level. The Minister will be aware that we support his overall objectives, but we shall be watching critically, as will the whole of rural Britain, to see how quickly the measures can be brought to speedy effect.
Mr. Hogg: I am pleased to get support wherever I can, even from the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman was more than a trifle churlish, but no matter—that was what I expected. He rebuked me for taking time, but, by their nature, some of these matters take time.
For example, it was important first to get the agreement of the Beef Management Committee to the 30-month scheme, as set out in the conclusions of the Agriculture Council. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the Beef
520
Management Committee did not meet until the end of last week. It was important to get its agreement before going on to the next stage, which in this context is to work at the exemption scheme. I wanted to get the agreement of the Beef Management Committee to the broad proposition before producing proposals to derogate from it, for reasons that I imagine the hon. Gentleman will treat as good.
The hon. Gentleman referred to statutory powers, and I am satisfied that they exist. However, there is a problem regarding the top-up. In principle, it would be difficult to justify paying under the top-up scheme a higher price per kilo for beef going for destruction than the price per kilo for beef going into the market for human consumption. The economic consequences would be perverse, so we should be chary about doing that. That is why, on the top-up scheme and the rate of compensation, I expressed myself as I did.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The House has a great deal of business before it today, and I am simply asking for co-operation in brisk questions and brisk answers.
Mr. Robert Key: May I thank my right hon. and learned Friend and his ministerial team for providing the answers that we hoped to hear? I congratulate him on that.
Will he kindly consult our right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and Inland Revenue officials on the knotty and difficult problem of tax? Farmers have a tight tax regime and, as I found when checked this morning, no special instruction has been given to collectors of tax on how to treat farmers, who are still receiving the same tax demands as they would under normal trading conditions. Associated industries are also under tight tax regimes and receive no helpful treatment, even when firms have been closed down directly as a result of the orders that my right hon. and learned Friend had to impose two weeks ago.
Mr. Hogg: I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's observations are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. John Home Robertson: I would like to hope that the Minister is in control of the situation, but I suspect that he is being driven by it. How many people are now out of work or on short time as a result of the Government's woeful handling of the crisis? Does he accept that the principal objective on which we should all agree is that BSE must be eradicated? Is that the Government's policy, and if not, why not?
Mr. Hogg: On unemployment, yes, people have been put on short time and have lost their jobs. That is a regrettable state of affairs. It has flowed for a variety of reasons, including a lack of consumer confidence. I repeat that the hon. Member for Peckham and others really have to face up to their responsibility for that.
On the eradication of BSE, the steps that we have already taken, in particular with regard to the changes in the constitution of animal feed—as the hon. Gentleman will know, we have excluded mammalian elements from the feed to be fed to all farm animals—will ultimately

521
produce no BSE or a very low incidence of that disease. The figures are reducing dramatically and encouragingly. If it were possible in a highly targeted way substantially and cost-effectively to accelerate the process of eradication, the House might well consider that a desirable course of action.
Mr. Robert Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a foolproof system of identification and tracing, including movements from birth to slaughter, and possibly electronic tagging, is an essential element in restoring consumer confidence at home and abroad?
Mr. Hogg: I do, and the Northern Irish can give us an example in that respect.
Mr. William Ross: Does the Minister appreciate that farmers will be happy that, after this tortuous month, they now have some idea of their likely financial position? Would it not have been much wiser if the Minister had had a contingency plan prepared from last November in case the situation went wildly wrong, as has happened? Is the Minister aware that the scheme that he has formulated for cattle over 30 months old does not mention bull beef, only steers and heifers? What will happen to that class of animal?
Is the Minister further aware that, as the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) pointed out, there must be a large regional difference in the value of cull cows? Can the Minister tell farmers that some cognisance will be taken of that difference in the top-up scheme? Farmers in Northern Ireland will be down by £150 per head on pre-crisis prices.
Will the Minister ask the Leader of the House to arrange a debate on this complex and detailed statement, because it cannot be explored in the time that we have today?
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. Of course, we have already had one debate on this subject, some two weeks ago.
On the subject of Northern Ireland, I have had great assistance from my noble Friend Lady Denton, and I am grateful for the way that the interests of Northern Ireland have been protected by her and my right hon. and learned Friend Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In that context, I will listen to my noble Friend's views on the question of bull beef. The valuation of the cull cow is in fact prescribed in the European document.
Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that his words will be widely welcomed by dairy and beef farmers, and also by the slaughterers. Will he think again about the manufacturers, such as the large pie factory in my constituency? Their businesses have been very substantially hit, and the employment of their employees is now very fragile. Since Mr. Fischler seems to think that British beef is safe, will my right hon. and learned Friend call in the bosses of McDonald's and Burger King and ask them to put their confidence in British beef and put it back into their products?
Mr. Hogg: I am conscious of the situation in my hon. Friend's constituency, and others, with regard to pie
522
making. It was partly representations made by my hon. Friend that persuaded me of the need to lift the prohibition on imports into the United Kingdom from third countries where there was no BSE. My hon. Friend's representations had a considerable part to play in causing me to come to that decision, but I cannot go any further on the question of market support, which was the first point that my hon. Friend made. On the question of McDonald's and others, I and my hon. Friends in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have, on several occasions, met manufacturers' representatives, including McDonald's.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the Government have come a long way from the heady days of their philosophy of allowing the market to put everything right? In that regard, I remind him about the mining industry. The Government allowed every pit in Derbyshire to be closed, and refused to discuss subsidies.
Now that the Minister has crossed that great divide, will he turn his attention to the many people who have lost and will lose their jobs in this crisis, including those who transport the meat, and those in the food retail business—the workers? Can we have some guarantee that, if the Minister subsidises farmers, those in the slaughterhouses and the manufacturers, he will ensure that every worker who loses a job as a result of this Government crisis gets proper compensation?
Mr. Hogg: I accept that that is the authentic voice of Labour, but I could not commend it to the House or to the country. We are in the business of trying to identify those links in the chain that are essential to the survival of a healthy British beef industry. It is for that reason that we have come to the particular decisions that I have announced today—for example, about renderers and the abattoirs, which satisfy the requirement precisely.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Does my right hon. and learned Friend have the agreement of our European masters that the top-up for the steer aged 30 months plus, which is a state aid, should go ahead? If no such agreement is forthcoming, what will happen? Now that we have a vast plethora of money from the British taxpayer, what will be the net contribution overall from the European Union, which caused this great crisis? Will it be about 10 per cent?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right to say that I have introduced a number of measures which are properly classified as state aids. They need to be notified to the European Union in the ordinary way. Informally they have been, and formally they will be, and I anticipate agreement.
On the second part of his question, on the rebate, my hon. Friend is right. Because of the impact of the rebate, on the margins United Kingdom taxpayers pay a high proportion of additional expenditure in the United Kingdom, albeit that it comes in the first instance from European Union funds. That is not an argument against it, but it is an argument in favour of making the position clear.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Minister give some assurance that the historic market supplement prices may be available for longer than six months in order to get long-term confidence? Will the £100 calf

523
premium be available to the producer, or will costs have to be taken out for meat hygiene purposes? Will the Government make a point during the next week of linking up individually with all our colleagues in the European Union ahead of the meeting at the end of April of the Council of Ministers in order to ensure that each individual member state understands our point, which the Commission clearly does not?
Mr. Hogg: With regard to dairy calves, the hon. Gentleman should know that the £103 is a payment to the slaughterer and there will be deductions from that by the slaughterer so that the farmer will in fact receive less than £103. With regard to the top-up, at the moment we have in mind that the top-up should be payable for some six months. The justification for that is that it is possible in our judgment in respect of beasts under the age of 24 months so to alter the management of the beasts that they can be brought to market for beef purposes under the age of 30 months. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think that that is a good justification.
With regard to negotiations within the European Union, if I am to be absolutely honest, I believe that the Commissioner has a much clearer view of the problems than the member states. I have found much more sense coming from the Commission than from many of the Ministers at the Agriculture Council.
Mr. Tom King: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there are obviously enormous benefits to come from the lifting of the European ban, but it cannot be at any price; and, since British beef is safe, it would be simply intolerable if we engaged in a massive slaughter of beasts known to be perfectly healthy? Is my right hon. and learned Friend giving any consideration to whether beasts that are aged over 30 months, which for the moment are not to go into the food chain, could be slaughtered and the meat stored against the time when greater scientific knowledge might give the reassurance necessary for its perfectly safe consumption?
Mr. Hogg: I can well understand my right hon. Friend's concern about the impact of a massive —if I might use his word—culling policy, and that is not in our mind. The question is whether it is possible, by a carefully targeted culling policy which would substantially reduce the predicted numbers of confirmed BSE cases, to come forward with a policy that would be acceptable to the industry and the House. That is something that I should like to work away at, because to accelerate the decline in BSE in the British herd is intrinsically worth doing if it can be done in a sustainable and sensible way.
On the suggestion of putting beef into cold storage for long periods, I would prefer the measures that I have outlined.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What action is being taken on the science of all this? Ministers will know that I have sent them evidence from the New Scientist of experiments such as those at Ames, Iowa, where scrapie was injected into bovines, with the result that, although there was illness, it was not at all related to BSE. What is being done about protein 130 and 131 experiments, and, indeed, prions in feed, and the possible linkage
524
between BSE and the shortage of magnesium—hypomagnacaemia? All these matters are very important. Will the Minister at least put something in the Library to convince us that the root causes really are being pursued?
Mr. Hogg: I certainly hope that the root causes are being addressed. We are spending a great deal of money on research into the condition, and on ways to develop, for example, live tests and other ways to determine whether a beast is affected. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee is the main source of scientific advice, and has proved of enormous importance in this area. I shall explore whether it is possible in a sensible way to summarise in a brief paper the main avenues of scientific investigation at the moment, and shall see whether we can put that in the Library. That is not a commitment to do so, but it is a commitment to see whether it can sensibly be done.
Mr. Paul Marland: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the beef industry will give a warm welcome to his statement this afternoon, not only because of the careful way in which he thought it through and the action that he proposes, but because of the way in which he has not allowed his head to be turned in the past few weeks by some of the hysterical comments from elsewhere?
In view of the statement and the steps that will be taken to reassure confidence in British beef, how long does my right hon. and learned Friend think it will be before the European Commission reconsiders the ban on British beef, especially in the light of some of the comments that have been made by European Commissioners and the fact that, the longer the situation has gone on, the more evidence has been produced in this country—I found some myself in Gloucester market last week—that BSE exists in Europe?
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind support. He is right that BSE exists in Europe, and I suspect that it exists in much more substantial quantities than has been formally admitted by the respective Governments in Europe.
I find the remarks made by Commissioner Fischler extremely helpful because they reinforce the points that we wish to make in the legal action. We will press ahead in our attempts to get the ban lifted—and the national bans as well—with all possible dispatch, but I do not think it sensible at the moment for me to express an end date. Therefore, I cannot help my hon. Friend on that point.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: How will the animal passport system work in the context of the national database, which the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) called for? That is the way in which the Dutch organise their market, and it was also the subject of a Select Committee recommendation. Is it not time that we go down that route, and do so rapidly, as the hon. Gentleman said? What will happen to the beef that the Community has accepted should go into intervention?
Mr. Hogg: On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it depends on whether there is a market for the beef. I do not exclude the possibility that ultimately it will be destroyed. That would be lamentable, because in truth that beef is safe, but consumption depends on a willingness to buy, and that in turn depends on consumer confidence.

525
On the first part of the question, the modalities need to be further explored, but the hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of traceability and passports. We hope to have firm proposals in place by 1 June. We shall consult the industry to ensure that what we have in mind is a sensible scheme.
Mr. John Greenway: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement, and for listening so carefully to the many representations relating to the issues in it which have been made over the past two or three weeks. Is it not clear, however, that what he has said this afternoon involves not just ensuring the recovery of confidence in beef in Britain, but addressing the problem of the European ban? I am sure that farmers will welcome the Government's announcement that they will press a legal challenge against it, but has not the ban itself become the problem? What will other member states do to deal with the problem of BSE in those states, whose existence is recognised by consumers throughout Europe, by implementing the sort of measures that we now have in Britain?
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made some valuable suggestions to me in the past three or four weeks. He is right to focus on the ban: it is a serious problem, and we shall have to work expeditiously and vigorously to try to ensure that it is lifted at an early stage. He is also right to focus on the absence of proper slaughterhouse controls in a number of European Union countries. That concerns us, and it needs to be raised at European Union level.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: A number of the measures announced by the Minister are welcome and will be well received, although we have waited some time for them. Does he accept, however, that unemployment in the industry has a disastrous effect not just on the workers in question but on the skills base, which is crucial?
In my constituency in Aberdeenshire, which exports the creme de la creme, the lifting of the ban is a matter of urgency. What would the Minister say to firms such as Donald Russell, in my constituency? Its business is 98 per cent. exports, 80 per cent. beef, and it is one of the best companies in the world; but it now has no market. What practical steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the ban is lifted, and when does he think that he will achieve that?
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his words of support. I entirely understand and share his distress at the unemployment he sees in his constituency, which results from a development that is in no sense the fault of the companies concerned. It is very hard not to be able to export prime beef of the quality that the hon. Gentleman describes.
The schemes that I have outlined today will assist farmers and producers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is obviously desirable for us to secure the lifting of the ban; it is also desirable for us to secure an exemption that would justify allowing certain classes of herd over the age of 30 months to enter the human food chain. That will be of particular value to the producer referred to by the hon. Gentleman, and we are taking such action.
Sir Peter Emery: The House welcomes all the proposals presented by my right hon. and learned Friend,
526
many of which have been well thought out. Will he tell us the total cost, however—he may have to give an estimate—in order to make it clear that, although this action will cost the nation a great deal, the farming industry and those involved in the meat industry will also lose a great deal? Will he confirm that, in this year's tax returns, farmers can value their stock according to the price of the animals in March and April rather than the price at any other time?
Mr. Hogg: Given that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is sitting two places away from me, it might be imprudent for me to perform the calculation that my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) invites me to perform. I do not exclude the possibility that I will have to talk to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary about some other matter on another occasion, so my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton can do his own sums—but we are talking about a large amount of public money.
As for the tax point, I think that it should be raised with Treasury Ministers. Important tax questions are involved, and I would rather not trespass on them.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Why is there no agreed eradication policy one month after the Minister has admitted the failure of his policy? How much longer will we have to wait for the beef specialist measures that he has promised? Is the Minister aware that the TSB report estimates that 8,000 Scottish jobs would be lost with a 25 per cent. downturn in throughput compared with the 40 per cent. downturn that the Minister has admitted? What steps is he taking to ensure that compensation fairly matches the actual losses sustained by farmers and others?
Mr. Hogg: I tried to do that in my statement. I explained in considerable detail what we are doing to help the beef industry, and I also outlined the broad purpose, which is to keep in being those links in the chain whose existence we regard as absolutely vital. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that we are in the business of compensating each and every person who has suffered loss. We cannot do that, because it would involve billions of pounds, and I could not justify that in terms of public expenditure.
Sir John Cope: My right hon. and learned Friend's statement is welcome. Will he do all he can to speed up the further and better particulars on the long-run scheme for premium beef? It has never been obvious why 30 months was appropriate for much of that beef. My right hon. and learned Friend did not mention the feed merchants. I should be grateful if he could say a word about them.
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of the exemption scheme in respect of specialist herds that are brought to market when they are over the age of 30 months. We shall make what progress we can as speedily as we can. The 30-months term was used by SEAC, and it was the term around which the industry subsequently rallied. Feed merchants were the subject of one of my previous statements, in which I made it plain that we were prohibiting the use of mammalian protein in feedstuffs for all farm animals.
Mr. Harry Barnes: If there were live tests for BSE, we would begin to crack the

527
problem. As has been asked twice earlier, what urgency and what resources are being put in by the Government to try to get live test details provided?
Mr. Hogg: I recall that the hon. Gentleman was on the Select Committee before which I had the pleasure of appearing.
Mr. Barnes indicated dissent.
Mr. Hogg: I am wrong, and I apologise.
The live test is an important instrument of policy. We are striving to get one, and if we can, so much the better. Work is being carried out in various areas, and if we felt that investing more money would lead to a speedier conclusion, in all probability we would do that. However, the advice that I am getting is that progress is being made as rapidly as possible. I am satisfied that that is the case.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister will be aware that the great difficulty in Northern Ireland is blockage. He will know that £25 million-worth of beef is being held in store, and that, until that moves, the chain of cattle being slaughtered cannot move.
Can he assure me that the details under paragraph 14 of his statement were identified and audited under the supervision of Coopers and Lybrand? Will the intervention board be prepared to buy this meat, so that the blockage can be cleared and the cattle that are building up on Northern Ireland farms can be slaughtered and the meat used for consumption? Does the Minister agree that, as Commissioner Fischler thinks that English beef is good, so the whole of Europe should think it is good, and should lift the ban which is at the root of the matter?
Mr. Hogg: I agree: where the commissioner has led, I hope that European Ministers will follow. The blockage in Northern Ireland is causing major concern and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is much preoccupied by it. I hope that we shall get speedy movement on the blockage. The intervention board will look at applications in April and May for the clearance of blockages in the slaughterhouses.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the Minister accept that such recovery as he has noticed is due more to the collapse in price than to any action that is being taken by his Ministry? [HON. MEMBERS: ""Not true."] It was £1 a pound in Staffordshire last Thursday.
Will the Minister look at the incidence of BSE among animals that have never been fed infected materials? I am aware of herds in my constituency where there has never been a case of BSE in those circumstances, whereas there were cases when infected feed was being used. In view of that, is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's cautious view on culling entirely justified? When can the House be informed about the definitions that will apply to the culling exercise?
Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been discounting of prices, although prices in the shops are now recovering. I accept that the situation is patchy, but nevertheless there has been a substantial recovery in prices in the shops.
528
The hon. Gentleman is also right about the problems associated with selected cows. If we are to deal with them, it is important to do so in respect of only those beasts that we can reasonably say have been exposed to a higher risk of infection. It is possible to do that, but before I go public on our methodology, I would like to test it—together with a whole range of other people—to ensure that it is right.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his great efforts in getting the market moving again. If he decides that the collection, weighing and grading of animals may be done only at some centres, will he consider the Lancaster Farmer Auction Mart, which has an out-of-town site, has easy access to the motorway, has the most up-to-date facilities and is next to an abattoir? It is the ideal regional centre for that part of the world.
Mr. Hogg: As I would expect, my hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for a constituency cause. I will pay careful attention, without commitment, to what she has said.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Why is the Minister so diffident about raising a legal action at the European Court of Justice? Everyone here knows that Spanish Fisheries Ministers do not share that diffidence. Does he accept that, had he made an early formal statement of his intention to go to the Court in Luxembourg, it would have strengthened his negotiating hand in Brussels and enhanced the British public's confidence in the Government's handling of the issue? If he seeks compensation at the Court, I hope that he will not overlook the plight of those who have already lost their jobs because of this scandalous affair.
Mr. Hogg: During the four or five weeks of the course of this matter, this is the first time I have been accused of being diffident. I have not been diffident about legal action—I have said that we intend to take legal action, and that is what we will do.
Mr. Robert Hicks: I welcome the measures announced by my right hon. and learned Friend, which are designed to restore confidence not only in the beef market, but in the rural economy as a whole. Is he aware that the most urgent decision we now await is to extend the 30-months slaughter period for the specialist beef producer? Does he realise that, in Devon and Cornwall, it is that major concern that has led to the uncertainty over the past two or three weeks?
Mr. Hogg: I have considerable sympathy for my hon. Friend's point. I remind him of the top-up scheme, which will be of some assistance to the specialist herd producers. However, I agree that we need to work at an exemption with a view to agreeing one as speedily as possible. It is an important point.
Mrs. Helen Jackson: In view of the concern of public and environmental health authorities about the spreading of blood and other animal fragments on agricultural land, will the Minister ensure that the "secure disposal" of the abattoir waste to which he referred will prevent any of it from being spread on

529
agricultural land as fertiliser in a way that would allow it to get into the food chain—or, even worse, the drinking water supply?
Mr. Hogg: That is an important point, and it is desirable not to confuse two facts. Specified bovine offal—now known as specified bovine material—is not in any circumstances spread on fields; it is destroyed. In the past, blood and gut—which does not contain SBMs—has been spread on fields. So far as we can judge, blood does not retain in it any BSE infectivity. That practice has been discontinued for the moment, and, if there was any desire to recommence it, one would certainly want to take into account the points made by the hon. Lady.
Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the enthusiasm with which he has received Mr. Fischler's remarks in the past few days? Will he bear in mind the fact that he will of course be taking action against the European Commission in this action in the Court of Justice? Is it not therefore extremely unwise to give the impression that we are somehow supporting the European Commission, when the whole matter has been driven not only by them but by the other member states, producing a situation in which we have ended up with an illegal ban being imposed on the beef and dairy farmers of this country?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend may have misunderstood me, in which case I am sorry; I am sure that the fault is mine. I meant to say that I very much welcomed Commissioner Fischler's statement that British beef is safe. That statement was also made by President Santer, which I welcome. Those statements are wholly right, and have been well made by the Commissioners. We are entitled to rely on those assertions by two leading Commissioners in support of our argument that the action taken by the Commission is illegal, not least because it is disproportionate, having regard to what Commissioner Fischler and President Santer have said.

Business of the House
4.41 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Madam Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a short business statement.
After discussions through the usual channels, the business for Thursday 18 April will now be as follows:
Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill. A draft of the Bill is available in the Vote Office.
The business previously announced for that day will be taken on a later occasion.
MONDAY 22 APRIL AND TUESDAY 23 APRIL—Committee and remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill.
I will announce the business for the remainder of that week in my usual business statement on Thursday.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement and assure him that the Opposition understand the urgency associated with the Bill and generally welcome it as a necessary step towards all-party negotiations on 10 June. However, I am disturbed that the House has not been given proper notice and was not informed before the recess that this business might take place at this time.
The Leader of the House will be aware that, since the Jopling changes, on all occasions I have urged him to give as much notice as possible of future business, even on a provisional basis, on the understanding that some flexibility might be required. On that basis, hon. Members should have had more warning that this business might be slotted in this week.
Although we acknowledge the urgency of this measure, surely this would have been an ideal opportunity for a draft Bill and associated papers to be published earlier, as requested by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, so that all hon. Members could have had at least the Easter recess to consider its provisions. As there is general support for this measure among hon. Members and a genuine desire to get the legislation right, surely the Government could have adopted a more mature approach on this occasion rather than informing them at the last moment.
Will the Leader of the House assure us that proper arrangements will be made so that all hon. Members are able to table amendments—including, if necessary, manuscript amendments—at all stages of the Bill's passage? Can he tell us what the Government intend to do to ensure that all stages of the Bill are completed according to the time scale which he has given us today? Will the Government be moving a timetable motion, or is the Leader of the House proposing an open-ended debate for the Bill's Committee and remaining stages?
Mr. Newton: On the latter point, I should certainly hope that—with the co-operation that the hon. Lady has reaffirmed on behalf of the Opposition, which I understand has been expressed in some other quarters as well—it will be possible to deal with the Bill in the normal way. Were things to go wrong, clearly we would have to consider the position.

531
On the question of amendments, of course—as I hope I demonstrated with the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill shortly before Easter—I will always do anything I can to co-operate in easing practical problems when speedy passage of legislation is required. Specifically, we intend to table a motion allowing for amendments to be tabled before Second Reading, which I understand would be for the convenience of some hon. Members.
On the hon. Lady's earlier comments, the proper course is simply for me to say that I understand why she made them. I hope that she, in turn, will understand that I regard those comments as marginally unfair. In the circumstances in which the Bill was not drafted before Easter, we could not be sure that it would be possible to draft the measure according to a time scale that would permit what she has called for. She will know that, for many weeks, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), have been quite properly engaged in a great deal of consultation with her colleagues and with hon. Members in other parties concerned with Northern Ireland.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I assure the Leader of the House that my right hon. and hon. Friends will co-operate with him to ensure that the Bill proceeds according to the timetable necessary for it to be implemented. May I, however, press him on two matters? First, as the Second Reading will be concluded on Thursday night, may we have an assurance that amendments can be tabled up to the time of the selection of amendments on Tuesday morning so that there is maximum opportunity for hon. Members to table amendments for debate?
I understand the Leader of the House's reservation on the second matter, but—provided the House is willing, if necessary, to sit late through the Committee stage—can we take the necessary time to debate the amendments at Committee and Report stages, without a guillotine if possible, so that no hon. Member feels that this very important piece of legislation is being steamrollered through?
More mischievously, may I say that I hope, for the sake of the Leader of the House, that we do not have more such legislation? Otherwise there will be absolutely nothing left for the Government to get us to do in the remaining year of this Parliament.
Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman's latter remarks are a very long way from the truth, but I shall not go further down that path.
On the hon. Gentleman's earlier two points, I cannot add very much to what I said about how we hope that it will be possible for the Bill to progress. I am grateful to him for reaffirming his party's constructive approach to the Bill.
On the selection of amendments, we are once again treading in an area that is for you, Madam Speaker. If I may say so, Madam Speaker, you and the Clerks at the
532
Table demonstrated no less good will than I did, I hope, in facilitating consideration of the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill.
Mr. William Ross: As this Bill creates an electoral procedure and a body that can, at its best, charitably be described as "very novel" in the United Kingdom, does the Leader of the House think that it is reasonable that we should be asked to absorb what has been put before us today and to take part in a Second Reading debate by Thursday? Will he assure us that, when we come to the Committee and remaining stages of the Bill next Monday and Tuesday, the House will be prepared to sit late on both nights to give the greatest possible consideration to this novel procedure—so that we can meet the time scale for this Bill laid down by the IRA?
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I have already said about how I hope that the House will be prepared to deal with the Bill. I should be sad if the hon. Gentleman felt this way; but if he does feel that he is being asked to do something unreasonable, I have no doubt that he will find ways to make that clear. However, I hope that he will acknowledge that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has gone to considerable lengths to try to carry people with him after it was plain that not all of them could get everything that they wanted. That has involved a good deal of careful discussion with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is not it right that the Bill has to be rushed through because two Governments decided that the deadline, to please the Irish Republican Army, would be 10 May? Is that not why we have to pass the Bill with such speed? Taking into account what the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said, is it not the case that, if there is to be a timetable motion, we shall be examining without full debate a procedure to elect people whose parties have been defeated in the election? Therefore, some parties that could not win a seat under the procedures set out in the Bill will at least get two seats if they are within the first 10. That is a most novel way to get people to a forum or to discussions. Surely something with such constitutional implications should have time to be discussed fully.
Mr. Newton: You may perhaps agree, Madam Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman is tempting me to discuss the Bill rather than its handling. Against the background of the determination of my right hon. and learned Friend and, indeed, the whole Government—although perhaps not in the terms that the hon. Gentleman used—to get negotiations started on 10 June, which led to the timetable that I set out, the provision of three full days to debate the Bill is neither unreasonable nor ungenerous.
Mr. Tony Banks: I must register my disappointment that the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, which was to have been debated on Thursday, is to be postponed. Can the Leader of the House give us any information on when its remaining stages will be dealt with?
Can the right hon. Gentleman also help me with regard to the business for Friday 19 April? I see from my Whip that we are to debate the remaining stages of the

533
"Prisoners' Earrings Bill"; is that a Government measure to brighten up our overcrowded prisons or a new method of restraint to stop our prisoners escaping?
Mr. Newton: I cannot help the hon. Gentleman with his earrings problem, but I shall see what intelligence I can secure for him. As for the first part of his question—I have forgotten what it was.
Mr. Banks: The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill.
Mr. Newton: Oh, yes. I cannot at present tell him exactly what day it will be dealt with, but we shall not be looking to delay it any longer than we have to.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Has the Leader of the House overlooked the fact that the Scottish Grand Committee is meeting in Inverness on Monday? May I remind him that many Scottish Members have a deep and abiding interest in matters relating to Northern Ireland? Is the meeting in Inverness to be postponed? If not, why were Tuesday and Wednesday of next week not selected to debate such an important Bill?
Mr. Newton: The proposed arrangements for the passage of the Bill also have to take account of the need for it to be discussed in another place and the need for secondary legislation to follow it before the processes leading to the election—and, therefore, the negotiations—can be put in place.
Mr. Alex Salmond: That was a very poor reply about accommodating Scottish business, but I want the Leader of the House to think about the displaced business, given the urgency of the new business for next week, which I understand. He will have noted from the response to the previous statement that hon. Members of all parties—Members whose constituencies are probably experiencing hundreds of job losses—have considerable interest in having another debate on bovine spongiform encephalopathy. If we have such a debate—perhaps the Leader of the House can specify when it will occur—will he make arrangements for the Secretary of State for Scotland to participate in it, given his inactivity during a crisis which has such a strong Scottish dimension?
Mr. Newton: For a long time, I have shown that I am not unmindful of the needs of Scottish business and that I look carefully at requests such as that which the hon. Gentleman has made. Having seen my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in action, I reject out of hand any suggestion that he has not been vigorously involved in the effort to find solutions to some of the problems arising from the beef crisis.

NEW MEMBER
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
Brian David Jenkins Esq., for South-East Staffordshire.

Vaccine Damage Payments (Amendment)
4.56 pm
Mr. Richard Burden: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a review of the operation of, and make amendments to, the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979.
I, too, welcome my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Staffordshire (Mr. Jenkins).
I am grateful for this opportunity to bring to the House's attention injustices being created by the operation of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 and to propose what I hope the House will agree is a sensible suggestion for its review.
I must make it clear that I support vaccination. I recognise the huge contribution to the nation's health made by mass immunisation. The benefits of immunisation clearly and definitely outweigh the risks, but the risks are real enough for the small minority of children who are damaged every year following an adverse reaction to routine vaccinations administered as part of the Government's public health programme.
In the 1970s, the then Prime Minister—now Lord Callaghan—recognised how important it was to confidence in the vaccination programme that public anxiety about vaccine-damaged children be addressed. In 1978, therefore, the Pearson commission on civil liability and compensation for personal injury recommended a weekly disability benefit for all severely disabled children
"irrespective of cause of disablement".
It added:
"the Government or local authority concerned should be strictly liable in tort for severe damages suffered by anyone (adult or child) as a result of vaccination which has been recommended in the interests of the community".
The Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 was introduced as a temporary measure, but, 17 years on, still far too many families are being provided with little or no compensation because of the failure to update that inadequate legislation. Indeed, it is hard to find anyone who believes that the Act is working fairly and effectively in its present form.
The problems with the Act were first brought to my attention by my constituent, Mrs. Olivia Price, whose baby daughter Melissa was vaccinated in 1976. She believed that the vaccinations would provide her child with vital protection against debilitating diseases in the years to come so, as a caring mother would, she agreed to them. After vaccination, however, Melissa suffered fainting spells, spasms and various behavioural problems. Mrs. Price's worries were initially dismissed as those of a "fussy mother", but medical reports show that vaccination was indeed the cause of the brain damage that has denied Melissa the chance of a normal life. In 1979, Olivia Price applied for a vaccine damage payment and received a one-off payment of £10,000, which was available at the time.
Later awards to families increased to £20,000, and subsequently, to £30,000 in 1991. Such awards remain woefully inadequate for the care of a severely disabled child for the rest of his or her life. What is more, they are paltry compared with what victims of medical accidents may receive in court and with what victims of vaccine damage may receive in other countries.

535
In the United States, for example, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act 1986 paid out $74 million to just 145 families in its first four years under a scheme funded by a combination of tax on the sale of vaccines and money from Congress. In Japan, the courts have made large compensation awards to families of people who died or have been permanently damaged. In Ireland, a £2.75 million award was made to Kenneth Best, who was brain damaged by whooping cough vaccine.
Mrs. Price has obtained legal aid to try to secure compensation by proving negligence through the courts. I wish her well in that, but I do not think that she should have to jump through such hoops to get the support that she and Melissa need. The Government's treatment of Melissa falls far short of what the Pearson commission saw as reasonable recompense for children in her position and, more important, the principle of equal treatment for disabled people that lay behind its recommendations.
The inadequate level of payments is only one of the three main problems associated with the Vaccine Damage Payments Act that require review. The Act also contains an illogical rule that denies children who are said to be less than 80 per cent. disabled any assistance whatever. That rule has, for example, prevented Edward, who lives in Crawley, from getting any payment, even though he was left badly paralysed, with one leg considerably shorter than the other, following a reaction to a polio vaccination in 1986.
A further problem with the Act is that there is a six-year time limit in which claims must be made. That has excluded some families from even having their claims investigated. That is particularly unfair since the Government took very few steps initially to inform parents, and failed to provide doctors and social workers with the information that they need to make parents aware of their rights. New research suggests that the six-year rule is even more unjust, since it appears that measles vaccine virus can cause inflammatory bowel disease, which shows up some years after vaccination.
The result of all that is that three quarters of all claims have been rejected. Up to 31 March 1995, only 876 of the 3,667 claims have resulted in an award under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act—210 of those fell foul of the time limit and 569 were refused for medical reasons associated with the 80 per cent. rule. Not only are we failing to deliver justice in the interests of our national health to those who suffer, but in doing so we are potentially undermining a vital public health programme.
536
The Government spend large sums on promoting their vaccination programme. A doctor vaccinating 90 per cent. of children under the age of two on his or her list even gets an incentive bonus in excess of £2,000. Moreover, in 1994, £3.5 million was spent on a campaign to promote a single vaccination for measles and rubella—four and a half times the amount paid to victims of vaccinations since 1987.
Such promotions pay great dividends. The World Health Organisation estimates that the global saving from eliminating polio will be about $3 billion by 2015. That is a vast saving. In part at least, it has been paid for by the victims of vaccine damage. Surely, as part of that effort to eliminate disease, it is not unreasonable to allocate some of those savings to proper provision for children who suffer damage.
Vaccine manufacturers have also reaped substantial benefits from the immunisation programme. Companies such as Glaxo Wellcome plc and SmithKline Beecham plc each year make millions of pounds of profit. Could such companies not contribute towards a fund to compensate the tiny minority who suffer as a result of being administered the vaccine that they supply?
The review of the Act that my Bill recommends should examine compensation levels, investigate the provision of a fixed sum for those who are less than 80 per cent. disabled, ensure that claims that have been rejected are properly investigated and ensure that payment should not be refused because of unrealistic time limits. The problem of vaccine damage has been ignored for far too long; it now requires action. An early-day motion that I tabled almost two years ago was supported by more than 200 hon. Members. A further motion, which I have tabled today, looks likely to gain even greater support. It is clear that hon. Members from all parties want action in support of vaccine damaged children, and the House now has a chance to do something about it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Burden, Mr. Roger Berry, Sir Patrick Cormack, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. Nigel Griffiths, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mrs. Diana Maddock, Ms Rachel Squire, Sir Teddy Taylor and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

Vaccine Damage Payments (Amendment)
  VACCINE DAMAGE PAYMENTS (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Richard Burden accordingly presented a Bill to provide for a review of the operation of, and make amendments to, the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10 May and to be printed. [Bill 104.]
Orders of the Day

  Broadcasting Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the Secretary of State for National Heritage, I have two announcements to make. First, Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and secondly, all Back-Bench speeches will have to be restricted to 10 minutes.
  5.5 pm
  The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  We stand on the verge of a new broadcasting revolution even more significant than the change from black and white to colour television. Digital technology has the potential to bring new and different services to viewers. It can bring more income to the broadcasting industry and more jobs across the country. Digital television offers improvements in picture quality, increased potential for wide-screen broadcasts, interactive television, more subscription services and, above all, many more channels and greater choice. The Bill will give British industry the chance to lead the world into the digital age.
  We already have a broadcasting industry that is admired and envied by other nations. Our programmes are sold to broadcasters all over the world, and once digital television is up and running the domestic and international market should grow considerably. That will mean more jobs for the UK at every stage in the broadcasting chain—from the manufacture of television sets to the production of programmes. The worldwide move to digital technology means a worldwide demand for programmes and equipment, which the UK is already well placed to supply.
  The media is an industry unlike any other. It informs, influences and engenders public opinion and debate. Debate and discussion over the airwaves has become a central feature of our culture and way of life. In an advanced democracy such as ours, it is important that there are as many voices competing for the attentions of the nation's viewers and listeners as possible. By international standards, this country already has one of the most liberal media ownership regimes. The Bill provides substantial further liberalisation to enable media businesses to grow and operate more flexibly in an ever more competitive world. We need, however, to retain essential safeguards on plurality of ownership which go beyond the backstop provided by general competition legislation. The special protection provided to broadcasting reflects its influence and importance over people's lives.
  The Bill is based on three key principles. We must safeguard plurality of ownership and diversity of voice—the lifeblood of a successful and vibrant media industry. We want to foster the competitiveness of the UK broadcasting industry. We lead the world in digital technology, we are a net exporter of television sets and we are the largest exporter of television programmes after the United States. The Bill will enable us to remain at
  538
  the forefront of the global information revolution. We are determined to maintain broadcasting standards in the digital age.
  Mr. David Alton: On standards and the culture of violence that has been created as a result of, in particular, Hollywood-style programmes being broadcast so much over our airwaves—400 killings are broadcast each week on British television—does the Secretary of State think that digital technology provides an opportunity to introduce the V-chip, as has already happened in the United States and Canada? Does she agree that harmonisation with those countries, and with the decision taken by the European Parliament on the same subject, should be dealt with under the Bill? Will she take the opportunity of repudiating the article in the Financial Times that suggested that she would be hostile to such an amendment to the Bill?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that I share his concerns about the effect of television violence, especially on children. I believe that it is right to explore the options offered by the V-chip, albeit that the technology is at an early stage and that there would be all sorts of complications associated with introducing it in practice. I shall certainly not dismiss it as an option until the idea has been explored.
  Undoubtedly we should use the opportunity provided by the Bill and all the other mechanisms at our disposal to ensure that as we move towards the great expansion of television—digital, satellite, cable and terrestrial—it does not result in endless violence coming through on our screens, which would damage our young people. I make it clear that we want to uphold our unique tradition of public service broadcasting, and that we shall not relax our controls that prevent the broadcasting of violent or otherwise offensive material.
  The Bill will have far-reaching effects on the industry.
  Ms Angela Eagle: If, as I hope, the right hon. Lady is as concerned as I am to maintain our long tradition of public service broadcasting, why has the Bill nothing to say about quality with regard to the multiplex providers?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I am sure that the subject will be debated further in Committee and at other times during the passage of the Bill. We are maintaining the same high criteria for public service broadcasters. As we go for a great expansion in the number of channels, it is important that they should satisfy the criteria, such as that of variety, and the other tests set for them, just as standards are set for cable and satellite broadcasting. We seem to be seeing an example of the Labour party being excessively interventionist and attempting to put extra burdens on a growing industry—in contrast to its change of policy in recent days, about which I shall say more later.
  The Bill will have far-reaching effects on the industry; our decisions will touch the lives of every viewer and listener. Last year the Government consulted on major regulatory issues in the industry concerning both media ownership and new digital broadcasting services. We have acted swiftly in introducing the Bill in response to market and technological developments. As the House will be

  539
  aware, when we published the Bill it incorporated improvements resulting from that consultation exercise, which were widely welcomed.
  Mr. John Marshall: My right hon. Friend referred to comments made last year to her. She will remember my suggestion that Capital Gold AM, London's second most popular radio channel, should be allowed to move to an FM frequency. Will she now say something about that proposal, which is reported in the Financial Times today?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I know that my hon. Friend keeps a close watch on that topic. Indeed, it was extensively debated in another place. The Government accept that there is a strong case for change, and we shall announce our conclusions in time for the debates in Committee.
  In publishing the Bill I announced that, in response to earlier consultations on those vital issues, in future all existing terrestrial broadcasters would be able to provide extra digital channels, and that companies operating multiplexes—the means by which digital programmes are transmitted—would not be required to bid for their operating licences, nor to pay money to the Exchequer, for the first 12-year licence period.
  I also announced that the two-licence limit on the control of ITV licences would be removed, and that the Independent Television Commission would be given new powers to protect regional programming. In addition, local newspapers would have greater freedom to expand into local radio, and the new Channel 4 funding agreement would allow Channel 4 to invest more in making programmes. All those announcements were made in response to earlier consultation.
  Mr. Tim Renton: I realise that the amendments made by the House of Lords substantially changed the original ideas about the Channel 4 funding formula, and I welcome that. However, while the funding formula is, rightly, being maintained, would it not be a good thing if my right hon. Friend announced that she intended to make an order regarding the balance of the funding for Channel 4—for 1998–99, for example—fairly soon after the Bill received Royal Assent? Otherwise there would be continual lobbying from channel 3 and Channel 4 on the issue. A quicker certainty would be a good thing.
  Mrs. Bottomley: My right hon. Friend will, however, be aware that we live at a time of great change in that sector; in my view, to anticipate the precise balance of Channel 4 funding at this stage would be premature, but I have noted his comments. We have sought to reduce uncertainty both for Channel 4 and for the channel 3 companies, but we do not believe that at this stage it would be appropriate to go further.
  Sir David Steel: The Secretary of State will know that, as a director of Border Television, one of the smaller ITV companies, I have an obvious interest to declare. Will she guarantee that the extra money that Channel 4 will derive from the measures will be allocated to United Kingdom production, and will not be used as a means of buying production in the United States?
  Mrs. Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. I cannot give him any assurance on that matter at the moment, but I have noted his point, and I expect that Channel 4 will also have noted it.
  Mr. Keith Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at least some Conservative Members are worried about the concessions already made to Channel 4, bearing in mind the fact that it has changed in nature since it was founded, and is accountable neither to shareholders nor to licence fee payers?
  Mrs. Bottomley: Once again, I think that my hon. Friend is addressing his comments not only to me but to Channel 4 itself. The arguments on that matter are a balance between the different television companies. My experience suggests that normally there are merits in most of their arguments, but that there is usually another side of the case too.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is it not a fact that as the right hon. Lady has responded to questions from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, the situation, far from becoming clearer, has become less clear? When the Select Committee on National Heritage recommended the abandonment of the ludicrous Channel 4 funding formula, whereby hugely rich organisations such as Granada were subsidised by Channel 4, the Government turned our proposition down outright.
  Now the Government are edging towards accepting that proposition, but in a way that makes the situation more rather than less unclear. Will the right hon. Lady tidy the situation up, say that she will accept the Select Committee's recommendation, and get the mess out of the way once and for all?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I am deeply intimidated by the right hon. Gentleman; the Select Committee has indeed had a great influence on many areas for which I now have responsibility. I hope to say a little more about the Channel 4 funding formula later. However, I do not yet feel able to say that I entirely acquiesce in the Select Committee's recommendation.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Bottomley: I shall take an intervention from the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), and then I hope to get on with my speech.
  Miss Kate Hoey: Does the Secretary of State agree that substantial concessions have already been given to Channel 4 in another place, and that it would be silly for anything else concerning Channel 4 and its funding to be put into the Bill before we see, for example, the effects of Channel 5, and the real effects of any funding change on regional programming?
  Mrs. Bottomley: Yes.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I think that I must press on; I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me. I shall be more

  541
  than happy to give way again later. All these interventions will make the House aware what it is like to be Secretary of State for National Heritage; the issues are so finely balanced between the different interests.
  Debates on the Bill in another place were conducted largely in a thoughtful and constructive spirit. In piloting the Bill so ably through, my noble Friend Lord Inglewood continued to respond to sensible and practical proposals for change, while holding fast to the principles that underpin our proposals.
  We have introduced an overarching criterion for granting multiplex licences so that the regulators must, above and beyond the criteria already laid down in the Bill, judge which applicant will do most to promote the development of digital broadcasting. We have removed the ownership controls on cable operators in recognition of the fact that they provide first and foremost a means of programme delivery rather than programme services.
  We have introduced a new category of restricted service television licence which will allow specialist and community broadcasters to run services. We have enabled existing independent national radio licensees to roll their licences for one eight-year period if they take up their guaranteed digital broadcasting places. We have listened to and acted on the concern expressed about the availability of sports rights by preventing listed events from being shown exclusively on subscription television.
  Although our main proposals have been generally welcomed by the key players in the industry, my preoccupation is to respect and protect the interests of consumers. I hope that participants in debates in this House will approach the issues from the standpoint of the needs and desires of viewers and listeners rather than just the special pleading of vested interests.
  Parts I and II of the Bill deal with digital terrestrial broadcasting. Under the terms of existing legislation, it is already possible for the operators of cable and satellite television services to go digital if they wish and to provide viewers with scores of channels. What is currently not possible in law is digital terrestrial broadcasting. The Bill will enable companies to transmit terrestrial television signals in a digital format for the first time. The frequencies that we are allocating to digital terrestrial services will allow for at least 18—and probably more—channels to be received by viewers.
  Digital terrestrial services can use existing aerials and will not require the installation of dishes or of underground cabling. The television industry will be able to take advantage of the comprehensive terrestrial broadcasting structure that is already in place, with a network of transmitters well suited to regional broadcasting.
  Our proposals for digital television will preserve the United Kingdom's internationally renowned tradition of public service broadcasting. We recognise the immense contribution the existing terrestrial channels make to our national life. They will, therefore, be offered guaranteed capacity on multiplexes. That also makes economic sense because their involvement in digital terrestrial broadcasting will be crucial to attracting viewers. The existing public service broadcasters will still have to meet the quality programming requirements and quality thresholds about which I have already spoken, thus setting a benchmark for broadcasting standards in the digital future.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I give way to the Secretary of State—[Laughter.]
  Mrs. Bottomley: We all know our place when the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is around.
  Mr. Banks: Perhaps, one day, I shall give way to the then ex-Secretary of State for National Heritage. However, I am grateful to her for giving way to me on this occasion.
  Where does the word "quality" in respect of digital terrestrial services appear in the Bill? We know that digital will take over from analogue, perhaps in 15 years' time. Where is the word "quality" and will the Independent Television Commission be required to enforce quality standards?
  Mrs. Bottomley: In explaining to the House that the existing terrestrial broadcasters will be offered a guaranteed place on the multiplexes, I have made only too clear the importance we attach to quality and the contribution that those broadcasters will make to the development of digital terrestrial broadcasting. That quality element applies not just to channels 1 to 5, but to Teletext, the existing holder of the public service teletext franchise. I can announce today that Teletext too will be guaranteed capacity sufficient to expand its existing service. We intend to allocate to it 3 per cent. of the capacity on the frequency primarily reserved for channels 3 and 4; that represents more than twice what is needed to reproduce the existing service.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for being so generous to Back Benchers.
  I want to make one small point about the guarantee given to the BBC. It seems strange that we insist that the commission gives the BBC space whereas there is nothing to allow the commission to say to the BBC, "Look, you are not using space sensibly." The BBC is hanging on to two different frequencies for Dorset FM and is not providing a local service. That is a dog-in-the-manger attitude. Perhaps we should give extra powers to the commission.
  Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has raised a vital question about Dorset FM, on which I cannot say that I am properly briefed at the moment. However, I promise him that I will thoroughly investigate the circumstances surrounding Dorset FM and see what can be done—immediately on my return to my office. At the moment, I can say only that it is the great quality of the BBC, its ability to provide more services and its huge resources that have been the pressure for us introducing the Bill at an early opportunity. We believe that if we can be in the forefront of the digital revolution, there will be a great advantage for this country. I pay great tribute to the BBC for its work in research and in driving forward these proposals. It would not be fair to associate the BBC generally with the character, whatever it may be, of Dorset FM.
  The introduction of digital television will enable many new commercial stations to enter the terrestrial broadcasting market. New entrants should be free to pioneer services and to respond to the standards demanded by the viewing and listening public. We want to give those who invest in digital terrestrial television every chance to succeed. Viewers have benefited and jobs

  543
  have been created as a consequence of this country attracting new investment, such as that of BSkyB, into the broadcasting industry in recent years. We intend to ensure that many businesses, large and small, domestic and overseas, are able to participate in the new opportunities created by digital terrestrial broadcasting.
  The Bill will give the ITC the necessary powers to ensure that a fair and effective market develops. Coupled with our proposals for licensing digital conditional access systems, the Bill frees companies to participate in a flexible, competitive digital television market driven by the demands of consumers.
  We want to ensure that, in future, all viewers will still have access to the public service broadcasting on channels I to 5, even if they choose to rely on cable rather than terrestrial transmission. My noble Friend Baroness O'Cathain stressed the importance of that point in debates in the other place. We shall, therefore, introduce a Government amendment to require digital cable services to carry channels 1 to 5. That will be welcomed by the House.
  The Bill also introduces a regulatory framework for digital radio. We have again provided a framework that balances the interests of the listener and the industry. The result will be more national and local radio stations that give the listener significantly better quality reception. Digital radio, like digital television, offers the customer more choice and improved technical quality. The existing national stations, such as Classic FM, will, like their television counterparts, be offered a guaranteed place on a digital multiplex.
  The proposals on media ownership in clause 66 and schedule 2 will allow British media companies to take advantage of technological progress and to expand into new business. At the same time, our proposals will maintain plurality and diversity.
  We want UK companies to succeed in the domestic and international marketplace. The new rules relax existing constraints on cross-media holdings, allowing groups to control a mix of newspapers and television and radio licences. The Bill also allows further concentration within broadcasting. It abolishes the limits on the number of channel 3 television and independent radio licences that one company may control and substitutes overall limits of a 15 per cent. share of the total television audience and a 15 per cent. share of the total radio points.
  This is a liberalising Bill. In the past, cross-media ownership has been virtually outlawed. There is no common-sense justification for moving at one bound to wholesale deregulation, but we should not set in place a regulatory system for a fully integrated media market that does not yet exist.
  Alliances between newspapers and broadcasters will in future be subject to a public interest test. The Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority will have the power to prevent newspapers and broadcasting licences from being co-owned if they judge it to be against the public interest.
  The regulators will base their judgments on three criteria—promoting media plurality and diversity, maintaining a strong industry for the benefit of the country and ensuring the proper operation of markets.
  544
  Obviously, the ITC and the Radio Authority will be able to seek advice as necessary from the competition authorities on this issue.
  Mr. William O'Brien: The Secretary of State referred to newspaper groups being involved with radio and newspapers. Will she give me some assurances that regional newspapers will be given the same opportunity as national newspapers, and that regional newspapers will be allowed to make representations during the passage of the Bill to express their concerns to the Secretary of State?
  Mrs. Bottomley: I have had many discussions with regional newspapers, on the strength of which I have modified the proposals in the Bill a couple of times already. It remains the case, however, that the Bill is concerned about plurality and diversity, and that, in our opinion, dominant broadcasters and dominant newspapers covering the same territory are not conducive to, or appropriate in, a democracy.
  The Bill is a liberalising measure. There are many more opportunities for all those involved in the industry, but it is our view that it is still appropriate to have several additional controls. I understand that the Labour party recently ripped up all the principles it previously stood for, but I shall come to that later.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell rose—
  Mr. John Redwood rose—
  Mrs. Bottomley: I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)
  Mr. Redwood: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that these technologies are coming together rather quickly? How will the market share be calculated for things such as electronic newspapers transmitted through the Internet and through the television and home computer, and what adjustments will be made for the fact that these markets are rapidly becoming global in the English-speaking world?
  Mrs. Bottomley: My right hon. Friend is right, but it is not yet possible to regulate the market in its fully developed form, and I believe that this is an appropriate staging post at which we will be significantly liberalising the regime. We will move into allowing far more cross-media ownership, and have put appropriate regulation and controls in place, which were widely welcomed not only by the industry but very much by the Labour party when they were first announced.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell rose—
  Mr. Kaufman rose—
  Mrs. Bottomley: I shall move on, if I may, because this is a complex Bill. I have a great deal of material to get through and many others wish to speak.
  The Bill also prevents groups having 20 per cent. or more of national newspaper circulation from acquiring channel 3 or Channel 5 licences or radio licences or vice versa. This restriction, however, does not apply to the

  545
  emerging markets of cable, satellite and digital terrestrial broadcasting. Even the largest newspaper groups therefore have room for expansion under our proposals, but it would not be right for those who dominate the newspaper audience also to control the dominant, established, television or radio broadcasting licences.
  The Bill will achieve
  "diversity, plurality, quality and the best possible programmes for the viewer and listener. The rules are to make sure that there is not excessive dominance by any one commercial provider."—[Official Report, 23 May 1995; Vol. 260, c. 713.]
  Those were not my words; they are the words of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), spoken when we launched our White Paper in May 1995.
  The policy that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury devised appears to have changed since then. I know that some Opposition Members want to give vested interests a higher priority than the interests of viewers and listeners. In October 1995, the Labour party tried to strike a grubby deal with British Telecom, which might have jeopardised the £10 billion investment programme of the cable companies. Now Labour is at it again, trying to rig the regulations.
  In a recent Sunday Times article, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) said he favoured removing restrictions on concentration of ownership because
  "the whole point is to ensure the creation of bigger companies"
  that "can compete abroad". His policy is to allow companies to take more of the market, even if that removes plurality of ownership and undermines people's choice. I am not certain whether he speaks for the whole Labour party, but if he does these proposals are as ill thought through as they are opportunist.
  In the words of Mr. Paul Foot—[Laughter.] I quite understand why Labour Members do not want to hear what he had to say. He said that the policy
  "stinks of … back-scratching sleaze."
  Opportunism is what new Labour is all about. Only a month ago, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) went on television to threaten newspaper groups with increased regulation unless they gave Labour an easy ride at the general election.
  The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has had plenty of opportunities to explain which policy is official party policy, but we have had only flannel. Do any of the hon. Members whose words I have quoted speak for the Labour party? Or does the right hon. Member for Copeland have yet another view? Like the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on the radio this morning, we shall be very interested to know what is going on. Or perhaps the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has washed his hands of this issue, just as he has washed his hands, it seems, of the Elgin marbles.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Or lost his marbles.
  Mrs. Bottomley: That must be right. I appreciate that.
  Or perhaps the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) could lift another veil from Labour's plans.
  In this place and in Committee, my hon. Friends will be relentless in exposing cosy deals that the Labour party dreams up to please its friends.
  546
  The thresholds set out in the Bill provide a clear set of ground rules. At no point have our proposals been devised with any intention to attack or penalise the Daily Mirror, News International or any other specific newspaper group. They are there to protect the public.
  Diversity of voice is needed, not only at the national level but in the regions and localities of the United Kingdom—the point the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) made a moment ago. The Bill therefore retains controls designed to prevent local or regional monopolies.
  Mr. Kaufman rose—
  Mrs. Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I do not want to give way because I have given way at length.
  The Bill prevents dominant local newspapers from dominating local radio or owning a channel 3 licence in the same area. If a national newspaper substantially differentiates its local or regional editions, the regulator will treat these as local papers and they will be brought within the scope of those controls.
  As a consequence of our consultation—this is the point I made earlier and have made several times to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—we have already relaxed the local newspaper ownership threshold at which companies would not be allowed to own a radio station in the same area. The threshold has been raised from 20 per cent. to 50 per cent., but we remain concerned not to allow one company to own all the radio, television and newspapers in one town or region. Reciprocal restrictions will prevent local broadcasters from establishing dominant local newspaper interests.
  If a channel 3 television licence changes hands, clause 67 would allow the ITC to hold the new owner to the standards, range and regional content in programming that the current licensee was achieving. That directly protects the regional flavour of programming, which is such a valuable feature of ITV—a point that has been made by several hon. Members in the debate in recent weeks.
  We shall go further than that. We propose to clarify the definition of various provisions and terms used in clause 67. We want to help the ITC to implement provision and to prevent companies from avoiding the spirit of the legislation, so we propose to require the ITC not to approve amended channel 3 networking arrangements if the regional programming of smaller ITV companies would be threatened.
  Part III of the Bill amends the funding arrangements for the Welsh fourth channel—S4C. The current funding formula is based on the vagaries of the television advertising market. Under clause 68, the Government's annual payment to S4C will be the January 1997 payment made under the old formula, uprated annually like the BBC's licence fee—in line with the retail prices index. The new arrangements will make the future public funding streams for S4C more predictable. That should benefit both S4C and the Government. We shall also introduce measures to allow S4C to operate digital commercial services, like the BBC.
  Clause 70 amends the funding formula for Channel 4. Under that formula, an income of a certain level for Channel 4 is underwritten by the channel 3 companies,

  547
  but they in return receive payments from Channel 4 when, as in recent years, Channel 4's income exceeds that level—a number of hon. Members have already referred to that. As I have made clear, the Government want to retain the formula as an insurance policy to guarantee Channel 4's security as a quality public service broadcaster. But we want to operate it flexibly to react to the changing circumstances of the broadcasting marketplace. Accordingly, as I made clear earlier, the Bill provides an order-making power to alter the distribution of Channel 4's excess revenues above the statutory threshold. We have already announced our intention to use that power in Channel 4's favour—first by ending Channel 4's payments into its statutory reserve fund as soon as possible and, secondly, by reducing the payments from Channel 4 to the channel 3 companies. That reduction will take effect in two stages, from 1998 and 1999, but we believe that it is neither necessary nor sensible to decide now the exact changes that we will seek to make to those payments. They will, however, be of a scale to provide Channel 4 with significant additional resources to invest in UK production.
  The House will be aware that in another place there were lengthy deliberations on the subject of sports rights. I am pleased that part IV of the Bill guarantees the availability of live coverage of listed sporting events for terrestrial free-to-air television. It allows subscription or pay-per-view channels to broadcast live coverage of listed events only if rights are also made available to a terrestrial service. Equally, a terrestrial service will not be permitted to broadcast live coverage of a listed event unless rights are similarly made available to a subscription or pay-per-view service.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: How can the Secretary of State say that she is pleased about that when, as recently as last December, she and her Ministers were insisting that there was no need for any further controls or regulations and that the whole thing could be left to the so-called free market? Is it not plain to everyone that she made a change only because she was forced to do so by a parliamentary vote and that the availability of sport on television to most of our constituents is not safe in the Government's hands?
  Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman's remarks have little relevance. There has been detailed consultation on the Bill and the options have been examined at each stage. In the same way as we issued a consultation document on ownership and digital broadcasting, it was also appropriate to produce a detailed consultation document before taking permanent decisions. The House will be aware of the complexity of the issue.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: While understanding the morality of what my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) said, and his motives, surely if events are open to everyone an unofficial cartel could be formed to offer a minimum price for events such as the cup final. Where is the referee or regulator to ensure that the teams and clubs playing in the cup final can say, "It is not fair; we are not being given a fair price and therefore do not think that we should go on television"? Where is the referee?
  Mrs. Bottomley: The complexity of the issue has become clear to a far wider audience in recent months. A great deal of money is going to sporting organisations as a result of the sale of rights and the rights holders feel strongly about that. [Interruption.] I take issue with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton)— many of the organisations are now involved in a number of activities, encouraging more and more young people to take up sport. Our stadiums are of a high standard. As we go football crazy in the summer with Euro 96—the biggest sporting event for 30 years—many of us will be aware that the extra income stream has been of benefit.
  At the same time, as the hon. Gentleman says, the public are concerned about being able to see more sport, albeit that the amount of sport has dramatically increased. That is why the House will eagerly look forward to the voluntary code of conduct being drawn up by the Sports Council which considers precisely those issues and examines the matters that should be taken into consideration when sports rights holders want to do the right thing for sport in its widest sense.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: A number of us had reservations about the pay-per-view £10 that subscribers were asked to pay for the Bruno-Tyson fight. But having said that, Sky has been knocked right, left and centre. Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the fact that Sky Sports shows more than 10,000 hours of sport compared with the BBC's 1,500 hours? Credit should be given credit where it is due.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I pay that credit where it is due—much more sport is now available on television.
  Part V of the Bill merges the existing Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. A new body, the Broadcasting Standards Commission, will combine the remits of the two existing bodies, creating a single focus for public concerns about taste and decency and the portrayal of violence. It will also be involved in questions of unfair treatment and unwarranted infringement of privacy by broadcasters. For the first time, the new body will be given the power to commission research into issues of unfair treatment and the infringement of privacy. That power will be in addition to its power to commission research into standards in broadcasting which has, until now, been commissioned by the existing Broadcasting Standards Council. To reinforce the BSC's authority, the Bill requires broadcasting and regulatory bodies to record any action that they take following a complaint to the commission. That information will be published in the Commission's regular complaints reports.
  The new commission is an advisory and adjudicating body. It will build on the influence of its predecessors, but it is the broadcasting regulatory bodies—the Independent Television Commission, the Radio Authority and the Welsh Authority—that are directly responsible for ensuring that programmes meet standards of taste and decency and do not contain material that is offensive to public feeling. The new BBC royal charter and agreement set out similar responsibilities to be met by the corporation, and more clearly identify the governors' specific obligations on those questions.
  Sir John Gorst: In the past three quarters of an hour that my right hon. Friend has been on

  549
  her feet she has mentioned plurality, diversity, quality and liberality, but the one word that she has not mentioned—perhaps she is about to come to it in the next section of her speech—is impartiality. Is she satisfied that the licensing arrangements that she is outlining are adequate in terms of impartiality in the BBC? Has she given thought to the appointment of a particular governor with special responsibility for impartiality?
  Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend speaks for many when he identifies the profound concern that is felt and the fact that the BBC's reputation rests on its reputation for impartiality. I welcome the statement of the retiring chairman of the BBC, Duke Hussey, that that was a vital element for the BBC, and the comments of the incoming chairman, Sir Christopher Bland, who once again spelt out the importance of that issue. In the statement of pledges—which is required under the royal charter and agreement—the first pledge involves impartiality. The BBC will shortly produce its first document under that heading and I know that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will want to scrutinise it carefully. The charter and agreement spell out very clearly the governors' duties as regulators—including, above all, ensuring that there is impartiality and confidence in the process. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) will be aware of some of the steps that we have taken already to establish a separate line of complaint for those who are not satisfied. I believe that my hon. Friend will be further reassured on that front when he sees the statement of pledges.
  I have referred already to the technical prowess and the enviable overall quality of broadcasting in this country. The United Kingdom is notable also for its seriousness in maintaining standards of fairness, taste and decency in broadcasting. I believe that developments in the digital world will reinforce those important principles for which British broadcasting is valued around the world.
  Part IV of the Bill contains provisions ancillary to the BBC's privatisation of its transmission network. The Government support the privatisation of BBC transmission services, which will provide the corporation with new funds to invest in digital television. I notice that the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition regrets that privatisation. Are we to understand that beneath that amendment there is a policy—or perhaps that is too much to ask—to renationalise the BBC's transmission network?
  Without those funds, money would have to be diverted from programme making so that the corporation could make the necessary investment in digital television. Would the Opposition deprive viewers and listeners of programmes rather than support an imaginative use of public assets in the public interest? Substantial investment by the BBC in digital broadcasting will be a catalyst for commercial broadcasters' involvement and an incentive for the more rapid development of digital services. The Bill also provides that BBC commercial broadcasting services—as opposed to those funded by the licence fee—are regulated by the ITC and the Radio Authority, like other commercial broadcasting services.
  We intend to propose a number of amendments to the Bill in Committee—many in response to issues raised in the debates in another place. We shall introduce amendments to the public interest test for newspapers acquiring broadcasting interests. They will clarify that the test is not retrospective and does not apply continuously,
  550
  and they will also permit the application of the test where a national paper starts a local paper in an area where it has acquired broadcasting interests.
  In close consultation with the broadcasting regulators, we shall make proposals to strengthen further the definition of control—effectively outlawing arrangements that are designed to circumvent the ownership rules. We shall also announce our proposals for regulating shareholdings in broadcasters which fall short of control.
  During the debate in the other place, concern was expressed about news provision on channel 3. We shall introduce an amendment making it clear that the one company selected by the ITV companies from an approved list compiled by the ITC will be the sole provider of channel 3 news. It need not provide it indefinitely—nor does it necessarily have to be ITN, the current provider—but a single source will provide proper competition for the BBC and a nationwide service of national and international news.
  We shall fulfil our commitment to allow independent local radio licensees who take a place on a digital radio multiplex to extend their licences for a further eight-year term. We also propose to allow existing independent local radio licences to be renewed without a further bidding process when no other operator expresses an interest. We shall strengthen the ITC's powers to deal with foreign satellite broadcasting applicants, ensuring in particular that licence applicants are not serving the interests of political bodies.
  In the light of a great expansion in the number of channels and in opportunities, we shall not allow the United Kingdom to become a base from which terrorist or propagandist organisations can broadcast overseas. We shall propose amendments to the existing licence application process to safeguard Britain's good name as a country with a responsible broadcasting regulation regime.
  I shall also mention briefly our plans for reviewing the progress of digital broadcasting, thereby setting a time scale for the transition from analogue to digital reception. That will occur five years after the first multiplex licences are awarded—or earlier if the take-up of digital television merits it. We shall put that on the face of the Bill. However, we shall not bow to pressure exerted by the Opposition to set a date now for switch-off. We are not prepared to coerce viewers into accepting digital television regardless of their personal choices.
  In its craven desire to appease the industry, the Labour party would stop those least able to afford a digital television seeing any television. The Conservative principle of customer choice has been a constant feature of our broadcasting policies for all the years that I have been in this place. Customer choice will determine the success or otherwise of digital terrestrial television, in the same way as customer choice determined the format of satellite television soon after the passage of the Broadcasting Act 1990.
  By contrast, the apology of an amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition is a wish list inspired only by Labour's desperation to placate vested interests. On cross-media ownership, the Opposition have lurched from a paranoid terror of large media groups to sycophantic devotion to them. No doubt Opposition Back Benchers are as astonished as their friends in the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom by the

  551
  latest U-turn. Perhaps Opposition Front Benchers will answer the questions posed by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury when speaking for the Opposition only last year. He said:
  "If national newspaper companies with a national focus and interests seek to take over regional ITV stations, will there not be a serious danger of harming the regional character of those stations? … May we also have an assurance that the normal operation of competition policy through the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will continue alongside the new rules? Surely both must apply: one must not be a substitute for the other".—[Official Report, 23 May 1995; Vol. 260, c. 712.]
  I can certainly provide that assurance to the House. We are the friends of the consumer; we stand for the viewer, the listener and the reader, just as we stand for the patient, the passenger and the pupil. The Labour party does not.
  The Bill builds upon and nurtures the best traditions of British broadcasting. It offers the British people unparalleled choice and it will help to bring the technology of tomorrow into the homes of today. Viewers and listeners will choose whether digital succeeds. Through the Bill, the Government are liberating British media companies to serve the British public, to exploit new technology, to create new jobs and new commercial opportunities, and to allow Britain to lead the world into the 21st century. It is a common-sense Bill for the new millennium and I commend it to the House.
  5.57 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Broadcasting Bill [Lords] because it fails to provide the necessary incentives for rapid development of digital terrestrial television; does not contain a satisfactory framework for ensuring fair access to televised sporting events; treats newspaper groups unfairly in their access to broadcasting markets; fails to give clear commitments to ensuring the proper regulation of open access and of conditional access systems; regrets the privatisation of the BBC transmission system; and deplores the missed opportunity of providing the regulatory framework necessary to embrace the convergence of television and telecommunications technologies at the approach of the Millennium.
  I confirm at the outset that the Government were right to introduce a new Broadcasting Bill. I am not convinced that the Secretary of State made the correct type of speech about it, but I shall return to that issue later. Does the Bill meet the challenges that we face? Will it be effective? Does it give sufficient guarantees to viewers and to listeners? We must answer those questions and judge where the public interest lies and how to safeguard it.
  When the Bill was debated in another place, widespread concerns were expressed that the Government's proposals fell well short of what was required in a number of important areas. The Secretary of State sounded rather like the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) when, in the face of an overwhelming and humiliating defeat in the House of Lords, she claimed that she was pleased that the Bill had been changed. It is rather like the Government's claiming some crumb of comfort from their humiliating defeat in the South-East Staffordshire by-election.
  If the Secretary of State wanted the sports broadcasting provisions in the Bill, why did she not include them in the first place? If she wanted the amendment to be carried,
  552
  why did her right hon. and hon. Friends oppose it to the bitter end? It is absurd for the Secretary of State to claim to be pleased about what was, by any test, one of the Government's most humiliating climbdowns on an important facet of broadcasting in recent memory.
  The background is one of rapidly advancing technological change, media industry restructuring and global market development. As the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) made clear, the Secretary of State does not seem quite to understand the nature and pace of that change. Her answer to the right hon. Gentleman will put in jeopardy any hopes she might have of a place in his first shadow Cabinet.
  As the right hon. Lady said, the consumer end of the changes means a wider choice of programmes and services, with the advance of digital broadcasting, satellite broadcasting and cable services bringing more competition and greater choice. Those changes, however, raise public concerns about access, standards and quality. I share all those concerns and in a number of respects, the Bill fails to meet them, particularly those in relation to quality, as several hon. Members have made clear in interventions.
  The rigid distinctions between telephony, computing, broadcasting and film are rapidly eroding. The new delivery systems will provide new commercial, industrial and employment prospects. Digitalisation will accelerate the pace of change and create new challenges and opportunities for legislators and broadcasters alike. It is a time of convergence of education, the arts, drama, the cultural industries, film and television. The right hon. Lady was right to say that those changes have the potential to bring considerable wealth and employment opportunities to the countries that make a success of them.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that some of the new digitalised channels provide educational opportunities as well as the opportunities that he has already mentioned? Should not we legislate to make available some space for that important purpose?
  Dr. Cunningham: Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend. We have the most respected and effective distance learning organisation in broadcasting anywhere in the world—the Open university, which was introduced by a Labour Government. We also have an important proposal to develop a university of industry to utilise precisely the opportunities to which my hon. Friend refers.
  Technological convergence can bring together work and leisure, the office and the home, education and entertainment. Broadcasting is a key area of activity wherein news, sport, drama, music, cultural activities, education, business and commerce come together. Public policy in broadcasting has always been, and will continue to be, of critical importance. The growth of multi-media industries and their significance in all aspects of our lives means that public policy must address the challenges of technological innovations, ownership issues and matters of content and standards.
  The question for us all is whether we can meet those challenges and turn them to our advantage to produce commercial and economic success. The opportunities are enormous—not just to install the technology, but to develop the huge range of new services that technology will facilitate. That is why the Bill is so important.

  553
  The Government's decision to introduce a Broadcasting Bill can be seen in two ways. It can be seen as a modest measure that tidies up some aspects of the Broadcasting Act 1990, introduces the prospect at some undefined future date of a new form of broadcasting and implements the last vestiges of the Government's privatisation programme. Alternatively, in the words of the Secretary of State, it can be portrayed as the liberation of British broadcasters to be world leaders in the next millennium and a framework to encourage and support the necessary risk investments. I am sorry to say that it seems much more likely that the first scenario will prevail.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the House was expecting the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to ask this question, but he is not in his place. In the nine years that I have been in the House, every time any media organisation was taken over, the Labour party was quick to say that it was wrong to concentrate media ownership. Why, therefore, in the reasoned amendment that seeks to deny the Bill a Second Reading, does Labour seem keen to see large newspaper conglomerates taking over terrestrial broadcasting facilities?
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman apparently does not understand that the Bill facilitates the purchase of channel 3 licences by newspaper owners. The argument is not about that, as it is already happening. Multi-media companies are developing not only in Britain, but internationally. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he is in the wrong debate. The debate concerns how those developments can be managed and controlled and what legislation or regulation should be put in place to do it. I shall return to that later in my speech.
  Mr. David Mellor: The right hon. Gentleman was unduly unkind to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce). I trust that he will treat me rather more sympathetically. What is puzzling the right hon. Gentleman's many admirers in the Conservative party, including me, is how he can put his name to an amendment that suggests that the newspapers are being treated unfairly when, with the full authority of the Labour party, in another place on 23 May last year, Lord Donoughue said:
  "We particularly welcome the 20 per cent. newspaper circulation ceiling on TV ownership, which appears to prevent the existing giants from expanding further into television."—[0fficial Report, House of Lords, 23 May 1995; Vol. 564, c. 934.]
  There is no way in which what Lord Donoughue said can sit with the Labour amendment. What is the explanation for that? Our explanation is that the Mirror Group has got at the Labour party.
  Dr. Cunningham: I am happy to respond more kindly if the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that I should. It was once said that television was a device that allowed us to see in our own living rooms people whom we would not necessarily invite into our homes. I would not necessarily put the right hon. and learned Gentleman into that category, but it certainly applies to some of his hon. Friends.
  I said that I would return to the matter of the Mirror Group, but I am happy to respond now. The Secretary of State should explain what was so fundamental about the Government's choice of 20 per cent. That is the question.
  554
  The arbitrary choice of 20 per cent. of the market happily allows United Newspapers and Associated Newspapers to buy channel 3 licences, but miraculously and coincidentally, prevents the Mirror Group from doing the same. That is the inconsistency in the Government's position and that is why we are raising the question. What made them decide on 20 per cent.? Why was it not 25 per cent., or 30 per cent? What was the logic in choosing that figure? I shall return to the matter later.
  If the Conservative party were following its convictions altogether, it would not want any such regulation. It would want the market to decide, as I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would agree.
  Mr. Redwood: To clear up the point, will the right hon. Gentleman say what contacts he and other members of the shadow Cabinet have had with the Mirror Group in the past three months regarding this important issue?
  Dr. Cunningham: The same contacts as I have had with Sir David English, News International representatives, BSkyB representatives, regional newspapers and publishing organisations. Anyone who wanted to see me to express concerns about the provisions of the Bill was welcome in my office, just as the right hon. Gentleman would expect. I saw people on a completely even-handed basis. Incidentally, that remains the position.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: Why, then, did the right hon. Gentleman not see Lord Donoughue?
  Dr. Cunningham: I see Lord Donoughue every week. He is a valued colleague and member of my team. To make it clear to the hon. Gentleman, I should add that Lord Donoughue and I are not just colleagues; we have been friends since we worked together at 10 Downing street 20 years ago. Perhaps I might take this opportunity to praise the valuable work of my noble Friend and his colleagues and team in the House of Lords for securing so many important amendments to the Bill.
  There is no division between the Opposition and the Secretary of State on the desirability of introducing digital broadcasting, especially digital television. It offers the prospect of better quality television pictures and competition and innovation, with a much greater choice of television channels. It also offers far more efficient use of the scarce radio spectrum in our heavily congested airwaves. The introduction of digital technology does not, however, guarantee better quality television programmes or better channels. Few comments on quality can better that of Sam Goldwyn who observed:
  "The wide screen makes a bad film twice as bad."
  There is no guarantee that digital television will bring better quality programmes to our television sets, yet the three key criteria for potential multiplex operators are said to be investment in infrastructure, investment in promotion and programme variety. Quality does not feature among the key criteria that the Government have set down for development.
  It is clear from discussions with many of the leading figures in British broadcasting since the Bill was published that none would say that digital television will definitely happen under these proposals. That is not just the position of overly cynical or clever-boxing broadcasters, but of many analysts of the broadcasting market.
  Mr. Roger Gale: I fail to understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. If he has genuinely mastered the complexities of the distribution of multiplex licences—it is slightly questionable whether he has—he will surely understand that the quality thresholds are already in place, because most of the multiplex licences will go to existing broadcasters to enable them to expand their services through the digital medium.
  Dr. Cunningham: In spite of the hon. Gentleman's patronising intervention, that is not clear to me and it is not clear to many broadcasters either.
  The single biggest risk factor for the future of digital television is the requirement for multiplex operators to promote the take-up of digital television. The operators of the multiplexes not already allocated will be expected to make substantial investments to ensure that digital terrestrial television is widely adopted by the consumer. In reality, that must be through the subsidy of set-top boxes because early production models are likely to be far too expensive for many except a small group of enthusiasts or high-income earners. As an analysis of the market risk of digital television prepared by NatWest Markets said:
  "There is little or no scope for subsidy of the digital set top box by the service provider. But the availability of a cheap box, we contend, is a key issue in the selling of what after all may be a less attractive competing product than that offered either by cable and BSkyB."
  The multiplex operators will not really have a distinctive new product to sell. New broadcasters will wish to see an existing customer base before they invest in programming. They will have to have far higher revenues than conventional broadcasters to pay for programming and to pay the multiplex operators for the right to broadcast. If there is a shortage of income, that will seriously risk driving down the quality of the content. That is the point, and I am sure that the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) understands it perfectly.
  We have clearly seen from the development of BSkyB that it is the rights holders who have the valuable product. The top sporting events, films, drama and the soaps bring in the audiences, and BSkyB and others have to pay handsomely for them. The sporting bodies do not have to pay the broadcaster to be seen or heard on air. It is the other way around and that will be a financial challenge for any new broadcasters with digital technology developments. Heavens above, the BBC even has to pay Camelot to be allowed to broadcast the weekly national lottery draw live.
  The existing terrestrial broadcasters have little incentive to put their own money into the development of digital broadcasting. While they are automatically entitled either to a place on a multiplex or a multiplex in their own right, they are also free to sit back and wait for the new players to invest. To get on air, any new broadcaster will have to pay for space on a multiplex. The new broadcasters will thus face much higher transmission costs, which in turn will inevitably drive down investment in production. In effect, they will be subsidising the reception of television programmes broadcast by others that almost certainly will be of superior quality to their own.
  There are, of course, alternatives to the route that the Government have chosen. One of the many potential advantages to be gained from the introduction of digital terrestrial television is the liberation of the radio
  556
  frequency spectrum for other purposes. That can be done only by setting a switch-off date for analogue broadcasts at some point in the future. If the Government's steadfast refusal—we heard it again today—to set such a date continues, that will also mitigate against the early fulfilment of their proposals.
  If the present proposals for digital broadcasting prove to be unrealistic and potential multiplex operators do not materialise, a future Government will have to consider other options to promote its introduction.
  Ms Judith Church: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have wasted an opportunity to give an important British industry a lead in the world in important new technology? Would not it be wonderful if the one decent legacy that the Government were to leave in their tottering last days was a decent Broadcasting Bill?
  Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right. Our objectives in Committee will be to improve the Bill and to improve our chances of being successful in that area.
  A system of digital broadcasting that ensures universal access could also embrace cable delivery systems and digital satellite broadcasting. Ultimately, consumers should not have to be concerned about the method of service delivery to their homes. The real choice in broadcasting comes from universal access to a wide range of programme services. The Government's current plans seem to be moving away from that objective. Universal access has always been an objective of public service broadcasting. I fear a loss of service to people in rural communities and some of the fringe areas of the United Kingdom. I also believe that there is a possibility of driving a wedge between the current terrestrial, satellite and cable broadcasters and potential future operators of digital multiplexes.
  Many of the criticisms of the Government's proposals for digital television can also be applied to digital audio broadcasting. The same questions about investment arise. In addition, it has been asked whether multiplexes are necessary for the successful development of digital radio. An especial concern has been raised by the Commercial Radio Companies Association, which believes that insufficient spectrum has been set aside for all existing local commercial radio broadcasters to be able to convert to digital transmission in the foreseeable future. That possibility, and the association's complaint that positive advantage has been given to the BBC's local services, raises the question whether a local digital radio market will emerge. We will need to examine that further in Committee.
  The Government's failure to understand the principles of providing universal broadcast service has been clearly shown in the debate, which I mentioned earlier, about the televising of sport. We initiated that debate not because we are opposed to BSkyB, but because there are important issues at stake. I am a Sky subscriber, as are, I suspect, many right hon. and hon. Members. Sky has been bold, innovative and successful in its approach to the broadcasting of live sport. We have no intention of excluding it, but there are a small number of events—the original legislation was, after all, introduced by the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor)—which, it is worth remembering, do not have to be sporting occasions, which the public rightly believe should be

  557
  available free to air on the widest possible basis. That was the purpose of our amendment in the other place and we were naturally delighted that it received such wide-ranging all-party support and is now part of the Bill. I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State has no intention of removing it. Judging from her remarks this afternoon, I think that we can conclude that she does not, but we shall watch carefully.
  I also accept that the sporting bodies, the rights holders, have a legitimate right to maximise revenue from their product. That is why we support the case for unbundling broadcast rights for sport. The separate sale of live coverage, rebroadcast rights, highlights and radio coverage would allow the growth of a variety of sports coverage suited to particular types of delivery system. There is no evidence that that would substantially diminish the overall value of rights. Some people, in some sports at least, believe that it could increase the value. If we were to proceed in that direction, in time the relevance of the limited list itself might also diminish.
  Mr. Ashton: If Parliament passes a law saying that a certain product must be made available and there is no appeal with regard to pitching the price, what is to stop the participants challenging the legislation in the courts or going to the Office of Fair Trading and saying that it is a restraint of trade? If rents are fixed, there is a rents officer. If we have a prices and incomes policy, we have a prices and incomes board. The law says that the product must be made available, but not at what price. If a cartel is formed, or if there is an accusation of a cartel, the Ryder cup people or the Football Association could go to court and say that every fair trading law had been broken. As I understand it, the legal advice is that that would be so.
  Dr. Cunningham: The short answer—I understand and know of my hon. Friend's interest in these matters and I respect his concerns—is that the OFT is already considering the position of the Premier League in these matters. Competition law and other provisions will take their place, as they should if questions are raised about such matters, but my hon. Friend says, "If a list should emerge". A list exists. It was introduced by the 1990 Act and has been there for some time. That is what I am addressing.
  Mr. Gale: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
  We also believe that the list should be reviewed, not necessarily with a view to extending its scope. We have accordingly proposed that an advisory group should consider all the issues in order to inform the Secretary of State's decisions on the televising of sport.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Another quango.
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman talks about a quango. The Secretary of State has already referred the matter to a quango. It has already happened. The hon. Gentleman should keep up with events. What concerns me is whether anything effective will emerge from the right hon. Lady's decision.
  The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): Wait and see.
  Dr. Cunningham: The Minister says, "Wait and see," but we have some indications already. I understand that a
  558
  draft code of practice on the broadcasting of sport was delivered to the Department a few days ago. It has been agreed, apparently, by some of the executives of major sporting bodies, but not by their governing bodies. To date, no formal discussions with any broadcasters have taken place about it, although some informal soundings have been made. My understanding is that the code of practice is on rebroadcast rights and highlights and does not yet deal with the important issues, such as news coverage of sporting events.
  The right hon. Lady should publish that proposal as soon as possible, and certainly during our Committee proceedings, so that the House and the Committee can make some better-informed decisions. On the basis of what we understand, it is a long way from being satisfactory. If the right hon. Lady does not publish it, or even if she does and it is unsatisfactory, we will reintroduce amendments to provide a statutory framework for the unbundling of sports broadcasting rights.
  I come now to the importance of proper regulation of conditional access systems—the set—top boxes and associated technology of must-carry and must-offer protection to ensure that all broadcasters are treated fairly, and of universal access for viewers and listeners across the United Kingdom.
  In January, the Government published their proposals for regulation of conditional access systems and they have given a commitment to table next month the relevant statutory instruments to implement the European Union television standards directive, but we need to be convinced that all the necessary steps are being taken. The new licensing regime needs to be put in place now and Parliament should be debating the issues as part of the Broadcasting Bill. We shall certainly raise them in Committee.
  A further matter that should be settled by the Bill is the Channel 4 funding formula. The formula was a well-intended measure in the 1990 Act. I say to the right hon. and learned Member for Putney that it was founded on good intentions. The formula worked to most people's satisfaction for a while, but it has fallen into disrepute. There are, I know—we have all had the correspondence—strong feelings on both sides of the argument, but when the 1990 Act sought to underpin the finances of Channel 4, it did not envisage the outcome, and I cannot blame the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that.
  In the event, the funding formula has not been a great success. In the five years to the end of 1997, Channel 4 will have paid more than £300 million to the ITV companies, which is considerably more than its expectations and more than anyone envisaged at the time. A fair means should now be established to redirect the substantial amount of Channel 4's revenue back to programme making. The formula should not just be ended, giving a blank cheque or carte blanche to Channel 4; there must be commitments if the formula is to be ended, and we shall want to explore what the Secretary of State had to say about that in more detail in Committee.
  The right hon. Lady tried to have some fun about opposition on strong and diverse companies in the media operating in local, national and international media markets, but she must do a bit better than quote Paul Foot in support of her case. As I understand it, Mr. Paul Foot, in The Guardian, was saying that we on the Labour Benches should accept without question a piece of

  559
  Conservative Government legislation. I must say that that is a headstand of spectacular proportions, even for him. We have no intention of doing so.
  The Government's position is perverse. They want developments in cross-media ownership, but arbitrary figures have been set to judge how much of the market any one company can own. The most arbitrary aspect must be the restrictions on national newspaper groups investing in commercial television—the so-called 20 per cent. rule.
  The Mirror Group, as the right hon. Lady knows because she has had discussions and correspondence with it, feels that the legislative proposals are biased against it—and understandably so. It should not be discriminated against, particularly when supposedly smaller newspaper groups own a large number of regional and local newspaper titles. Nationally and internationally, cross-media ownership already exists and is developing. The question is not whether it should exist—it is happening—but what controls should be used to guard against monopoly and to ensure fair competition and diversity. We are happy to debate those issues.
  Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. If 20 per cent. is not the right figure, what is?
  Dr. Cunningham: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that, if it was 25 per cent., the Mirror Group would be allowed to participate. The amendment was blocked. United Newspapers and Associated Newspapers can participate. Conservative Members must say why the limit is drawn to block the Mirror Group. [Interruption.] Why not News International, indeed, which has something over 30 per cent. of the newspaper market? That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said, apparently to some mirth on Conservative Benches, although Conservative Members pride themselves on pursuing market forces and free enterprise, that perhaps the usual competition laws should be allowed to operate. That is at least as sensible and logical a position as the one adopted by the Secretary of State.
  Paragraph 9(1)(b) of the new part IV of schedule 2—to be found on page 108 of the Bill—gives powers to the ITC and provides that a licence does not have to be granted
  "if the relevant authority determine that in all the circumstances the holding of the licence by a body corporate falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above operates, or could be expected to operate, against the public interest."
  So let us not hear from Conservative Members that there are no safeguards against abuse—they are written into their Bill, but it is apparent from their clacking away during the debate that they have not read it. That has been amply demonstrated by what they have said.
  In local newspaper markets, there are other questionable restrictions on cross-media ownership, which are again the subject of much criticism from local newspapers. The thresholds do not seem to be based on any objective assessment of markets. They are clearly derived from the failure of competition policy and the Government's repeated failure to bring such policy up to
  560
  date. If the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission were able to do their jobs properly, the thresholds would not need to be set in such an arbitrary manner.
  If public interest issues are at stake, let us use public interest criteria. That is what they are there for. The public interest also requires that, where takeovers occur, there is adequate protection for regional interests. I know that at least one right hon. Gentleman on the Conservative Benches shares some of the views that I am expressing in this part of my speech.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: Yes, but then I must get on.
  Mr. Hughes: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but does he not feel obliged to explain why he so violently disagrees with Lord Donoughue, a personal friend with whom he has worked so closely, who said that we have it absolutely right and warmly welcomed the 20 per cent. rule? Is the House not entitled to expect an explanation?
  Dr. Cunningham: That was a poor question. I rather regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman, because he has just repeated a question that I have already answered.
  The hon. Gentleman asked why I violently disagree with Lord Donoughue. I do not. If the hon. Gentleman checks the Hansard of the other place, he will see that Lord Donoughue was talking about the White Paper and that his comment was made long before the Bill was published. He will also see that Lord Donoughue moved an amendment on the very issue that I am talking about, so the hon. Gentleman is behind the times and is rather ill informed, as is often the case.
  I welcome the proposal to merge the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, but we believe that a further step could be taken. The Independent Television Commission's main role is to consider issues of quality. We think that very important, but we should consider whether it should also deal with standards and complaints. The public would then know that there was one body to which they could turn when concerned about any aspect of television broadcasting. At the moment, there is a plethora of regulators. Frankly, the public do not know that some of them even exist, but if they do, the public are not sure of their powers or how they can help when they have a complaint.
  I share the Secretary of State's understandable concerns about the proposal to use the so-called V-chip. I am happy to have a discussion on that as, indeed, is she, because, like almost every hon. Member, I want to ensure that, so far as practicable, children are protected from violent or disturbing images on television screens. 1 share the public's concerns generally on those points, but the reality is very different from some of the reports that we have read in the newspapers. Even if every new television set were to be fitted from tomorrow with the V-chip, some 36 million television sets in everyday use in Britain would be without one, and many of those sets will survive for

  561
  many years. We know that many parents will not go out and—by whatever means—have their existing television sets retro-fitted with V-chips.
  Mr. Hughes rose—
  Dr. Cunningham: No, I shall not give way again.
  Many of those sets will survive for years. The proposal leaves out the need to fit the chip to video recorders, which would also require one as, in time, probably, would personal computers. There is also a legitimate argument that over-reliance on such end-user technology might, for example, lead inevitably to a lowering of standards in the general quality of broadcast material. It might also erode the well-established principle of the 9 o'clock watershed. The overriding principle must be the exercise of parental responsibility, which can only ever be supported—not released—by technology, so let us have the debate. Anyone who believes that that is a quick and easy solution to the problem is deluding him or herself.
  The BBC transmitter privatisation, to which the Secretary of State referred, is unnecessary. Nor did the BBC want it. It is taking place as a sop to those on the Tory right who want the whole of the BBC to be privatised. It was forced on the BBC, which probably acquiesced to ease the renewal of its charter. Before the sale takes place, there are some important questions to be asked about how the future of broadcasting transmission services will be regulated. We do not know who will be the likely purchaser of the transmitters, but it could, for example, be National Transmission Ltd. and its new owners, Cabletel. How will a monopoly or, indeed, a rather complex duopoly, be regulated? How will its prices be controlled? Will radio and television transmission operate in the public interest, or will it operate in the interests of a private monopoly just motivated by profits, as we have seen in many other private monopolies created by the Government following privatisation? All these questions have been ducked by the Secretary of State, and we shall pursue them in Committee.
  There are other issues—
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham:—such as who owns some of the transmitter sites, particularly those based on embassy properties overseas. Finally, but by no means least important—
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: Not for the moment.
  What provisions will there be for the staff of the BBC transmission department, whose employment and pension rights do not merit a single line in these proposals? The staff of the BBC transmission service must be treated in no less favourable a way than the IBA employees were when its transmission services were privatised. If the House will forgive the pun, bland reassurances about TUPE—the transfer of undertakings protection of employment—regulations are simply not good enough.
  562
  The Bill's remit is broad and complex—
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham:—but its vision is narrow. Where are the provisions—
  Mr. Fabricant: Is he frit?
  Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman flatters himself.
  Where are the provisions to deal with the new types of point-to-point and video-on-demand services? Where are the clauses to regulate the provision of moving images on the Internet? Where are the regulations that will accelerate the process of convergence of the television, telephone and personal computer?
  Broadcasting has a great tradition in the United Kingdom, from the early radio broadcasts, through Baird's experiments 70 years ago, right up to the present day. We have, as the Secretary of State rightly said, been at the forefront, the cutting edge, of much of the progress in broadcasting technology. In spite of our criticisms, we have probably the best television industry in the world, even though we must all from time to time reflect on that wonderful comment of Harriet Van Horne, who said:
  "There are days when any electrical appliance in the house, including the vacuum cleaner, seems to offer more entertainment possibilities than the television set."
  To their credit, the Government see the commercial and economic opportunities of digital technology—opportunities for British industry across the globe; opportunities that we cannot afford to miss—but they have failed to provide the legislative and regulatory framework to match those challenges. That is why we shall vote for our amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I call Mr. David Mellor.
  Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was announced earlier that, after the Front-Bench speeches, speeches would be limited to 10 minutes. When will that arrangement start, and when will it end?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will start immediately.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. David Mellor: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about an area of policy which means a great deal to me, and has done for most of my time in the House.
  I welcome the Bill, which represents a full-hearted acceptance of the reality of change that has coloured and motivated all Conservative legislation on broadcasting over the past 50 years. All the major broadcasting changes that are now considered so beneficial were introduced by Conservative Governments, and were generally opposed by Labour. The move towards imposing a statutory framework on the digital revolution will, I think, be as successful as—six years on—the Broadcasting Act 1990 is now seen to be. Whatever was said about that Act.

  563
  ITV and Channel 4 have flourished and the Trsry has benefited, and there have been none of the malevolent consequences that were predicted.
  Given the time limit, I shall concentrate on a few issues that reflect my view that, while of course there is room for enterprise and entrepreneurs in broadcasting, it will never be a suitable medium for a free-for-all. There will never be a completely free market in broadcasting. There is always a role for regulation; the task of successive Parliaments and Governments is to determine what that regulation should be, and with how light a touch it should be applied.
  I have been closely involved in the issue of sport since the Bill was introduced. I believe that the right answer has now been arrived at in regard to the limited list and the restriction on Sky. I subscribe to Sky Sports: I believe that in future there will be specialist channels catering for the addict in a way that general channels cannot be expected to. We must recognise, however, that there is considerable resentment among the public, who feel that they may be robbed of what they regard as key national sporting events.
  The restricted list—whose legislative history dates from well before the 1990 Act—provides a fair basis for specifying events that should be seen on terrestrial television. I do not consider that a major inhibition to the development of Sky's business, but I do not support any extension of the list. I think that we must simply accept that it exists, arbitrary though it may be. To extend it would be to open a Pandora's box: people would want to include everything from the Five Nations championship and the Ryder cup to the tiddlywinks championships.
  It would be wrong for us not to address the issue of "unbundling" in an effective way. There is no reason why those who have paid for exclusive rights to show a sporting event—even if they have paid formidable sums—should not both allow limited highlights to be shown on news channels on other services and, if they are television channels, allow separate radio rights so that those who cannot afford to subscribe can listen to the event on the radio. That is what many people did when the last Ryder cup event was broadcast. We have a public interest in ensuring that monopolists do not damage the public's entitlement to share in great national sporting events. I do not necessarily believe that that should be included in a Bill, but I do believe that it should be achieved effectively. I hope that there will soon be a code of practice, so that we can judge its effectiveness before the Report stage.
  The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said something that he may not entirely have meant; it was rather tangential. I may have misunderstood him, but he seemed to be saying that it was a good thing that the Premier League's television rights had been referred to the restrictive practices court. I am sorry if he thinks that—but he is now saying that he does not, so I take back what I said.
  Personally, I consider that action to have been a malign and foolish intervention. The equivalent regulator in America is specifically forbidden to interfere in the entitlement of the league to sell its television rights as a unit. It is self-evident that every football team cannot agree its own television rights. If Manchester United has an exclusive deal with one television channel and
  564
  Liverpool has a deal with another, how on earth can their matches be given television coverage? I believe that the regulator overstepped the mark.
  When the 14 per cent. threshold was set, Channel 4 wanted it. It did not know any more than the rest of us whether, once free to sell its own advertising revenue, it would flourish: it took a leap in the dark. I understand why it now wants a change, and I also understand why the Channel 3 companies resist the idea—if some of them did indeed rely on securing an income from Channel 4 when they made their bids. Some were paying formidable sums to the Trsry for the right to broadcast.
  I believe that considerable progress has been made in sorting out the issue, but I hope that it will be possible to deal with it once and for all during the passage of the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) suggested, there might be some advantage in that; I do not see the point of keeping the pot bubbling.
  I am sorry that, having delivered his soundbite, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has departed. The V-chip strikes me as a simplistic solution to a complex problem, which, like all simplistic solutions, will not work. First, I think that responsibility for the broadcasting of offensive material should continue to lie with broadcasters. No one should be let off the hook because, if they show something unacceptable, a little widget in the television set will stop children seeing it. Secondly, such an arrangement may be all right in America, but, unlike America, we have regulation. Regulation should be effective, and should prevent the showing of programmes that are over-violent or offend the taste and decency of the wider community.
  Our attention has already been drawn to the awesome consequences of replacing pieces of equipment to ensure that the V-chip can be inserted. It has been forgotten, however, that if the V-chip is to work on the basis of a one-to-five classification, everything shown on television must be classified. The system can be triggered only if the programme involved identifies itself as level 4, 3 or 2. I think that it is an elephant trap for the unwary, and I hope that the House will resist the proposal of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill.
  As for cross-media ownership, we have all experienced our little humiliations when political proposals or pieces of legislation go wrong. The right hon. Member for Copeland teased my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about her alleged humiliation over sports rights. I suspect that my right hon. Friend was well aware that that would happen at some point in the proceedings, and was entitled to make a judgment about when she wished to reveal her hand.
  The right hon. Gentleman did his usual clever stuff, spinning his words effortlessly. He reminded me of what was once said about the boxing promoter Don King: "If bullshit were poetry, he would be Shakespeare." However, the fact that Lord Donoughue had eaten his words before the right hon. Gentleman could eat them for him cannot disguise the truth that the Labour party should feel some embarrassment. When—as is appropriate in the case of a Government of integrity like the present Government—the White Paper actually said what the Government would do, and when the Government then published a Bill to enable them to do it, Labour made one response to the Government's announcement of their intentions and a quite different response to the Bill.

  565
  Whatever the right hon. Gentleman says, there is no option but to conclude that because Mirror Group Newspapers got at the Labour party it has had a conversion on the road to some city other than Damascus on the issue of 20 per cent. rather than 25 per cent. It sits ill in the mouth of a party that is always proclaiming its high standards on these matters to object to the Government apparently falling in thrall of vested interests when the first time that a vested interest so much as waves a little finger at Labour the public interest flies out of the window. Labour cannot be proud of that.
  The Bill is worthy of a Second Reading and I hope that after some details have been smoothed out in Committee it will become law.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The Bill would be much better if it took account of the reports by the Select Committee on National Heritage on Channel 4 funding, on which its provisions are unsatisfactory. On listed sports, the Government have been forced to adopt the Select Committee's recommendations. The Government have failed to understand the Committee's recommendations on the future of broadcasting as outlined in our report on the future of the BBC.
  The Bill is poor because it has no plans for the future horizons of broadcasting, which is the future of this country. We are not simply debating television entertainment but the future of work, education, medicine and the social organisation of our cities. We shall see the biggest change since the industrial revolution. Countless jobs and billions of pounds worth of exports are at stake. In future, television, computers, newspapers and telephones will merge into one seamless continuum. That is not a fanciful, futuristic prospect: it is happening now.
  In the United States NBC and Microsoft are discussing a service by which NBC will broadcast the news. Anyone who wants more will be able to tune in to the Microsoft network and receive everything that is related to that news coverage. That can happen now. Audiences and services are changing. Cable television is providing telephone services and 30 per cent. of the population now have access to satellite and cable television.
  The Government have been forced to recognise change through the Bill's historic clauses 26 and 113, which for the first time will give the ITC power over the BBC. But the Bill as a whole is a puny, bureaucratic, petty regulatory measure that cannot see beyond an extremely low horizon. It aims, not very competently, to tidy up the past but fails to prepare for the revolution of the impending future. Its petty, silly and almost certainly unworkable regulations on cross-media ownership are the most vivid illustration of its inadequacy.
  I have rarely read such claptrap in any legislation as that contained in clause 5 and schedule 2. They set out batty requirements for an assessment of changes in the percentage of total audience time of television stations, and changes in the national and local market shares of newspapers and the number of 15-year-olds who watch any particular programmes. The percentages are utterly arbitrary. The right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) what percentages he supported, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman failed to take account of the fact that the Bill gives the Secretary
  566
  of State power to change the percentages at any time she wishes—so she does not necessarily believe in those percentages either.
  I do not know whether to laugh at the sheer fatuity of the legislation or to cry at the expenditure of time by highly paid civil servants, no doubt with first-class degrees. Such demented provisions are aimed at limiting what needs to be expanded. We need more cross-media ownership, not less. In the United States, cross-media alliances are powerful enough to dominate the world, but in Britain the future of communications will be crabbed and stunted. There is no policy for the future of the biggest growth industry for the foreseeable or, indeed, the unforeseeable future. The Department of National Heritage is not a Ministry for fun: it should be a powerful industrial Department rather than a finicky calculator of points and percentages.
  I repeat what I have said in the House several times in the past, and I shall continue to say it until someone does something about it. Instead of allowing foreign-owned cable companies to make this country their adventure playground, expanding their wealth from the United States and Canada into this country and dominating more and more the 48 existing channels and the many more that we should and will have, we should build up a United Kingdom conglomerate that is powerful enough to take on the world's biggest conglomerates. The only pre-eminent indigenous company that is capable of providing the software, the programming for that conglomerate, is the BBC.
  The BBC ought to be working in partnership with the ITV companies, which are currently able to harvest a short-term bonanza for themselves but which in the long term on their present basis are doomed. The BBC is stumbling into the future. Its world and prime channels, which are now available on the continent, are examples of that. But it needs to be booted into the future. The BBC needs to be set free from the licence to which it clings as an anchor, but which is its shackle. It needs to be propelled into the world market, but it is the playground of puny men who are totally unequal to the challenge of moving into the information super-highway.
  As one of his earliest acts as chairman of the BBC, Sir Christopher Bland ought to clear out the puny men. The corporation must enter a partnership involving not only its current worldwide partnership with Pearsons but British Telecom. It must have the incentives and the disciplines of the market. It is cushioned too much by the licence and by being a public corporation. The current issue of The Economist is right that the days of subsidised television are coming to an end and ought to end.
  Huge possibilities and prizes are available for this country because it has the asset of the BBC logo and the priceless asset of the English language. The Bill not only does nothing to realise the possibilities of the new age of communications in which those prizes are available but its absurd page after page of pointless, unworkable and unimplementable regulations are a ball and chain. In the last full Session of this Parliament the Bill shows that we can hope for nothing from the Government. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has shown that he completely understands the issues and my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland has added to what the

  567
  Leader of the Opposition said in October. We must look to a new Government for new ideas which will gain for Britain the industrial rewards that are there to be won.
  It is incredible that the Conservatives call themselves the party of the market. The Bill has nothing to do with the market. It is backward looking when what we need is one that looks to the future. I hope that a Labour Government will soon introduce such legislation.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Tim Renton: I have to tell the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that although I sit under his chairmanship on the National Heritage Select Committee, I believe that he is totally wrong in his approach to the Bill. The trouble with the Bill is that it is complex—but, as many hon. Members have already said, we are dealing with extremely complex issues.
  When I was a Home Office Minister, I played a part in the preparation of the 1990 Broadcasting Bill, before moving to another job at No. 12 Downing street. The House must recognise now, as we had to recognise in 1990, that technological change in broadcasting is proceeding at such a speed that it is rather like a moving reel of 8 mm film—but Parliament stops the film, says that there is to be another broadcasting Bill and we have to take a snapshot of one moment in time in what is essentially a fast-moving picture. That is the difficulty that the House faces with this Bill, as it did with the 1990 Bill.
  As I said, I wholly disagree with the right hon. Member for Gorton. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, with her officials and with officials at the Department of Trade and Industry, has done an extremely good job in dealing with a very complex task. It is true that such phrases as "multiplex service" and "independent analogue broadcaster" are not on people's lips in the pubs in my constituency—or, I suspect, in Manchester. If I were to talk about digital compression to one of my friends, he would probably think I was referring to someone who had caught his fingers in the car door. If I were to talk about conditional access, people might think it more relevant to family law and the rights of divorced parents to have access to their children. We must accept that those phrases are not on people's lips in this rapidly changing world.
  The questions people want to ask are these. Will the BBC stay the same? Will we have to continue to pay a licence fee? Do we have to buy much more equipment, such as computers, modems, satellite dishes, and so on, to get the new channels? Do we—sports fans apart—want the new channels anyway? And what will we do with 200 channels if we get them? The great majority of people in Britain would say, "Stop the broadcasting revolution: stop this particular world turning so fast—I want to get off."
  The Bill does not make the average person much wiser. However, we have to accept—those hon. Members who serve on the Select Committee know this—that we cannot disinvent the atomic bomb, digital television, the Astra satellite or fibre-optic cable. The Government must cope with changes according to the best information available at the time and the best prognosis of what will happen in the years ahead.
  Hon. Members have already said that the two major new factors—the two great challenges—will be digital television and interactive television. We have not yet said
  568
  much about interactive television, but there are enormous possibilities for school education, adult learning and home shopping. However, the screen needs to be linked to a telephone line to complete the return loop. That means that the domination of television for the past 30 or 40 years by the terrestrial broadcasters is over. Influence and power will move away from them to satellite and cable broadcasters and to the giant telephone companies. They are very different players indeed.
  One of the few detailed questions that I want to explore in the time available to me is whether it is right, in those circumstances, for responsibility within Government to be split between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of National Heritage. I suspect that it is not. The whole spectrum of responsibility should fall to one Department, probably the DNH. In turn, the DNH should pass on to the Independent Television Commission as much as possible of the detailed, executive responsibility for daily decisions. It is wrong for a Government Department to have to interfere in highly technical, executive decisions on a day-to-day basis.
  From this rapidly changing scenario will emerge three or four very large companies, in multimedia or in telecommunications, or in both. They will have pan-European ambitions. Murdoch, Canal Plus, Bertlesmann and Berlusconi are some of the obvious names. In a sense, with the Bill the Government are like the legendary Dutch boy keeping his finger in the dyke, trying to stop a huge tidal wave of water flowing out, not knowing where it would go. If there is excessive domination by a few companies, I have no doubt that Britain will no longer have the diversity, the variety of ownership and the programmes that we all want and which have served this country so well. The attempt to preserve those is the guiding philosophy behind the Bill.
  There is one particular area—I hope that my right hon. Friend will add it to her copious notes—in which the Bill should go further than it does: the control of conditional access or encryption. The providers of the highly technical service of encryption will not be just the gatekeepers; they will not just have their own turnstile in the sky, as BSkyB described its pay-per-view coverage of the Bruno-Tyson fight: they will have the ability to control other people's turnstiles—other people's gates to profit. Surely that makes the licensing of conditional access services essential. That should apply not just to digital broadcasting and satellite, but to terrestrial and analogue. If it is not made clear that the Government intend to introduce a licensing system to cover the whole area of conditional access, the providers could be in a dangerously dominant position in an indispensable component of provision to viewers of subscription television services. I hope that that is one area where the Standing Committee will reinforce the licensing provisions. The ITC should be the watchdog for that, as it is ideally suited for the role.
  We have discussed Channel 4 widely. I hope that my right hon. Friend will think again about the need to give some indication of the likely level of the split in funding in 1998–99. I hope that she will bear it in mind that television companies—and Channel 4 is a leading company—plan two years ahead for their series of programmes. It will become increasingly important to Channel 4 to know its likely funding position in 1998.

  569
  I recognise that quality is the hardest issue of all. We fought for it with the 1990 Bill and I hope that clause 8 of the current Bill will be amended to include some sort of quality formula for digital terrestrial television. I do not think that the argument that quality should be excluded is properly or sufficiently made. There should also be a clear incentive for original production within the United Kingdom. That is, after all, the bedrock of our television industry. It is what has made some of our television companies, such as Granada, famous throughout the world. There are huge exports involved, for example, into the Masterpiece theatre of United States television. The proposals can be modest, but surely some incentive should be provided, even to the new digital television providers, to commit themselves to British-based original production, which will grow as they establish their profits.
  Finally, I want to say something which I know that many people feel—which is that we have some of the best television and radio in the world. I hope that in the multiple birth of new channels on digital, satellite and cable, we can ensure that the creative skills of our multimedia industry are not only maintained, but thrive. On that basis, I support the Bill.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I very much agree with almost everything said by the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), which I have not always done on these matters. I think that the demission of office has made him less doctrinaire on broadcasting matters, which I welcome.
  The right hon. Gentleman was right to emphasise that the broadcasting industry in this country has been immensely successful in producing programmes of quality and variety that are almost without parallel in the world and have been enjoyed almost universally in this country—with unlimited access until relatively recently. That situation is changing, and it is right to examine the regulatory framework that is needed to take account of technological developments, which are moving so rapidly and have made the Broadcasting Act 1990 an insufficient basis for the future.
  The broadcasting industry is important and—notwithstanding what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said about its current performance; I think that he overstated the case—it employs about 42,000 people and is worth about £3.5 billion to the United Kingdom's economy. He overstated the case because he places much greater emphasis on the broadcasting industry as a productive industry rather than one that serves the listeners and viewers. It is because of that service aspect of the industry that it is necessary to have a regulatory regime that is sensitive to such considerations, and not only to the adaptations necessary for operation in a global market.
  I believe that we have always recognised in this country that a special competition regime is required for broadcasting, rather than merely placing reliance on the Office of Fair Trading or the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I have noticed on other occasions that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton and other hon. Members are so fascinated with the new technology that they are at risk of believing that the medium is the message.
  Digital broadcasting is of great importance. It allows more economy in the use of the spectrum and, when combined with multiplexing, can greatly increase the
  570
  possible number of channels. I think that, at least theoretically, it offers the possibility of a welcome expansion of consumer choice. Although that development will not occur overnight, as the opportunities for listening and watching programmes multiplies, so the audience reach of those channels will be fractured and diminished, which must have a considerable impact on programme making.
  It is possible—I hope that the right hon. Member for Gorton is right about it—that specialist interests may be better catered for in such a world. I think that that is quite possible, but it is also true that commercial pressures may erode the resources that have been put into public service broadcasting, which could diminish the true diversity and quality of programmes available to the public.
  The possibility that those resources will be eroded is why I think that the Government are right to proceed with some caution in altering the regulatory framework of broadcasting, and why—in particular when we consider the detail of the Bill, which is complex—we should seek to ensure that the new rules relaxing controls on media ownership do not undermine plurality and diversity. In particular, we must strengthen provisions that are necessary to secure the distinctiveness of regional media. In the light of what the Secretary of State had to say on that point, I shall return to it later.
  Broadly, I think that the Government's proposals for digital multiplexes make fair provision for existing terrestrial channels, and I particularly welcome the allocation of an entire multiplex to the BBC. However, it is not clear what the Government intend to do about the standardisation of technology for receiving such channels. Do the Government intend to ensure that black boxes will be standardised across the industry? It would clearly be too expensive for viewers to have to purchase different black boxes for each channel they wish to watch. If we are to continue with the objective of universality of access, I hope that the Government will find it possible to consider that point.
  If subscribers to pay television have to go through one gateway to receive that service, and the controller of that gateway is also the provider of programmes and can exclude other programme providers, there is a clear risk of anti-competitive practice, as the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex pointed out. I think that the Bill does not seek to protect us against such potential abuse, which is a little odd considering the Bill's purposes. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I should like to see an amendment tabled in Committee to achieve such protection. Although the Government have mentioned this point at earlier stages, they seem not to be treating it as an issue of broadcasting policy.
  There is an even bigger black hole in relation to competition, because the Bill does not provide any system of licensing or regulation for conditional access and encryption for existing analogue cable and satellite broadcasting. The Independent Television Commission has argued—I believe that the House should accept its argument—that it is best equipped to regulate conditional access, and should be empowered to do so for both analogue and digital services.
  Although currently we seem quite far from the proffered 18 national television channels on six multiplexes, I should be interested to know why the Government are willing to contemplate having half those multiplexes acquired by a single company.

  571
  Again adverting to a point raised by the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex, I should like to know whether some quality requirement will have to be met and monitored, either by the multiplex operator or by the programme providers. It is not sufficient to say, as the Secretary of State did, that the BBC and the independent television companies that will have access to multiplex will be regulated and will set a benchmark. It is bound to have a major impact on the pressure for quality on the other half of the industry if more than half the new providers are not to be regulated. That point has not been adequately debated so far in the Bill's passage.
  Those are not immediate questions, because we are not faced tomorrow with the arrival of the digital terrestrial revolution, but it is incumbent on us to address the changes that the revolution will bring. I should be interested to hear whether the Minister of State has anything to say to give us a better idea of when and how the revolution will occur, because, although dates have been given—five years has been mentioned—there has not yet been clear commercial interest in moving in that direction.
  It would not be satisfactory simply to switch off analogue broadcasting and render the reception arrangements of the bulk of the population out of date at a flick of the Government's finger. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that that was Labour party policy. We are entitled to hear the Government's best guesses on how this development can be kick-started. So far, it is a very exciting technological development, with obvious benefits, but lacks the commercial catalyst.
  I turn from those somewhat futuristic problems and possibilities—as I said, it is right that we should be seeking to legislate for them—to the more immediate impact of the Bill's provisions to liberalise cross-media ownership. I say at once that I accept at least part of the argument that the rapid technological convergence between different media sectors makes some of the existing rules—which weigh against an entry into broadcasting of long-established newspaper companies, for example—artificial and undesirable.
  However, we are not talking only about very big business and the demands of the global marketplace—we are concerned with the need to ensure that the media of communication are not unacceptably dominated by too few players. Broadcasting and newspapers have always been recognised as apt subjects for particular rules of competition, since monopoly in the flow of information and ideas is wholly unacceptable.
  Subject to substantial strengthening of the Bill's provisions to secure the regional diversity which is one of the most attractive aspects of current British independent television, I would not be unhappy in principle with the relaxation on cross-media holdings to allow groups to control a mix of newspapers, television and radio licences; but—here I take issue with the Government—the market share mechanism, which is the basis of the regulatory proposals for television and radio, is inevitably arbitrary in its effects. A more general requirement—contained in, I think, schedule 2—to satisfy public interest criteria before authorising an acquisition or merger would seem more likely not only to work equitably but to enable the regulatory authority to extract appropriate conditions before authorising mergers or takeovers.
  572
  The Government cannot really suggest, as the Secretary of State did, that they are completely lacking in political partiality, whereas the Opposition were politically partial in taking the view that 20 per cent. was the right market share when that would cut out the Daily Mirror but allow the Daily Mail to enter the broadcasting market. These figures are not arrived at accidentally—they are arrived at arbitrarily. They are chosen with a particular purpose which was, no doubt, not to isolate Mr. Rupert Murdoch in his purdah.
  On reflection, that is perhaps a rather strange way to put it. I should say that the intention is not to isolate him in being unable to enter the terrestrial market, which I imagine does not trouble him unduly, in view of his domination in other areas. That automatic approach is not sufficiently consumer-oriented to be an acceptable way of regulating the industry. The regulatory authority should examine questions of public interest in the round and be given more detailed guidance than that set out in the Bill.
  Above all, it is important that the regulatory body should be dedicated to the media industry, and to the particular interests of viewers and listeners in this country. I do not think that it is appropriate to rely on the MMC to do that work.
  I noted reports at the weekend that the MMC has been considering the interests of consumers of electricity and taking into consideration global market arguments to allow the coming together of providers and suppliers in a way that would be highly damaging to the consumer interest if it were to be applied by parity of reasoning in the broadcasting world. I very much hope that that will not come about, but I especially urge that the Independent Television Commission should be the regulatory body for such matters, and that the consumer interest should be dominant in the consideration of regulatory matters.
  I was glad to hear what the Secretary of State had to say this afternoon about regional planning. It has been a concern of mine that the greater concentration of ownership, perhaps in the hands of as few as two major companies following the passage of the Bill, could destroy the regional characteristics of the independent television network. Although clause 67 enhances the power of the ITC to extract necessary conditions on the change of ownership of regional companies, the Bill does not deal with the problem of a change in the balance of power among ITV companies, which could result in amendment to the network supply agreement, to the detriment of smaller regional companies.
  I understood the Secretary of State to be saying that she has taken note of that point, and would be sympathetic to an amendment to the Bill to give the ITC authority over this matter and allow it to police the sensitive pricing mechanism. If that is indeed her intention, it goes a substantial way towards removing one of my principal anxieties.
  I deal now with local radio. This is a rather limited debate and although I understand that I am not subject to a time limit, I think that it would be courteous if I did not cover every point, many of which can be dealt with in Committee. The Bill deals, most importantly, with commercial radio, altering the basis to a limitation of the potential audience share of 15 per cent. for any one company. The strictures about percentages, which I have already outlined, are applicable in this sphere, as they are in television. I am not sure that this is a justifiable approach.

  573
  It is certainly important to prevent the build-up of local monopoly, and that is something to which we shall return, especially in view of the arguments advanced by the Newspaper Society, seeking to increase the scope for regional and local newspapers to expand into the broadcast media in their own areas. What matters is the principle of diversity. It would not be appropriate for one regional local newspaper group to dominate local broadcast media.
  I deal now with just a few matters of detail. First, the Bill contains a rather odd provision. It does not disqualify the BBC from holding commercial radio licences. The Radio Authority was apparently told by officials at the Department of National Heritage that that was
  "a deliberate provision to permit a BBC company to hold a BBC radio licence".
  The authority considers that that could effect a significant distortion of competition, and I agree. Although it seems doubtful that the BBC would be able to afford such an investment, I should be grateful if the Minister would explain the Government's thinking on this point.
  Secondly, I raise a point of detail of rather more local interest. It concerns the strange press release issued by the Department this morning, announcing that the Bill extended the funding for Gaelic radio broadcasting. I am not aware that an additional penny has been made available for Gaelic broadcasting. The press release is, at best, misleading.
  As I understand it, clause 76 empowers the Gaelic broadcasting fund to include the financing of Gaelic radio programmes within its remit, but it does not proffer any new money for Gaelic language broadcasting. Nor have the Government done so.
  In Committee, we shall want to deal with many matters relating to SC4, but I shall leave them for now.
  I have just one question on the broadcasting of sporting events. I am glad that the Secretary of State performed her elegant arabesque—perhaps "tour en l'air" is the more balletic expression—on the listed events. It was admirably accomplished, but let there be no glissade away from the position that she has now adopted.
  It is important for the whole nation that such events should be universally available. I understand the thinking that prompted her. It was a perfectly legitimate concern to ensure that sports clubs benefit from developments in technology but not at the cost of these matches. She was right to concede the point. Incidentally, how is the Sports Council's code to be policed? Where is the responsibility to lie?
  The Bill also deals with the handling of complaints about standards, and brings together at least a couple of the bodies that have responsibilities in this sphere. I welcome the amalgamation of the two bodies. I was never happy about their separate existence, but I very much take the point expressed by the National Consumer Council, that a large range of bodies is responsible for regulation of the industry.
  A one-stop shop approach is at least a desirable objective. The new body could be quite helpful in offering advice and counselling and in carrying out research, but it is important that it is not seen as the body capable of delivering the remedy. That task must lie with the broadcasters themselves. That responsibility should not be taken away from them or be thought to have been locked up in some quango, thus giving an alibi to errors that have been permitted.
  574
  The Channel 4 funding formula has been much debated in exchanges across the Floor of the House on earlier occasions. What I thought came out of those exchanges was the Secretary of State's very unsatisfactory unwillingness to make clear the financial consequence to Channel 4 in particular, and independent companies as well, of their acceptance that there have to be changes out of equity. I do not think that the matter can be left indefinitely, and it should not be.
  Investment, as the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex said, has a long lead time. Films in which we would want Channel 4 to invest, of the kind that it has been investing in very successfully, require planning years in advance. If we are to promote British production through the recouping of money that has gone to the independents, it would be helpful if the Government considered such questions.
  I do not expect the Secretary of State to make all the moves at once and immediately. I am not asking for something tonight—that would be particularly unreal, in the light of what she said earlier. She ought, however, to consult on the matter, return to the House before the Bill leaves Parliament, and work out an appropriate arrangement that does justice to both sides of the argument. I have no doubt that Channel 4 has made a very impressive case, and it ought to be heard.
  Some 40 per cent. of the British people's leisure time is spent listening to or watching broadcasts. Notwithstanding the excitement of the technologies that make that experience and the its diversification possible, and the excitement generated by the prospects of our further projection in a commercial direction through the medium abroad, I hope that the interests of British viewers and listeners will be given priority in the parts of the Bill that deal with the regulation of such an important industry.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. John MacGregor: In the time available I want to deal with one issue only. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government on the way in which they have responded to debates and representations in another place. My right hon. Friend said that she intends to make a number of further changes as the Bill passes through the House. I add my voice to those who are urging one further change, concerning the issue of regional and local newspapers, in the hope that it can be made in Committee.
  We are all agreed on the importance of the 1,400 regional and local newspapers. They help to produce plurality—which is sought through the Bill—diversity and, of course, good coverage of regional and local news, which cannot be obtained as well elsewhere. Local publishers are under immense pressure from their own industry, national newspapers and, above all, from the new means of communication, on which there has been so much focus in this debate, and which are expanding very quickly while communication through the printed word is declining.
  The Bill would adversely affect the competitive ability of many regional and local newspaper publishers, their ability to develop their businesses in the only strategic way that makes sense—by diversifying—and their ability to earn additional revenue from which they can continue to provide regional and local services. In other words, the Bill unnecessarily handicaps local and regional

  575
  publishers, for it allows national and foreign-owned companies to own local and regional television and local radio services, and indeed to back them up with a free local newspaper, which in itself is often a major source of competition for local newspapers, yet does not permit many regional and local newspapers to do the same.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says, that provision is justified on the grounds that the Government consider that
  "those with a strong voice in an area's local newspaper market should not also be able to dominate local radio services in that area."
  In response to the proposal of the Newspaper Society, which represents the relevant interests, that national newspapers, together with all other media, should be included in the threshold calculations, my right hon. Friend has said that she believes that there is a clear distinction between the editorial content of national and local newspapers, and that, therefore, the proposal should not be implemented. I believe that that view is mistaken. Of course I accept that at the very time a Bill is preventing cross-media dominance at a national level, we do not want to permit it at regional or local level, but that would not happen if the Newspaper Society's request were met.
  First, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the Bill tries in a number of ways to enable some local papers to invest more in local radio. Secondly, and perhaps most important, there is a public interest test. That test is sufficient to deal with the local dominance problem. Thirdly, regional publishers, such as the one affecting my region, Eastern Counties Newspapers, would be hit by the Bill. Such publishers do not have a monopoly of local news; there are a considerable number of local radio services, local television, BBC radio, and so on.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many good newspapers in the south-east would also be seriously affected if there were not the changes that he proposes?
  Mr. MacGregor: That is true for many local publishers throughout the country. Local newspapers compete with the national dailies. They compete not only in editorial content but in news coverage. They are competing directly in their own areas for the same readers and advertisers as national newspapers. That is very clear if one looks at the readerships in our constituencies. They very often compete with the national dailies rather than with any other publications. It is not sufficient for local papers to be able to own other media such as local radio stations in other parts of the country. They will of course want to do that sometimes, and it already occurs, but provided that there is not a total local monopoly, there are obvious advantages, cost savings and synergies in being able to own other media in their regions, for which they are so well equipped.
  The Newspaper Society is urging a number of changes, but I want to focus on the proposal that, in considering the thresholds, all the media circulating in a geographical area should be taken into account when drawing up the media ownership rules that will determine who can own what media in an area. National newspapers, commercial radio and television and the BBC should be taken into account. Such a change would enable the companies of
  576
  which I am talking to continue to compete, to diversify as they wish and, in so doing, continue to provide their excellent local service. The public interest test seems to deal with the issue of local monopoly, about which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is rightly concerned. A namesake of mine in the other place tabled a number of amendments on this point. They were not taken on board on that occasion, but I hope that some of them will be this evening.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: I declare an interest as a director of Sheffield Wednesday football club—a premier league team. I want to talk about the listed events. It is rather peculiar that everybody in this country seems to accept that sport should be totally free on television and that people should be able to watch it because they pay their licence fee. If, for instance, Pavarotti were at the opera or the Rolling Stones were playing at Wembley, nobody in his right mind would expect such events to be shown live, totally free. Nobody would expect to see a royal film premiere or the royal variety performance for free, yet their Lordships have decided that sporting events at the highest level should be made available to everybody at a rock bottom price. That is very generous of them, but what about the people who have to stage the events and pay for them?
  The top sporting events are now run for genuine fans, who often have to fight to get a ticket. They have to compete with touts, and they pay from £15 to £60 for the once-in-a-lifetime chance of seeing their team play at Wembley. Yet everybody else expects to see those events free.
  That is a crazy market situation. Like my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), I believe that the listed events should be shown free on television, simply because people cannot get tickets for them; it would therefore be wrong if they were not on television. But a law that says that all those events should all be shown, on all the television channels if necessary, without having a price fixed or an agreement on what the clubs should be paid, is totally unfair.
  As I told the Secretary of State earlier, that position would sooner or later be challenged in the courts, on the ground that clubs are being forced to pay their players fantastically high wages. Players such as Cantona of Manchester United are probably earning £10,000 to £15,000 a week, and Ginola of Newcastle is on £12,000 a week. What would happen if the clubs could not get the money from television? We are already charging high prices to the fans—as high as they can afford to pay. Where would the cash come from? [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) is asking me a question, and I would give way to him if I had more time. He asks, "Why pay such high wages?"
  When the British teams did not pay the high wages in the 1970s, the best British players used to go to Italy, France or Germany. Now it is the other way around. The best foreign players are coming here, because we are paying the high wages. That is why our sport on television is so good; that is why our teams are so good, and why everyone in Europe wants to play here. We can pay such high wages because of the money that we get from television, mainly from Sky. [Interruption.] I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan, but I cannot let him intervene because time is so tight.

  577
  If it were not for the money that we get from Sky we could not afford to pay those high wages. Let us not knock Sky. In 1990 the House said to football clubs, "You must make your stadiums all-seater." They were compelled to do it, and it cost a mint of money. The Government cut the tax on football pools from 45 to 42 per cent.—but they had already put that tax up from 40 to 45 per cent. in the first place, so they were giving the game nothing. The football pools were paying the money out through the Football Trust, and a marvellous job was done in renovating our football grounds.
  What happened then? Along came the national lottery, and it has knocked the football pools sideways. The pools are in serious trouble. The lottery has damaged the betting shops and bingo too—and the Government have not taken one extra pound in tax from the lottery, because although they have taken £600 million from it, £600 million has been lost in tax on the football pools, the betting shops and the other parts of the leisure industry; so the Government are no better off.
  The game of football has lost a good benefactor in the football pools, which paid through the Football Trust to renovate the grounds, yet at the same time we say that top sporting events have to give their prize product to everybody free.
  Mr. Grocott: ITV bid £260 million. That is hardly free.
  Mr. Ashton: That is not true. The armchair viewer pays 3p an hour to watch sport. When my team played at Newcastle in the top match of last week, 25 minutes of which was shown on "Match of the Day", we received £7,000—£7,000 for 25 minutes of prime television time. Some Newcastle players get more than that every week. That is all wonderful for the armchair viewer, and it is marvellous for the House of Lords, but it is not so good for the guys like me, who have to find the money from somewhere to put the events on, to pay the wages and to satisfy the demands of the crowd.
  A cartel could be formed; ITV, the BBC and Sky could get together and offer peanuts. What would it matter? They would still have the show straight away. The same sort of cartel used to operate before Sky came along. The BBC and ITV used to pay £5 million for 18 games. Then Sky started showing 60 games, and paid about £30 million for them—and Sky put all the teams on.
  I know that people will say, "What about the poor? What about the pensioners?" Incidentally, anyone can go and watch a match on Sky on a Monday for the price of a pint of beer in the local pub, because the matches are shown on the big screen. I am sympathetic towards the poor and the pensioners who cannot afford the high admission charges—but I do not see the BBC giving them a cheap television licence, as we do in Bassetlaw where the council gives them the equivalent of the cost of a black and white television licence.
  What do the BBC do for the poor? They send them to gaol! Eight hundred people go to gaol for not paying for a television licence. And if we ask in the magistrates court we will be told that those are people who can't pay, not people who won't pay. They are single women with three kids at home, or pensioners. So the BBC does not do much for the poor.
  The fact is not that the BBC is hard up but that it does not want to spend its money on sport. The BBC is happy to spend money on "Pride and Prejudice" and other
  578
  drama. Its representatives admitted as much when our Select Committee investigated the funding of the arts. The BBC paid £1 million an hour for "Pride and Prejudice"—because of the wonderful prestige.
  In that case, I cannot imagine how much the cup final is worth. If we consider the number of viewers, and the price for which it is sold all around the world, it must be worth at least £10 million. The BBC would have a fit if someone suggested it pay £10 million for the cup final. But it can find the money for classical music, for opera, for Radio 3, BBC 2 and all the other prestige highlights. It is a fallacy to say that the BBC has no money. It has £1,700 million a year, but it chooses to spend it in a different way.
  Let us not malign Sky. The satellite people have put a massive amount of money into sport. Without them, not only football but the whole of British sport, including rugby league, would be in a serious condition now. We would be back where we were in the 1970s, with slum grounds, and unable to pay high prices and high wages. We would not be able to retain our best players and to keep the best sport, as we can now.
  We must not forget the other people who work in the industry either. We must remember not only the competitors but those who work behind the scenes, such as the groundsmen, the maintenance men and the ticket sellers. All those people are entitled to say, "You are destroying our industry without giving us anything in its place."
  The Government have bowed to the House of Lords, which was trying to be popular. Shortly before it was due to be abolished—or rather, to have its hereditary voting powers taken away—it wanted to do something to make itself popular. The Lords did what they did out of nostalgia, without thinking through the consequences, because they are armchair viewers.
  Sooner or later—but not now, while the Bill is going through Parliament—someone will say, "This will not stand up in court. You are rigging a market and saying that those events must be shown without having a proper regulator to fix the price." If there are accusations that a cartel exists and someone goes to the Office of Fair Trading, the arrangement will be kicked out. The organisers of sport at the highest level, with the top legal advice, are saying that the rule will not stand up. I hope that this matter will be probed in great depth in Committee.
  7.47 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: First, I must declare that I have been a member of the National Union of Journalists since 1961. I am sure that all hon. Members who supplement their income with journalism pay their union dues, too. I also declare an interest as chairman of Midland Independent Newspapers and as a board member of Express Newspapers.
  I shall make three short points about the Bill. First, it is about more than broadcasting, radio and television, and broadcasting standards. It is of much more fundamental importance than that, because it represents the Government's policy on media ownership. Critically, it concerns the rules according to which newspapers own television companies and radio stations, and the way in which television and radio interests will be able to own

  579
  newspapers. The Bill could therefore hardly be more important for the future structure of the media industry in this country.
  Of course, media ownership raises controversial questions, about which many people have strong views. When discussing the subject, the first issue that many people raise is foreign ownership. They have noticed that, according to the White Paper, 44 per cent. of newspapers bought today are published either by Mr. Murdoch, who was once an Australian citizen but is now a naturalised American citizen, or by Mr. Conrad Black, who is a Canadian.
  Personally, I do not oppose some foreign ownership. I would argue that, in their different ways, both Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Black have made great contributions to British journalism. The question is whether there is any limit to foreign ownership. [Laughter.] My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) laughs. He should understand the revolution that took place at Wapping as a result of Mr. Murdoch's plan. Although I am not an unqualified supporter of Mr. Murdoch, I tell my hon. Friend that if he does not understand that point, he understands nothing about modern journalism.
  At the moment, there is no trace of the Government's view on this question. Would the Government be content if all the national newspapers were foreign owned? What is the Government's policy? Do the Government have a policy? The Bill concerns media ownership and we have a right to expect that those questions will be addressed. There is something anomalous—almost grotesque—about the fact that, although the British market is entirely open to all-comers, when the British industry wants to expand overseas, there are all kinds of restrictions in its way.
  My second point concerns the regional press. I agree very much with what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) said. At the end of the White Paper presented by the Department of National Heritage, before my right hon. Friend the current Secretary of State took over her post, one finds what the Department regards as the audience data for the "major" media companies in newspapers, television and radio—I use the Department's word. It is altogether typical that the only newspapers shown in the list are national newspapers; the regional press is not mentioned in the tables and gets scant attention in the document generally. Again, we find Whitehall's preoccupation with the national and its lack of comprehension of the regional.
  It has to be pointed out to the Government and the Department that there are more than 1,400 regional newspapers in this country, and that their share of United Kingdom advertising is second only to that of television and appreciably ahead of that of national newspapers. The industry employs about 35,000 people, of whom 9,000 are journalists. It certainly deserves the same opportunities to expand as the other media because it faces the same problems of competition.
  I will put the argument another way. Far too much of the argument in the White Paper is a provider argument. The Department asks what is best for the provider and not what is best for the user—the customer. I believe that in one respect the interests of the customer and the interests of the provider are exactly the same. I give the following
  580
  example. If one lives in one of the big regional cities outside London, the only news-based radio stations are those run by the BBC. There are many other radio stations, but they are all music based and staffed very economically. There is no prospect of a local independent radio station based on local news being set up simply because of the journalistic cost of establishing such a station.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I cannot possibly give way.
  The one body that could set up such a station is the local newspaper, because it already has an extensive and expensive news-gathering staff. To expand in that way not only provides a better local service for the public but secures the jobs at regional newspapers. We might well think that the Bill exists to set out such opportunities, but that is not remotely the case.
  The argument is that to allow local newspapers to set up stations would create a local monopoly. For the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), that argument is an anachronism. The Department does not seem to have caught up with the fact that today, there is an incredible amount of choice for anyone, certainly for those who live in big cities, in terms of regional media, national media, cable television and the rest. To add insult to injury, the Bill does allow national newspapers to come into the regions and to set up radio stations.
  We can all support the general principle of relaxation and new opportunities. However, I say seriously that those opportunities should not be confined to the big players—the big television companies and the national newspapers—but should be extended to the regional newspapers.
  That remark brings me to my third point. My working life has been divided between politics and newspapers; I have set out my media interests. I also spent what Opposition Members would regard as a misspent youth as a Cabinet Minister in three Departments, not to mention being chairman of the Conservative party. That experience has brought me to one undoubted conclusion about media ownership, which is that the Government—any Government—should have the absolute minimum of control over the media.
  I make that point because there is clearly a conflict of interest for any political party. Governments are not interested in the independent power of the media to expose—indeed, that is the last thing that Governments want the media to do. Political parties want the media on their side. Perish the thought, but that is precisely why the Opposition have changed their stance on the question and why they have changed their position on the Daily Mirror. They are not unique. As the election approaches, Ministers who have not appeared in the Lobbies since 1992 can be found smiling gaily at the press. That point is not only true of Ministers. The Leader of the Opposition did not go to Wapping, but was prepared to travel halfway round the globe to Australia to put his case to Mr. Murdoch and his executives. As it happens, I think that it was probably a waste of time because it is anything but clear that Mr. Murdoch is a one nation Tory.
  In all seriousness, I make the point that over the past few years, major decisions have been taken which have profoundly affected the structure of the media. Important

  581
  decisions have been taken by Ministers which have not even been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. In other cases, the MMC has ruled one way and has then been overruled by the Government. I am comparatively neutral on whether the new system should involve an overall regulator or whether there should be another method, but I believe that there should be the very minimum of interference and involvement by Government and Whitehall.
  I am a trifle underwhelmed by the Bill. It deserves a Second Reading because of the general relaxation it sets out. However, it merits substantial amendment in Committee and on Report.
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Roger Stott: I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) was not being discourteous in not giving way because he was short of time. I, too, applaud Sky's coverage of all sports, especially my sport of rugby league. My hon. Friend talked about high wage and salary costs. The start of the rugby super-league this year means that next year all clubs participating in it will have to implement a salary cap for players. Perhaps the football authorities could take a lesson from rugby league next year.
  Unlike the Secretary of State, I am concerned by the Government's plans to privatise the BBC's transmission network, especially given the recent decision not to secure the licence fee for the tenure of the new charter. Having been a great supporter of the BBC's World Service and its services generally over the many years during which I have watched and listened to them, I am extremely concerned about the provisions in part VI to sell the fundamental asset of the transmission network. I believe that the proposal needs to be examined in far more detail in Committee, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said.
  Two major risks are involved. First, who will own the transmission service? The second risk is that the BBC will be vulnerable if the network is sold to a commercially driven transmission operator. Investment in infrastructure could be limited to serving those reached at the lowest cost. It is estimated that only 12 digital transmitters would be needed to reach 60 per cent. of the population, but that a further 68 transmitters would be needed to reach 90 per cent. of the population. The cost differential between those two options reveals the fact that the cost of reaching 90 per cent. of the population will be more than three times that of reaching 60 per cent. of the population. The risk is self-evident.
  The second risk of leaving this public service in the hands of a commercially driven organisation is the BBC's subsequent ability to honour what will become an increasingly inflated transmission price. After investing its windfall in digital terrestrial television and digital audio broadcasting, how will it afford the costs of transmission without putting additional pressure on a licence fee that is vulnerable to public opinion and, I emphasise, guaranteed for only five years of the new BBC charter? The corporation argues that it has been given—or it has given us, anyway—important guarantees on the future cost of the transmission service, and what the cost will require. I am sure that the whole House would agree that those guarantees should come under close scrutiny in Committee. If they
  582
  should prove to be inadequate, as I suspect that they probably will, an alternative must be provided—perhaps by offering the network as an operating franchise while retaining the hardware in the public sector.
  I wish to concentrate on two critical issues. The first is that of the controversial Channel 4 funding. To arrive at a sensible and balanced compromise, it is important to assert that the formula is designed not only as a measure of protection, but as a complex revenue equation with implications across the broadcasting scale. Any intention to abolish the formula without careful examination of the facts and figures affecting all parts of the industry might have disastrous results.
  The arguments for abolition are manifold. Channel 4 is obviously subsidising a shareholder network; it has paid out more than £100 million since 1994, which might have been invested in original programming and its highly successful promotion of the British film industry. Moreover, the formula is totally unpredictable and although ITV is indemnified against paying more than 2 per cent. of total qualifying revenue, Channel 4 has the unfavourable obligation of paying 50 per cent. of any profit made above 14 per cent. of the TQR threshold. That is manifestly unfair, and makes the channel's revenue forecasts and capital planning very difficult—worrying in an age of technological revolution.
  Nevertheless, the arguments against abolition are equally convincing, not least because any change to the formula before 1997 would represent retrospective legislation and would undermine vital confidence in the Bill. We should, and must, wait until 1997, the year delegated for the formula's fundamental review, and not allow the detailed issues informing the debate to be given a premature delivery amidst the complex environment of the Bill.
  It is crucial to remember that ITV paid more than £430 million before 1990 to protect and establish Channel 4. Moreover, at least six of the smaller ITV companies depend for their existence on the revenue contributions from the formula—contributions that were forecast and planned for in the confidential business plans that accompanied their licence bids. To restrict that flow before the planned review might have a serious impact not only on the individual television companies, but on the whole regional character of the ITV network. The subsidy is crucial to ITV's programming budget, allowing Granada in my area, for instance, to pay for "Granada Tonight", which airs five days a week, every week of the year, while maintaining the regional news operation in Liverpool, in addition to sustaining its entire regional current affairs output.
  When put into perspective against Channel 4's 60 per cent. increase in United States imports and its failure to maintain the ITC's recommended 50 per cent. of original programming, the arguments begin to balance out. The threat to regional programming and regional programme making is significant, and an ill-considered abolition of the revenue stream supporting it would have very serious repercussions, not only on the quality and the quantity of regionally based programmes, but on employment, especially in those regions and especially in the north-west. It would be foolish and irresponsible to tamper with that formula before its intended termination date.

  583
  Secondly, and finally, I shall discuss the radio industry. I was unclear in my mind about what the Secretary of State said in her opening remarks this afternoon about the issuing of licences to potential bidders for radio licences. I note, however, that a report in Broadcast magazine of 22 March 1996 claims that the Government propose to drop the current bar on one radio company owning more than one FM and one AM licence in the same local market. I feel very strongly that the proposed lifting of ownership restrictions is contrary to the public interest and is not in the interest of smaller independent radio companies. The proposed change would serve further to strengthen the growing monopolies that already exist in the local market and stifle innovation and diversity.
  I am aware that the commercial radio companies' trade body, the Association of Independent Radio Companies Ltd., has pronounced in favour of such a change. It may not have made it clear to the Government that a significant minority of radio companies and their management think otherwise.
  United Kingdom commercial radio is already dominated by a small number of principal groups, which account for 69 per cent.—463 out of 671—of the total points currently allocated under the Radio Authority's scoring system. The figure will presumably be increased by GWR Group's takeover of East Anglian Radio, which is currently being finalised. Individual companies are allowed to have up to 15 per cent. of the points allocated. Further, I would argue that the way in which the points system is structured—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
  8.6 pm
  Sir Wyn Roberts: I shall follow the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) early in my speech, in that I shall emphasise the immensity of the transition that we are contemplating from analogue to digital broadcasting. It will be a major change, requiring considerable investment, not only on the part of the broadcasters—that we know—but on the part of viewers and listeners. For viewers, not only is the set-top box to be purchased but ideally there should be a wide-screen set.
  The transition also means a great deal of investment for television and radio set manufacturers. They will have to adapt to the new system and we have heard very little about their plans to meet the demand which will, one hopes, develop because a higher quality of sound and picture is available. There is no guarantee of success, but there never has been a guarantee in broadcasting. When ITV and Channel 4 were started, there was concern about whether they would succeed; but to date most of our broadcasting ventures in this country have proved successful.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on introducing the Bill, which allocates multiplexes to terrestrial broadcasters and provides a basic shape for things to come. There is some dissatisfaction among the non-terrestrial competitors about the prior and superior access given to the terrestrials, but I cannot see how my right hon. Friend could have done otherwise in all the circumstances confronting her.
  584
  It is only fair to say, without being patronising, that their Lordships have been pretty thorough in their examination of the Bill; they touched on most of the points that I wanted to raise. On the sports issue, I find myself in sympathy with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton): I am not sure that we pay sufficient attention to the fact that broadcasting rights, like rights of entry to sports grounds, belong to the sporting organisations, which must ultimately decide how the rights are to be disposed of. Arguably, the only rights that belong to all of us are news rights, which are different from highlights. News rights are not in dispute, so there is much to be said for unbundling. I am sure that the day will come when sporting organisations will simply use the media as an extra gateway to their events, and charge accordingly.
  The argument about cross-media ownership is clearly very much alive. As I have said in earlier debates, I am firmly on the side of those who are likely to promote the richness of our regional life and character—the nurturing ground of so much that is good in this country and an antidote to our somewhat ruthless and arrogant metropolitanism.
  Our regional and local newspapers have a case for being allowed to participate in the development of broadcasting, especially at a time when broadcasting needs investment on a significant scale—they must certainly not be disadvantaged by comparison with their national competitors. The Newspaper Society is right to argue that BBC local radio should also be taken into account in any calculations regarding density of coverage, and so on. But my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is right in saying that other forms of coverage will also have to be taken into account. I also support the points made by my right hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler).
  I also support the ITV regional companies, which have given valuable service and provided diversity. HTV has done well in Wales and the west country, despite its heavy licence fee. It receives about £3 million per year from Channel 4 under the perverse formula established under the 1990 Act. So far as I can gather, the formula has few supporters other than those who benefit from it. It should be phased out, but probably at the time suggested—1997—which coincides with the renegotiation of the ITV licences.
  Under the digital arrangements, Channel 4 will achieve coverage in Wales independent of the Welsh language channel S4C, which is to share half a multiplex and to be given some additional powers which will enable it to complement its Welsh language output with other, mainly English, programmes, preferably produced in Wales. The Welsh language programmes would be ring fenced financially so that no subsidy could find its way into the English output—just as the BBC's licence-financed programming is ring fenced against sponsored or advertising-financed programming permitted under the 1990 Act. I strongly support that development in the role of S4C, not only because the statutory body will thus be enabled to replace the programmes lost to it by the independence gained by Channel 4, but because there is a strong demand in Wales for English programmes of Welsh origin and such productions will provide a challenging stimulus to achieve high quality all round. I gather that there is some concern in the BBC at the

  585
  thought that S4C might produce English language programmes, but that matter can be sorted out through co-operation at an all-Wales level.
  S4C is not out of the wood yet. It will lose advertising revenue with the loss of Channel 4 programmes and it must be given an opportunity to supplement its new formula funding. My understanding of Lord Inglewood's remarks as reported at column 1198 on 19 March in the other place is that the Government are fully apprised of S4C's needs and will be tabling amendments to meet them. I did not hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mention such amendments earlier, although I did hear her refer to S4C. When my hon. Friend the Minister of State winds up the debate, I should be grateful for confirmation that the Government will table amendments.
  There is hardly any need for me to tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that S4C is highly valued in Wales, as is the BBC, HTV and our national newspapers, the Western Mail and the Liverpool Daily Post, which have a role to play when digital television and radio come on stream and there is scope for them to participate. There is much interest in the future of those organisations in Wales and the Bill is highly relevant to that future.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: I thought—in vain—that any new Broadcasting Bill introduced by the Government would begin with an apology to the viewing public and the House for the damage inflicted by the last Broadcasting Bill that the Government introduced in 1990. I was astonished to find that one of the architects of that Bill, who was a Minister at the time, was still trying to defend it. I can only state the obvious: the Bill profoundly destabilised ITV. Among the Bill's many defects was the ludicrous system of bidding for franchises that resulted in, among other things, Yorkshire Television paying £38 million for its franchise and Central Television, a more valuable contract, paying £2,000 for its franchise. If anyone wants to stand and defend that system, I should be interested to hear him do so.
  As well as destabilising the industry in that respect, the 1990 Act led to substantial job losses—the number of people employed by ITV was roughly halved—and to the rundown of production facilities and the skills base in the regions. In my region, Birmingham, the result has been spectacular—a large studio complex has been greatly reduced. I would have liked to see some humility from the Government on the subject.
  I should also like to see the Government show some humility for the way in which they have treated sport. In the limited time that I have, I wish to concentrate my remarks on an issue that interests not only many hon. Members but millions of people throughout the country: the coverage of sport on television and how it might best be safeguarded to ensure that major events are available live on channels that all of us can see. I also wish to talk about the related issue of ensuring that, at the very least, packages of highlights of other important sporting events can be shown on the major terrestrial channels.
  The reasons are self-evident, but I shall rehearse them briefly. First and foremost, only by being on terrestrial channels can such events be seen by most people. Some 98 to 99 per cent. of the population—24 million households—have access to the main channels, while 15 plus per cent. of the population are able to see events
  586
  on the other delivery systems of satellite and cable. The availability of major sporting events is of interest to a wider variety of people than those who are interested in sport. I hope that it is not overstating the case to say that the grand national is a national event and a unifying event—people talk about it, even if they are not necessarily that interested in horse racing.
  The same principle applies to events such as the World cup or the Olympic games. They inspire the sports men and women of the future. If the Coe and Ovett triumphs at the Olympics of the early 1980s had been available only to a small number of the viewing public on satellite television, I wonder whether there would have been a rise in interest in middle distance running in schools and in sports centres around the country. The same may be true of Ian Botham's tremendous exploits on the cricket field in the 1980s. The arguments that major sporting events should be available to most viewers have been proven clearly. That manner of broadcast is the best safeguard for the future of those sports as it inspires young viewers to take them up.
  The Government have a sorry record on broadcasting. The Broadcasting Act 1990 failed to provide proper protection—a fact that was recognised from the start. It provided protection only against pay per view and it did not protect against exclusive coverage on subscription channels. We do not always sign early-day motions that we are delighted to read out four, five or six years after the event, but on 18 February 1992, when coverage of the overseas cricket tour by the English test side was sold exclusively to Sky, 38 hon. Members signed an early-day motion which stated:
  "That this House notes that the exclusive rights to the televising of World Cup cricket have been bought by B Sky B, thus ensuring that the vast majority of cricket-lovers will be unable to view the series; acknowledges that this is further clear evidence of the way in which so-called market forces restrict freedom of choice for the viewer; rejects the Conservative philosophy that offers choice only to a minority; and deeply regrets this further illustration of the profound damage being done to British television, once so admired throughout the world, by a Government which puts the interests of advertisers and company profits ahead of viewers and programme-makers."
  Four years on, I say amen to that. I do not think that anything has happened subsequently to detract from the strength of that argument.
  Following the signing of that early-day motion, the National Heritage Select Committee—sof which I was very pleased to be a member under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—published a report in July 1994 that recommended that the listed events should be protected for subscription as well as pay-per-view coverage and that the list should be reviewed. Like the early-day motion, the report was ignored by the Government. Last year, I introduced a ten-minute Bill that proposed to implement the Select Committee report. The Government ignored it and they advanced the same argument that market forces should be respected at all times.
  Now, squeaking and objecting, the Government have finally been forced by a vote in the other place to offer some form of protection. However, I have no confidence in the Government's commitment as they were forced into it. Their arguments against giving some form of protection to the coverage of major sporting events are fallacious. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) often uses the same arguments and I disagree with him profoundly.

  587
  Conservative Members argue that we will pauperise sport if there is a lack of competition within a free market. In fact, ITV bid £260 million for the Premier league rights that Sky obtained with a £300 million bid. The difference between the two sums is admittedly a lot of money, but £260 million is not exactly peanuts. Therefore, it is ridiculous to suggest that we are pauperising sporting clubs by allowing the terrestrial channels to make bids.
  The idea that there is a free market force between the satellite channels on the one hand and the terrestrial channels on the other is also quite ridiculous. It is rumoured that Sky will bid £100 million per year for the Premier league when that comes up for renegotiation next year. The total sports budget of ITV—a station that is accessible by all—is about £50 million and its entire programme budget is about £570 million. How can it compete with a subscription channel that is able to pay £100 million per year? Where is the level playing field and the righteousness of market forces? As a result, fewer people will be able to see major sporting events.
  In the two minutes remaining to me, I shall make a vain plea to the Government. They have not listened to us in the past four years, but eventually they have been forced to take action. Mercifully, the Conservative Government will not be around in another four years, so we shall not be able to test the theory any further. The Government should adopt the Select Committee report. They should review the list of eight events; it is not sacrosanct. The list does not include rugby, golf and a number of other sports that should be considered. We must "unbundle the events"—to use the famous phrase. We must ensure that events such as the Ryder cup, which disgracefully was not available to most people last year when a very important match was played, are spread between the two channels.
  At the heart of the Government's mistaken approach to broadcasting is their apparent obsession with the delivery system and with a managerial structure. They are obsessed with whether programmes are delivered terrestrially, by cable, by satellite or whether it is digital television. It does not matter whether programmes are delivered by carrier pigeon if the programme being sent is rubbish. What is important in television is the quality of the programmes that are delivered to the viewers. That depends on having a home production base; it means having quality regional centres of production; and it means putting the viewer first.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: At the outset, I declare an interest in the debate as a member of the Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union, of the National Union of Journalists and of British Equity.
  The Bill is designed to take broadcasting through the digital revolution and into the 21st century. To the considerable extent that it will help to achieve that aim, I welcome it. I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the entertainment part of the revolution will be programme led, rather than technology led, and that there is a need to stimulate investment not only in digital equipment but in programmes made for digital transmission.
  The United Kingdom's programme-making abilities are second to none and there is every reason to believe that we can lead the world in that field. I certainly subscribe
  588
  to the view that a few good channels will be better than hundreds of bad ones. That is why I am certain that it is also right to seek to promote digital development through incentives for terrestrial television, using the vehicle of existing programme companies. Therefore, I welcome the digital capacity that the Bill will make available for free-to-air public service broadcasters as well as the opportunities that it will create for innovative subscription and pay-per-view services.
  The much-vaunted satellite direct-to-home channels may have had their day and satellite may revert, as perhaps it should, to being merely an efficient means of delivery to cable head end. I believe that what we are discussing today is no more than another interim milestone on the road to the fully interactive domestic communications services that will almost certainly have to be delivered by broad band cable.
  The danger in another place was that the Bill would become the "TV Sport Bill"—we have heard echoes of those sentiments tonight—to the exclusion of much that is arguably more vital to the development of broadcasting and communications. I hope to serve on the Committee that examines the Bill. In Committee, we shall no doubt return to the provision of sports coverage and the thorny issue of "unbundling" and also examine in fine detail the Channel 4 formula funding. I am sure that we shall consider future "must carry" provisions for public service broadcasters, the minutiae of cross-media ownership regulation, definitions of "control" and the outlawing of warehousing. We shall need to examine the way—I believe that it is the unfair way—in which the Bill is loaded against regional newspapers and local radio stations. We shall have to return to the arguments surrounding the determination of an analogue switch-off date.
  In the few minutes still available to me, I shall address what I believe to be some omissions from the Bill: the licensing of conditional access systems, the need to create an environment for the development of a single standard of set-top or set-in decoders and the need to create a communications commission to meet the requirements of a fully integrated industry.
  There is a general consensus among the existing regulators—the ITC and the BBC—and the British Radio and Electronic Manufacturers Association, without which there will be no sets on which to watch digital television, that the Bill does not adequately deal with the fact that the viewing public do not want a multitude of decoding boxes to unravel their multiplexed subscription channels. It is also recognised that the proposal that Oftel should license conditional access services under telecommunications legislation does not go far enough. It certainly does not embrace the analogue services that may be with us for several years to come.
  I am persuaded of the need for a set-in rather than a set-top decoder that will handle all multiplex terrestrial systems. That being so, I have reached the inevitable conclusion that the Bill must give the ITC the power to take into account proposals for technological co-operation when awarding multiplex licences. I say that on the assumption that demand in the medium term will be for terrestrial receivers rather than satellite dishes, which will become irrelevant.

  589
  There should also be further proposals to guarantee fair and open access to existing conditional access systems, although we should concentrate on the digital future rather than the outdated analogue history that is BSkyB.
  By far the greatest omission from the Bill—and the greatest need—is the creation of an integrated communications commission. We are boldly about to merge the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.
  In a recent press release, National Transcom Ltd.—a company that some will still remember fondly as IBA Engineering—announced its acquisition by the cable operator CableTel. It stated:
  "Together, NTL and CableTel will offer a broad range of entertainment, information telecoms and other transmission/broadcast services. In entertainment, CableTel's local cable television networks and NTL's national broadcast network provide immediate, effective and efficient TV and radio transmission. NTL is world leader in Digital Terrestrial TV and Digital Audio Broadcasting.
  In information services, the acquisition will further extend the reach and capacity of CableTel's national Internet access service, Cable Online. The broadband capabilities of the companies' combined networks make them particularly well suited to advanced interactive services.
  CableTel and NTL taken together also currently provide advanced telecoms services for business users, satellite uplinking and downlinking facilities, turnkey studio and transmission systems, telecommunications site facilities and a full range of services for the mobile radio sector."
  That surely demonstrates the increasing convergence of systems. We need a framework for the development of that environment.
  I am not advocating the ministry of truth that lurks beneath the Opposition's proposals, but a light touch regulator and facilitator bringing together the work of the ITC, the BBC board of governors, Oftel, the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services, the Radio Authority, the Data Protection Registrar and the Broadcasting Standards Commission.
  We have yet to take a long hard look at the year 2020, to decide what the world of communications is likely to look like and to work out a logical, step-by-step approach to get there. However, 20:20 vision will be needed if the United Kingdom and Europe are to have a co-ordinated communications industry that can compete on a global scale. We shall require a director general of communications, presiding over a main board comprising the director of television, the director of radio, the director of news, the director of data and the director of standards, in order to manage what comes out of the all-purpose digital electronic console that each of us will have to bring information to our homes.
  The runaway maverick growth of the Internet, with all its power for the dissemination of good and evil, should have taught us that our present structure is creaking at the seams. In the fast-moving development of the awful super-highway, we can be certain only that the pace of change is likely to outstrip rather than lag behind our imagination. We can, however, put in place systems that are sufficiently flexible to manage and accommodate both foreseeable and as yet unforeseen developments. We shall not do that unless we are prepared to embark on a seriously radical overhaul of existing empires.
  We shall soon know whether the coming months will deliver at least the footpath towards the gravel track that leads, via the B-road and the trunk road, to the
  590
  super-highway, or whether we shall turn up a lane and find ourselves in a farmyard of antiquated ideas. The opportunities afforded by the former will deliver for the United Kingdom a place as a brand leader in the European Union communications industry; if we take the latter path, the fast lane will pass us by.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. John Maxton: I agree with the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) on one point: that cable is the future rather than satellite, which is essentially outdated technology. However, it will be years before cable is laid throughout the greater part of Britain. It has been said that cable will reach some 52 per cent. of households by the year 2005. Cable will probably never reach rural areas. However, there is already a cabling system that reaches nearly every household in the country. It is organised by BT. Until the Government wake up to that fact and give BT the right to be a broadcaster, there will be slow progress towards customer delivery in terms of cable.
  That makes a mockery of the views of the Secretary of State, who said that she represented the needs of viewers and customers. She is denying the vast majority of people in Britain the right to view cable television because she is not prepared to concede that BT should be allowed to be a broadcaster.
  Once again, I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the Chairman of the Select Committee. What he said about the BBC does not represent the views of the Select Committee. My right hon. Friend has never understood that the quality of BBC output is closely related to the fact that it is funded by the licence fee. If the BBC were not funded by the licence fee and depended on market forces and selling its programmes in the market place, the quality and standard of its programmes would drop dramatically and it could lose a large part of its market appeal.
  I now follow my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), who spoke about sports broadcasting. My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that Sky was innovative and imaginative. To what was he referring? I have cable television and I have all the Sky channels. I can watch films made by film makers, BBC programmes that are 10 years old, ITV programmes that are 10 years old and American programmes that are also 10 years old. What on earth has Sky produced? I cannot think of a single programme—[Interruption.] I take that back in respect of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), although it may prove my point. What Dennis Potter plays has Sky produced? What drama has it produced? The answer is practically none.
  The channels that Sky uses as a loss leader to make people buy its systems are the sports channels. It is prepared to spend enormous sums of money on its sports channels in order to make people subscribe. In doing that, Sky is denying most of the viewers and customers for whom the Secretary of State expresses such great concern the right to watch many of our great sporting events.
  In the other place the Government said that it is all down to market forces and that we cannot deny sporting bodies the right to sell television rights wherever they choose. I dispute that. Last year, the Government, through

  591
  the sports councils and now through the national lottery, gave £285 million to sport. If we include the money spent by local authorities that have provided swimming pools, sports halls, running tracks, football pitches, rugby pitches, hockey pitches and so on and provided local sports development programmes, it is clear that the public purse gives enormous sums of money to sport and therefore, in my view, the House and the taxpayer should have a say as to where the television rights for those programmes go. They have a right to say that they want to see the major programmes. If we cannot watch Premier league football on BBC, why on earth should we give taxpayers' money to the grass roots of football? I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) that none of the money that goes to Premier league football from Sky goes to the grass-roots of football to encourage people to play, to maintain pitches or to build pavilions for small clubs. It all goes into the Premier league clubs' pockets to pay higher wages to football stars and to build new stadiums for spectators. It does not encourage one person to go out on to a football pitch and play football. That is the other reason why we put large sums of money into sport from the public purse. We believe that participation in sport is good for the health and welfare of the nation.
  If I look around me, I might say that most of the hon. Members present do not look as if they agree that taking part in physical activity is good for our health, but that is increasingly the medical opinion. Running, jogging, playing tennis or squash or taking whatever exercise is good for people. Showing sport on television is one of the ways to encourage participation. We put money into sport to encourage participation and showing sport to the largest possible audience is a way of achieving that. Next Sunday, we will see the London marathon on the BBC and that encourages people to try to get fit. Only a small percentage will continue, but that small percentage is worth getting. If the marathon were shown on Sky, that participation level would drop dramatically.
  We have the right to say what happens to the television rights. It has been argued that we might open a Pandora's box if we table amendments on Report to extend the list, but that is exactly what I intend to do. I intend to table amendments in two areas and others will think of other sports that they want to put on the list. I want to include the Five Nations rugby championship as a listed event so that it stays on terrestrial television, because it actively encourages people to take part in sport. Incidentally, we should consider what has happened in rugby. As soon as the television money increased, 24 clubs turned professional and demanded all the money from the television rights. That money will not go down to the grass-roots of rugby: it will pay the players' higher wages and will go into directors' pockets. We must not allow that to happen. I would also put the British Open golf championship on the list. It is absurd that it is not on the list, because it is a major sporting event.
  The Government must reconsider the whole issue of sporting events on television. We need to extend the list and to ensure that the money that goes into sport feeds down to the grass roots of the sport and does not stay at the professional level. The money should ensure that people can have good facilities. That does not apply now, so I hope that the Government will think again.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Toby Jessel: I have served on the National Heritage Committee with the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott). They know that I respect them as good parliamentarians, but I do not know what the pair of them have gone on about for the past 20 minutes. They have been tilting at a non-existent windmill.
  On the televising of big sporting events, both hon. Members are aware that the great national sporting events will be televised on the popular channels. Many Conservative Members, too, supported that, and if the House of Lords had not bothered with an amendment, there could have been an amendment in this House, which might have been carried, but both hon. Members went on as if we had the situation of three months ago, before the Lords' amendment. The great sporting events will be televised so that everybody can see them, and it is hard to see what those two hon. Gentlemen were complaining about.
  The Bill is excellent, and I am glad to be able to support it and the major changes it foreshadows, including not only those on the coverage of sporting events, but those on Channel 4, cross-media ownership, the V-chip and digital broadcasting.
  I wish to make a point about music on the BBC. The BBC has traditionally been a great patron of all the arts, but especially plays and music. In the National Heritage Committee's recent report on the funding of the arts, we referred to the important role of the BBC. Too large a proportion of broadcasting on Radio 3 and other programmes is of recordings, and there is not enough patronage of live performances by young British artists.
  I remember when Radio 3 broadcast many young pianists, violinists and singers who were starting to make their names. They were not very well paid, but I doubt whether the cost would be any higher than playing a recording of a symphony orchestra and having to pay royalties to the recording company and to the symphony orchestra. Likewise, the BBC does not put on very many young British composers. I want the BBC to reassert its traditional role, because it is a very important part of our national life. Britain is very strong in music and we should build on our strengths. The BBC should always play a leading part in that.
  I am concerned about the question of political impartiality in the BBC. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) made a telling intervention and invited my right hon. Friend to comment on the question of impartiality in the BBC. As I see it, that question interacts with the probability that the BBC charter that is to begin at the end of this month for 10 years will probably be the last.
  When the hon. Member for Cathcart mentioned what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)—the Chairman of the National Heritage Committee—had said, he did not have enough time to give the whole picture. The right hon. Member's main point about the BBC was the steady decline in the size of its audiences, partly because of the growth of channel 3 and Channel 4 and the growth of cable and satellite television and partly because fewer people wanted to watch the BBC's high standard productions. In the Select Committee report on the future of the BBC,

  593
  we showed that, in 1989, 49 per cent. of all viewing of television in this country was of the BBC. By 1992, the figure had already declined to 44 per cent. and the decline is a continuing trend. In another 10 years or so, the figure is highly likely to be about 30 per cent. and the growth of cable and satellite has been faster than we predicted two years ago when we produced that report.
  The question arises whether the British people will tolerate a compulsory licence fee for a service that only 25 or 30 per cent. of people are likely use by about 2010. Coupled with that, there is a growing evasion rate, from about 7 to 8 per cent., of people who do not pay the licence fee. That is a criminal offence and enforcement and detection are increasingly difficult. Two thirds to three quarters of all those convicted were women and, in many cases, were women pensioners or single or unmarried mothers who could not pay the licence fee. All those tendencies make it likely that the licence fee will, in the end, go and that this charter will be the last one. In that context, anyone who is working for the BBC will feel much more uninhibited about being partial in their broadcasting than they would have done if they thought that that might affect the next charter, which would have run from 2006.
  I do not believe that the journalists in the BBC are so impartial as they used to be in the days of Lord Reith or when his tradition, after his period as director-general of the BBC, still tended to prevail. There is a lot of partial reporting on the BBC, as one can hear in the "Today" programme after breakfast. Whichever Government are in office, there will be a tendency for BBC journalists to tilt against that Government because it makes more news to tilt against authority than it does to report impartially.
  The impartiality of the BBC is now in decline, and unless some action is taken it will grow. I realise that it is impossible for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in the course of the Second Reading debate, to give any firm commitment, but I am glad to see that she has returned to the Front Bench after having to go out for a short time and I very much hope that she will consider that point most carefully and discuss it with the BBC to see what can be done.
  I think that there should be an ombudsman to deal with partiality complaints against the BBC. We already have 18 or 19 ombudsmen in Britain and one more would not be disastrous. Of course the BBC detests that idea, but no one can be impartial when judging his own impartiality. That should be done by someone from outside. An ombudsman is to be preferred here. Otherwise, as a fallback position, I suppose one could consider making one senior governor of the BBC responsible for the investigation of complaints of partiality, but he would have to have his own staff who were not on the books of the BBC. If BBC officials were doing the work for the governor, they would tend to vindicate what had taken place and there would not be the test of impartiality which I, for one, want.
  I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be good enough to take that on board and consider it carefully, taking it in conjunction with the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North. I also hope that she will take note of some very sensible views on the matter that have been put in the other place and which I believe have been represented to her.
  594
  I would also be glad if my hon. Friend the Minister of State would be kind enough to refer to my point when he replies to the debate.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: I can tell the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) that in the nearly 30 years that I have been a Member of the House I have found that Governments of all complexions complain about the BBC. I remember Harold Wilson once calling the 1 o'clock news programme "Lies at One". It may be one of the functions and roles of the BBC to tilt, as the hon. Gentleman described it, at authority and at Governments of the day.
  I want to confine my remarks in the time available to essentially Welsh issues and to consider what impact the Bill and the changes that it forecasts will have upon the Welsh broadcasting scene.
  First, as a veteran of the previous Broadcasting Act in 1990, and as one who, like others, was horrified at the consequences which led to the incredible nonsense of HTV paying nearly £20 million and Central paying £2,000, the consequences of which we have been living with ever since, I think that we should consider the historic context in which we now come to consider the role of commercial television—regional terrestrial commercial television in the case of HTV in Wales as a national commercial television company.
  Secondly, we shall have to consider the issue of S4C. In that context, I have to declare an interest under the new rules in that my wife is a member of the S4C board. Thirdly, we shall have to consider—we have not talked much about it—the role not just of the BBC in the digital age but BBC Wales or the regional and national BBC broadcasts on both radio and television, and the changes that the digital age might bring not just to the national BBC scene but to the regional scene or, in the case of Wales, the Welsh national BBC scene, both radio and television.
  The difficulty with a Bill such as this is that it tends to compartmentalise issues. There will be clauses on S4C, on BBC and on the regional commercial terrestrial stations, but in Welsh terms, there should not be such compartmentalisation. Wales is in an interesting but potentially fragile position in that it will have two publicly funded broadcasting stations. Both BBC and S4C will be dependent on funding from the state.
  If I have the privilege of being selected to serve on the Committee, I am sure that we shall have the opportunity to debate the funding arrangements and the concerns expressed by S4C in relation to the changes in the funding formula. It was probably not well advised to sneak into the Bill—I think that sneak is probably the right word—a change in the S4C formula without real meaningful consultation. Beyond that, the other major change that digital will have on S4C is that it will at last divorce Channel 4 programmes from S4C.
  I come from a constituency which is predominantly non-Welsh speaking and there has been a growing tension there and in parts of other communities in south-east Wales about the non-availability of Channel 4 programmes, at least at the same time as they are broadcast on Channel 4. In that context, S4C should give more and greater consideration to the scheduling of Channel 4, but when the divorce takes place, and when

  595
  digital television allows Channel 4 to be broadcast separately and therefore accessible to Welsh viewers, there will be a large and significant gap in the S4C schedule. The question is how that gap will be filled. Who will fill it and how it will be filled will be big issues that link seriously with the question of the role of BBC Wales and the terrestrial regional commercial station in the form of the present HTV.
  One of our real passions about Welsh national broadcasting, whether it be BBC, HTV or S4C, is that they are the new patrons of the arts. Whereas in the 18th century Handel was financed by the courts and the palatinate, the modern patrons of new writers, new programme makers, and new artistic talent, are the major broadcasters who commission the programmes. S4C has played an important and significant role in developing the Welsh language side. What has not happened to the same extent, inevitably, has been the development of the English-speaking Welsh potential in programme making, in writing, and in the artistic endeavour that is related to the broadcasting scene.
  S4C's budget to promote and develop programme making in Wales in the Welsh language is £63 million. BBC Wales and HTV contribute £25 million towards programme making in Welsh terms. We have therefore to think hard about how each compartmentalised piece of the Welsh broadcasting scene will relate to the others in the new age.
  I want, fourthly, to raise the issue of the independence of commercial broadcasting in the light of the fact that, frankly, the Bill is a charter for takeovers; it is a liberalising Bill, as the Secretary of State said, and that means takeovers. The Bill will allow a growing concentration of power within the terrestrial television scene, and companies such as HTV are easy victims for the takeover bids that are likely to flow from it. In that context, clause 67 will be extremely important. We have gone over it again and again and shall continue to do so in Committee to see whether it will be able to defend the regional—or, in Welsh terms, the national—commercial position of a company such as HTV, which should maintain editorial and managerial control in Wales.
  In that context, I listened hard to the right hon. Lady. In the other place, there was much debate about whether one should add an additional subsection to the proposed new section 21A in clause 67—I think that it was 21A(4)(c)—so that the ITC would have the power to defend editorial and management control in the region. In HTV's case, it would be Wales. I think that it was Lord Inglewood who gave assurances that it was only because of the lack of time that there was no change to that clause. When the Minister replies, will he please confirm that the Government intend to introduce such a change, as foreshadowed in the other place? It will be extremely important to see whether the clause will be able to stand up and whether the controls of the ITC in defending the regional character and nature—in Wales, the national nature—of commercial television will be sufficient to stand against the powerful takeover bids that will take place.
  I am a little surprised at the sanguine nature of hon. Members—even my colleagues on the Front Bench—about the concentration of power that the Bill could promote. In theory, it will be possible in the new age after
  596
  the Bill for a company to own four terrestrial, regional licences and to have 14.9 per cent. of national viewers, but 40 per cent. of advertising revenue. Unless we do something about it, it will also allow the systems of control to be manipulated cynically. I think that the words are "warehousing" and "deadlocking"—ways to avoid and get around the systems of control. I seek an assurance from Ministers that they will support proposals that will be made by the ITC and the Radio Authority to stiffen the definition of control to outlaw the cynical manipulation that we have seen in some major companies in anticipation of the free-for-all that they think will be the consequence of the Bill.
  Unlike some hon. Members, after being here all these years, and as I grow older, I have grown more suspicious about concentrations of power. I do not believe that we should support a Bill that will promote budding Citizen Kanes, as it will not be healthy for public broadcasting or for democracy in this country.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: As an hon. Member who must be one of the least expert in this complex subject, I welcome the chance to make a contribution. [Interruption.] I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister is trying to encourage me to be immodest on this occasion, but it is true. It is sometimes the ones who have the more amateur view on extremely complicated matters who may be able to provide some suggestions, although, having listened to the high quality of the debate tonight, I have doubts about that, as I am surrounded by a considerable number of experts.
  There is no need for us always to stick rigidly to the party political stance of either side of the House on these matters. I was extremely impressed with some of the powerful remarks made by the hon. Members for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, and who made an extremely important point that rugby should be generally available.
  I declare one modest interest as a shareholder in Carlton Communications plc—the subsidiary of which runs the weekday television services in London—and which also has other television and related interests, but that does not mean that I shall refer to any of its preoccupations tonight.
  A misunderstanding can arise because of the way in which the Bill tries to mix a number of very different and complex elements that make me uneasy. I am not uneasy about supporting the Bill on Second Reading—and, incidentally, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who handled an extremely difficult brief with great skill. I hope that she will not mind my saying that I get the impression that she enjoys her new portfolio perhaps more than her previous one, where she also had arduous duties, but she handled the complexities very well, so I am happy to support the Bill.
  I am uneasy about the underlying subject matter of the Bill and whether the House of Commons, which is an amateur Parliament in the definitional sense, although plenty of national heritage and media experts are gathered here tonight, is able to cope with and grasp the future of this fast-developing, high-technology matrix of new developments in electronic television communications, and mix it up with the other elements of ownership and concentration, cross-media ownership, conditional access and all the other things.

  597
  Given the bewilderment that we all feel, I urge those who deal with the Committee stage to try to find a solution that will hold for at least some years to come. Even given such a solution, the ensuing approach is bound to be experimental, complex, uncertain and hesitant: we are reaching out to an entirely new electronic system—a system that is international—while at the same time trying to embrace the old notion of public-sector, high-quality broadcasting combined with competition and commercial opportunities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) referred to the BBC. I think that any ombudsman system, presumably built into the combined commission created by the Bill, should not just investigate complaints of bias on the part of the BBC—which I consider grossly exaggerated—but should carry out general investigations, under its existing and future reinforced remits. Any other arrangement would be unfair.
  The Bill provides for a merger between the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. It is essential for the resulting body to be extremely powerful and authoritative. I pay tribute to what the ITC has already achieved: it is an impressive and well-run organisation, built on its predecessor. Nevertheless, it needs more strength and more psychological support from all of us here, and from everyone in the industry.
  I fear that the Bill will not do enough to prevent a huge upsurge of violence on television. The code of conduct provides for more such programmes to be shown late at night, but, as we all know, children stay up later now. Sadly, that is the present family syndrome. On the BBC as well as other channels, children—and, indeed, adults who may not be able to handle all of it—see increasing amounts of sickening violence. I believe that, today or yesterday, someone said that 400 people were killed on television every week.
  However, I also pay tribute to the BBC for the extremely high quality of television that it has achieved. We are unique in that regard. A great service was done to this country and Parliament by the licensing system, and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), the previous Secretary of State for National Heritage, before he left the Government: he more or less saved the BBC in its present form—although some changes were made at the margin—for at least five and possibly 10 years. That elevated standards for other programme makers, and increased competition rather than detracting from it. New opportunities have been given to the channel 3 companies, as well as to Channel 4.
  We all pay tribute to Channel 4 for its achievements, and the way in which it has changed over the years. It has been a tremendous success. When it was first set up, most of my Conservative colleagues rubbished it, expecting it to be a subversive medium. That turned out not to be the case, for many reasons that I have no time to give.
  I like the idea that was presented in the House of Lords—the proposal for a register of the interests of people involved in broadcasting who have other outside interests and are linked to those interests, or to the promotion of a particular case or argument, in the television medium.
  I believe that the proposals were tabled by Lord Chalfont and the Earl of Northesk—a gentleman I have not yet met—in an amendment that suggested that the
  598
  public should be given information about outside consultancies held by broadcasters, their financial interests and their membership of or affiliation to any political parties, all of which could influence the way in which broadcasters provide broadcasting services. As a result of various technical and late-night arrangements in the other place, the amendment was not proceeded with; I imagine that not enough peers were around at that time of night even to consider the subject. None the less, I feel that it is worth our considering the proposal in Committee.
  Cable television has received less attention than some other television matters that have been mentioned in this lengthy debate. It is all very well saying that cable television will grow inexorably, and will eventually reach more than 50 per cent. of households—mostly urban, for obvious reasons. I have my doubts about the weaknesses of some of the existing companies—I deliberately mention no names, and there are notably strong exceptions—and I do not think that the future of cable television in Britain looks very good. That poses problems for those who believe that merely widening the choice of services and facilities will automatically have a beneficial effect and will increase competition and consumer choice.
  Lest my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) misunderstands my remarks about the quality of journalism in News International, I should tell him that I was not speaking about what he mentioned: we have already discussed that. Is there any evidence that the volume and quantity of Sunday newspapers are the result of what the consumer wants?
  People say to me that the Sunday newspapers are a nuisance, and that they are far too bulky to read. They say, "I read only one, or glance at the headlines." We all know that it is just a ramp by newspapers to increase advertising, and that between the advertisements there are a few boring articles, supplements, extra editions, television magazines and rubbish.
  If people can get away with it, that is commerce and business, and I pay tribute to their chutzpah in doing it, but the idea that nine or 10 Sunday newspapers is the result of pressure by consumers is utter nonsense. We are kidding ourselves if we heed the exponents of the industry and its highly paid executives who say, "We are just responding to consumer demand and choice." I hope that we can bear that in mind without being paternalistic and patronising to the public. It is the other side of the reality. Competition and choice is good but we must not overdo it. High quality must be our main target, and that will be the BBC's triumph in future.
  9.11 pm
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: In no way is the Bill ideal legislation. It looks like several different pieces of legislation cobbled into one in the vain hope that, by calling it the Broadcasting Bill, the Government will make people think that the Government have done their work in the area. The Government have been poor broadcast legislators, either shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, or inventing schemes and conditions that do not relate to or even reflect the pace of innovation in the media.
  The Secretary of State and some hon. Members spoke about the BBC. In their democratic supervision of the BBC, the Government have over-criticised and under-regulated, and the result is a system of so-called

  599
  public broadcasting which at network level does not provide anything like the service that it should. At that level, it certainly does not reflect the diversity of these islands.
  The review of the BBC charter was an exercise in missed opportunities, with the BBC effectively writing its own licence to broadcast as the voice of London in an inefficient and anti-democratic structure presided over by a centralist and determinedly metropolitan management. There remains little attempt by the BBC to deal with the different realities of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  The BBC makes only 3 per cent. of its programmes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, yet those areas are inhabited by some 17 per cent. of the United Kingdom's population. The promise to increase programme making out of London amounts to only an extra six hours a week, because news, parliamentary reporting and sports reporting are excluded from the commitment. But those are the areas where the priorities of the minority nations can be most different. As I said in another debate, 97 per cent. of the BBC news and current affairs programmes seen in Scotland come from London, where there is enormous difficulty, whether out of ignorance or because of wilful disregard, in coming to terms with the four-party system.
  In the commercial sector, a decrease in regulation may be a welcome move in future, but only in circumstances where there exists a properly funded, high-quality public service broadcasting system operating through a variety of channels and stations and reflecting the needs of all parts of the United Kingdom. That does not currently exist, so the debate and the Bill are in a vacuum. There is no real attempt to look at the totality of broadcasting; only a piecemeal approach that does no one any service.
  Since 1979, broadcasting has been debated in the House 109 times, but only one major piece of legislation has resulted. That was the Broadcasting Act 1990, which led to a shambolic sale of independent television licences, the provisions of which have already had to be amended.
  In the period from 1979 to now, broadcasting has undergone not one but several revolutions. In fact, the broadcasting industry has changed out of all recognition. Faced with that change, the Bill is basically a ragbag of provisions that attempt to define the future of broadcasting from a position of little practical knowledge of its present dynamic.
  Indeed, there are a number of omissions in the Bill. For example, there is no new provision for community radio and its future, yet community radio stations are a part of broadcasting. What is needed, especially for Scotland and Wales, is a systematic evaluation and review of what is possible, what may be possible and what should be possible. It is obvious that there is little chance of such a review emerging from this Parliament, much less this Government.
  We must deal with regulation. Much of the regulatory framework is outmoded in an age of free communication via the Internet—of which I am an enthusiastic supporter—on which multi-sourced, real-time television broadcasting will be possible and practicable within a few years. Real-time audio is already here. We face the prospect of instant communication by computer screens that are also television receivers.
  600
  In such changed circumstances, none of which is entirely unpredictable, the Government might be better employed in strengthening and resourcing public service television rather than creating new legislative barriers for the establishment of television and radio services—barriers that will be outmoded and restrictive almost immediately the Bill is passed.
  The Government's role should be to provide and nurture high-quality, freely accessible, publicly informative and educational broadcasting outwith direct day-to-day political interference, but within a democratic framework of accountability. With such services at the centre of governmental concern, the alternative commercial services might simply be allowed to find their own levels in the market, within the usual legal bounds of decency and free speech. However, the two should develop together. Without a commitment to public service broadcasting—a commitment which does not appear to exist—an unregulated commercial sector carries with it serious dangers.
  National Governments should support and encourage public sector broadcasting. Commercial concerns would select national or international markets and appropriate transmission systems and cyberspace would be inhabited by all those types of broadcasting and many others. The question of cyberspace should be for the widest of international bodies, but with only the lightest of regulation. We might call it the application of subsidiarity to broadcasting.
  Speaking of subsidiarity, the maintenance of so-called regional programming is also a matter of public and political concern. Within Scotland—as, presumably, within England—regional programmes are an important part of the programming schedule of the commercial television companies. Grampian Television, which covers my constituency, is a thriving and fiercely independent company, providing important and popular local programmes.
  It is essential that both the quality and the quantity of regional programmes increase and do not lessen, regardless of any changes in ownership or control. I hope that editorial control and decision-making will be maintained within the regional areas, and that regional programming is given a wider definition. Equally, I hope that prospective or new licence holders will have their commitments to regional programming investigated even more rigorously than at present, so that there is no question of takeovers proceeding on a false prospectus. That is especially important for the minority nations of these islands. It is even more important for the minority peoples and their languages. It is something often forgotten in this metropolitan centre.
  It is worth remembering that cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity exist even within the constituent nations of these islands—thus, Grampian Television has a responsibility to that dialect of the Scots language known as Doric, just as all Scots broadcasting has a responsibility to Scots and Gaidhlig. That is only one part of the regional programming responsibility—there are clearly many others—and it needs to be safeguarded and encouraged.
  Finally, while on the subject of linguistic diversity, I hope that the Government will respond as positively as possible to the representations of S4C on digital capacity and funding.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised the question of

  601
  S4C. Perhaps she will elicit from the Government Front Bench a guarantee that S4C will be properly provided for, both in digital space—so that it has half a multiplex, which is what it should have—and in sufficient funding to meet the extra costs and the challenge of the increased competition that will come with digitalisation.
  Ms Cunningham: I certainly hope that there will be a response to that intervention, because, had my hon. Friend allowed me to continue, it was the point that I was going to make.
  I hope that the Government will respond to S4C's representations on digital capacity and funding. More widely and in the longer term, I hope that they will also respond positively to Comataidh Telebhisean Gaidhlig in its desire for a gaelic equivalent to S4C, and, in the interim, consider granting it powers directly to commission programmes that will widen the choice that is currently available in Scotland.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: I begin by reminding the House of my interest as an adviser to Yorkshire Tyne-Tees Television. I make no special pleading in this debate for Yorkshire Tyne-Tees Television, but I should like to place on record three facts that go to the heart of some of the issues that have been discussed in this interesting and high-quality debate.
  First, Yorkshire Tyne-Tees Television refused to broadcast a number of pornographic television programmes on the network. In all the talk about the V-chip, it seems to me that broadcasters exercising responsibility is without question the best way of ensuring that that type of material is not beamed into our homes.
  Secondly, Yorkshire Television makes and produces "Heartbeat" in North Yorkshire, in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes), which is arguably one of the most successful programmes on British television. I believe that we should encourage that type of family viewing programme rather more. I hope the fact that that programme is produced by a regional ITV company in a region will not be lost on the House.
  Thirdly, the merger of the licences of Yorkshire Television and Tyne-Tees Television some years ago has brought considerable benefits, particularly to people living in the overlap area in which a new regional news studio has been created. I think that that merger demonstrates that, if the changes in ITV channel 3 licences that will occur as a result of this Bill are handled correctly, they will bring valuable benefits to viewers.
  The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) made an excellent speech. Like him, I was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Broadcasting Act 1990. I am sure that, like me, he remembers the debate on that Act in Committee. We won many of those arguments, but one or two matters are still unresolved, and we made one or two mistakes. The first mistake was that we failed to specify a reserve for channel 3 licence bids, with the result that licence payments by channel 3 companies are extremely inequitable. Sooner or later, that problem must be addressed.
  That problem is connected with the Channel 4 funding problem because, contrary to what is often said, channel 3 licence holders were asked by the Independent Television
  602
  Commission to take into account the funding formula in putting together their bids. So I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider bringing together—either in this Bill or some time during the next 18 months—the need to change the Channel 4 funding formula and the need to revisit the channel 3 licence payments.
  Linked to that is the fact that, while everyone has rightly been concerned about the Channel 4 funding issue, it is channel 3—not Channel 4, BSkyB or any other future channel—that pays almost £400 million a year to the Trsry in licence fees and tax on advertising revenue. If we are examining the future of commercial television over the next 10 or 15 years, we must consider not only channel 3 or Channel 4 but satellite and cable. My hon. Friend the Minister knows my views, but it has seemed to me for some considerable time that, sooner or later, we shall have to reconsider a quite separate system for charging commercial television for the valuable access that enables it to realise revenue through advertising.
  A second problem that we did not resolve correctly in Committee in 1990 was the ownership of ITN. I vehemently opposed the sell-off by ITV companies of their shares in ITN, which has created the problem we have now. As a result of the changes in ownership, two large independent television licensees own more than half of ITN, with the consequence that the rest of the channel 3 network feels that it is not getting a fair crack of the whip in terms of what it has to pay for ITN.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that we perhaps need, once and for all, a clear agreement that there should be one independent television news provider. The best way to achieve that at the right price is to nominate the second news provider and then have a proper competitive bid for whatever new service is forthcoming from that provider.
  The third problem that we did not resolve correctly in 1990 concerns the vexed issue of conditional access to which other hon. Members have referred. The fact that the Bill provides a legislative framework for the regulation of conditional access through digital programmes in the future is very welcome, but we should, and must, extend that to analogue satellite systems, because we could be some years away from realising the digital opportunities that the Bill seeks to encourage, and that is a problem.
  When dealing with that problem, will my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that we differentiate conditional access through satellite, or encryption, from conditional access through cable? My hon. Friend will be aware of the relevant arguments.
  I deal now with the sale of sports rights. I do so especially in my capacity as chairman of the all-party racing and bloodstock industries committee. Two of the eight listed events are racing fixtures—the Derby and the Grand National. The British Horseracing Board and the Racecourse Association recognise the importance of those two events being shown nationally on terrestrial television, and have no difficulty with the change in the listed events legislation that has now been agreed.
  Those two organisations subscribe strongly, however, to the proposed code of practice drawn up by the Sports Council. In the light of what the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, I feel highly privileged to have seen a copy of it. I hope that, in Committee or on Report, Parliament will have the opportunity to debate that code and to consider its details to ensure that we get the framework right.

  603
  As far as I can see, the code makes clear the determination of the sport's governing bodies that they will undertake to make every reasonable effort to strike a balance between the objectives of achieving the widest possible broadcasting exposure and their duty to maximise income for their sport from the sale of broadcasting rights. They also firmly intend to preserve a distinction between television and radio rights such that the acquisition of exclusive television rights shall not preclude simultaneous radio commentary. I am sure that the whole House would agree that that has to be the right approach. It will be difficult to strike the right balance, but on reflection the code represents a better approach than the creation of fresh legislation.
  Every time the House debates broadcasting, we are faced with a paradox. Everyone says how wonderful British television is—indeed, it is the best in the world—yet there always seems to be such a reluctance to trust broadcasters. The record of our broadcasters, despite concerns about some elements, speaks for itself—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.
  9.30 pm
  Ms Angela Eagle: It may seem rather surreal to be debating digital broadcasting when as yet there is no audience, no programmes, no transmission system and no sets, but the extent of the technological advance and its rapidity these days means that such things are highly likely to be with us, and as a Parliament we have a duty to the public to legislate accordingly.
  The technological advance with which we are faced implies massive change in all the forms of media that have been referred to in the debate. It could transform those services beyond recognition. Indeed, the advance could be as significant as the invention of the printing press in the effect that it has on our lives, socially, culturally and politically. The Bill should both facilitate that change by ensuring that it happens in an orderly fashion, and regulate it effectively. I am not sure that it does either well enough.
  We need to ensure that there is an orderly transformation to the new services, that they are made available to as many people as possible, and that the evolution is fair and equitable. The survival of public service broadcasting and the ethos around it will be an important measure of whether we are successful. We have to ensure high quality in production values and in domestic programme making. As I said in an intervention on the Secretary of State, the process by which the multiplexes will be allocated contains no reference to quality. We must put that right, so that we can ensure that high quality remains an acceptable criterion.
  We must also take some time to ensure that control through monopoly does not develop, especially regionally. The Bill makes some attempt to ensure that. We must also, and more crucially, ensure that such monopoly does not develop in the gateway technology—the black box that will enable the multiplex transmissions to be seen on the TV screens in people's homes.
  Another crucial principle that we must bear in mind is access for all. That means that access to services is as cheap as possible, that countrywide coverage is provided,
  604
  and that access does not rely only on having to pay more and more. Opposition Members therefore believe that quality in the awarding of multiplex licences is a key issue.
  We welcome the guaranteed space for existing broadcasters—that is one way in which to safeguard quality—but recognise that markets are dynamic. Although quality in our current broadcasters is assured, increasing global competition and pressures mean that we cannot be certain that, without stricter quality control in this country, such quality can be assured in future. We therefore want equality, original production and free-to-air criteria to be part of the ITC licensing application procedure. We want no monopoly. That refers not only to cross-media ownership—I am sure that there will be many interesting debates on that in Committee—but, as I said, to the gateway system.
  In the very brief time that has been allocated, I want to speak about listed sporting events. Many people who take an interest in sport welcome the decision in the other place that guaranteed that the coverage of eight major sporting events will remain on terrestrial channels, so that people throughout the country can have access to them. I strongly support that.
  I am sympathetic, too, to the possibility of extending the list. I have some difficulty with the idea of a voluntary code of conduct on unbundling. We must see that code in Committee as it has been developed so far, and if we are not happy with it, we should, having the Bill before us, write in a reserve power on unbundling that we can use if the voluntary code either fails to emerge or is not adequate.
  As someone who follows cricket, I was especially concerned about the fact that we could see only the limited highlights of the cricket world cup that made their way on to terrestrial broadcasting. I was disappointed that the glorious occasion on which Kenya beat the West Indies was unavailable to us, and that all we had was England's rather drab performances—only just made up for by our being able to watch Sri Lanka's fantastic win.
  I look forward to further interesting debates on those important issues.
  9.35 pm
  Dr. Lewis Moonie: We have had a fascinating debate, sadly curtailed by an hour and a half of statements, and by the Secretary of State's contribution having been perhaps a wee bit long. [Interruption.] As the right hon. Lady seems to be protesting, I must add that her speech was considerably longer than any by an Opposition Member.
  As has been said, we support the principle of the Bill—[Interruption.] As the Secretary of State insists on intervening from a sedentary position, I must add that during her peroration there were times when I felt that I would have been better off at home watching my grass grow.
  We support the principle of the Bill, despite the fact that it is deficient in many respects. But we disagree with the Government on key issues, which we hope to debate in full in Committee and on Report, and we shall ask hon. Members to support our reasoned amendment tonight.
  I shall pay a brief tribute to the contributions of my colleagues, especially that by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) who,

  605
  by the strength and quality of his speech, showed us why his Select Committee is such an effective force in national heritage issues.
  I must also mention my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and for Wigan (Mr. Stott), and my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) who made a trenchant contribution. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who, despite the fact that he confined himself to Welsh issues, showed what a valuable asset he will be in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) also managed to slip in a few remarks at the end.
  In the limited time available I shall touch briefly on some of the issues that were raised. I shall also correct a clear misconception in the Secretary of State's mind, because I am sure that the right hon. Lady would not wish people to think that she had deliberately tried to mislead us. She talked about provision for alternative means of switching off analogue signals early, but the whole point is to provide a system that allows people to continue viewing digital signals using their analogue boxes. Under such a proposal, there is no question of people's not being able to use their old sets. I am sure that the Secretary of State would not wish people to get the impression that she was saying that we had suggested such a thing.
  The main part of the Bill concerns digital television and radio. We have few fears or qualms about radio, other than those that we have already expressed about multiplexes—we are now talking about digital radio rather than ownership. The demand for high-quality sound reproduction, especially from the many car drivers among us, will ensure that digital radio will get off the ground—and the sooner, the better.
  We are a wee bit less sanguine about the prospects for the digital terrestrial proposal. After all, it will have to compete against potentially far more effective delivery mechanisms. Digital satellite, with vastly greater numbers of channels and the possibility of radio links to provide two-way communications, will be a much more effective medium, although again, there are doubts about exactly when it will appear.
  Digital cable services, too, will be able to provide a vastly greater number of channels. Even more serious competition will come from the provision of fibre, and the almost limitless band width that that will offer us. But who knows when that may happen? Digital television will have to operate in an uncertain market. That is why so few reliable financial and business commentators have been prepared to say, with their hand on their heart, that they believe that the system will fly. That point should concern all of us. We have no quarrel with the Government inasmuch as we want digital television to get going, as everyone else does.
  Mr. Stephen Timms: Does my hon. Friend agree that the quality of the services provided by digital broadcasting will be one of the main determinants of its success? Does he further agree that it is absurd that the Bill does not allow the ITC to take quality into account in determining the licence applications submitted to it?
  Dr. Moonie: I could not have put the point better myself; my hon. Friend makes a good point. It is a great
  606
  disappointment to us that no quality test has been included in the Bill. That is a point that we shall seek to introduce in Committee and on Report. In view of some of the comments made by Conservative Members, I suspect that we may get considerable support for such a proposal from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  I will now touch on some of the other main issues raised tonight and to which we shall return in Committee. The question of cross-media ownership has rightly been brought up. For the record, I will make sure that my views are plain. I favour competition in the provision of services. I favour full competition so I see no reason why any player should be arbitrarily excluded from the market by the introduction of the test proposed in the Bill. Full competition should be fair competition and it is the Government's duty to provide an effective framework for fair competition throughout the industry. The failure to do so is not the fault of the Department of National Heritage but the fault of the Government as a whole. At present, we do not provide a framework for fair competition. If we had such a framework, there would be no need for the specialist provision in the Bill.
  Many Conservative Members have made useful contributions on the provision of local services. In general, we agree with them and we shall seek to support amendments on that subject in Committee. However, there is a difference between large metropolitan areas and areas around my constituency and parts of the highlands of Scotland and Wales where there is only one local radio station and only one local paper. To give one group control over 100 per cent. of local advertising in an area would be unwise and we must ensure that that is not allowed to happen. Bearing that point in mind, I agree with many of the points made by Conservative Members.
  We welcome the merger of the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. We also welcome the opportunity to debate the V-chip although, like the Secretary of State, I have some doubts about the practicalities of introducing it. However, that does not alter the fact that we must have a full, fair and frank debate on the issue in Committee and on Report so that every hon. Member's views can be properly taken into account.
  We wonder—this is purely speculative—whether we should take things a stage further on standards in broadcasting in view of the key role that the ITC will play. Should we not perhaps look, not too far in the future, at subsuming the role of the new BSC into the ITC and giving it a general extended role in the monitoring and control of standards of broadcasting? I suggest that especially in view of our proposals last year for the extension of the function of Oftel into an ofcom—office of communications—which would take over many of the ITC's current responsibilities for looking at the carriage of signals? To my mind, that would be a far more rational way in which to manage the system.
  Enough has been said about sport. I merely reiterate the point that if the voluntary code of conduct fails to come up to expectations, we shall certainly raise the matter in Committee and on Report. The Government had better prepare themselves for losing a vote on an amendment on the code of conduct.
  I would like to cover many other issues, but clearly I do not have time. I assure the House that we shall cover those issues exhaustively in Committee. We shall return

  607
  to the issue of quality again and again. The needs of those with visual and auditory disabilities have not been mentioned, as far as I can remember from the parts of the debate that I heard tonight, but we shall return to them. We expect to cover in full issues such as local diversity and protection of local interest in ITV companies.
  After such a full debate, obviously there will be irreconcilable differences between the Government and the Opposition at this stage. The Secretary of State has expressed willingness to offer compromises, and we welcome her flexibility on the matter but, alas, cannot support the Government tonight.
  We believe that this is a Bill for the present. Our amendment tries to look to the future. In such a rapidly changing field, our perspective is essential. If we are not successful in doing so in this Session of Parliament, we shall certainly face up to it next year in government.
  9.44 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): It is a tribute to the great interest that the House has shown in the Bill that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and I have had such a short time in which to wind up the debate, but it is a very good thing that so many individual hon. Members do take part in a debate such as this. We shall be able to return to many of the details in Committee when, like the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, I greatly look forward to a lengthy and thorough examination of this excellent Bill.
  The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) started his speech by talking about television broadcast sports rights, and I follow his example in that, if in nothing else. I shall explain the current position to the House.
  The House of Lords said, in my view rightly, that we should retain the listed events. We have eight listed events, and I feel that the House of Lords spoke for the majority of the country when it reached that decision.
  Mr. Maxton: You opposed it.
  Mr. Sproat: I certainly never opposed it, and the hon. Gentleman will confirm to the House that many is the time I have said to him, "This is an important matter, which must be discussed during the passage of the Broadcasting Bill." That is what I said, that is what has been done and I believe that Parliament has reached the right decision on it. [Laughter.] There is a little too much laughter from Labour Members. I remind them that, in the House of Lords, of those who voted in favour of listed events, the Labour party contributed only 34 per cent., so it was not the Labour party but the House of Lords as a whole, and that Conservatives and independents outvoted Labour on that matter.
  Mr. Grocott rose—
  Mr. Sproat: I will not give way.
  If hon. Members will keep quiet, I will take us on from that decision about the listed events to what is happening over the unbundling procedures that have been proposed by some.
  608
  The Government are wholly opposed to compulsory unbundling. We believe that it would be a gross interference with the rights of sports bodies who owned the rights to the games to take those rights away from them arbitrarily. I thought that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) put it extremely well, and I thought that the various views that were expressed about the matter showed that it is an extremely difficult subject to get right.
  My right hon. Friend and I discussed it with the Sports Council, the governing bodies of sport and the Central Council of Physical Recreation. I discussed the matter with the broadcasters and I said, "We quite understand that it is your right to dispose of your—"
  Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Sproat: I have no time; I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
  I said, "It is your right to dispose as you wish of the sports that are yours. You nevertheless have a duty to the community to ensure that, when you dispose of those sporting rights, you take into account people's wish to see those sports on television and the wish of those people—especially young people—that the money obtained from the sporting rights be ploughed back into the sport, especially into young people's sport."
  We are trying to work out a voluntary code. I have seen the draft—it is only a draft so far—which satisfies many of those aspects. I know that the governing bodies want to look at it again. I know that the CCPR and the Sports Council want to look at it again. If the voluntary code is finished while the Committee is sitting, which I hope and expect it will be, it would be perfectly proper for the Committee to debate that, and I look forward to it. I think it was the hon. Member for Bassetlaw who said that it was a matter of balance. We must balance a number of different interests in relation to sport: those of sporting organisations, those who play sport and those who watch it on television. That is what we are seeking to do; I hope that we shall succeed. I hope that I shall have the Opposition's support when they see what is being introduced.
  When we talk about broadcast sports rights we should remember that we are speaking against a different background from that of 15 or 20 years ago. Every day there are seven hours of sport on terrestrial television and every day Eurosport and BSkyB together have 38 hours of sport—there is a tremendous amount of sport on television. I certainly welcome that fact and I hope that we shall return to the subject in Committee.
  A number of hon. Members mentioned Channel 4 funding, a subject to which we shall return in detail in Committee. If Channel 4 receives more than 14 per cent. of the total advertising revenue for itself, anything above that 14 per cent. has to be disposed of in specific ways that Parliament has decided—I think that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) rightly raised that issue. At present, of that excess, 25 per cent. has to go into reserve. From the moment that the Bill is enacted, that 25 per cent. can immediately be used by Channel 4 to make British films—the Bill will produce that immediate response and free up cash for Channel 4. On the timing—the reduction of the excess will be done in a couple of stages, the first of which will be in 1998. I give that explanation for the benefit of the hon. Member for Wigan and other hon. Members who raised this important matter.

  609
  Several hon. Members said that we should look again at conditional access, particularly conditional access and analogue. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) was the first hon. Member to raise the subject. He will know that, earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry produced a document called "The Regulation of Conditional Access Services for Digital Television". In that document we made it clear that there would be a licensed system for encryption and the gatekeepers of digital satellite to ensure that nobody could be other than fair, open and non-discriminatory towards anyone who wanted to use the gateway.
  A number of hon. Members said, "Yes—that is splendid and that is for the future, but we already have analogue satellites and we should impose similar restrictions on them." I understand why hon. Members say that, but they are wrong. When we were encouraging the satellite business to get off the ground, we set certain regulations, one of which was that there should not be such a licence for analogue satellites. That system succeeded—satellites have taken off in a big way—and having imposed it originally, it would be wrong now to change the regulations under which the analogue satellites operate. They are on their way out and digitalised satellites are on their way in. I hope that hon. Members will accept that the Government want to impose a licence in future, but do not want to change what they have done in the past.
  A number of my hon. Friends, as well as the hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), talked about the importance of regional television—a subject to which we shall return in Committee. We have found a way to ensure that regional televisions' peculiar regional identities are preserved. If a smaller television station is taken over by a larger one, the larger one will have to fulfil extremely stern regulations imposed by the ITC on quality, amount of hours and the way in which regionality is imposed on the station, and if the regional station that it has taken over has raised the amount of regionality in various ways, the new company will be bound by the ITC to meet those same standards and fulfil the regional criteria.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland wondered, quite properly, what would happen if, having liberalised the number of stations that any one company can take over, a number of big companies set upon the smaller companies and the contributions that they make to network programming. The ITC will impose a formula that ensures that the smaller regional stations are protected. Regional stations are extremely important—including those in Scotland and in Wales. I am sorry that I do not have time to answer in detail the points raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), but perhaps we shall deal with them in Committee. I assure him that he will like my answers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) raised the issue of impartiality. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about perceived examples of impartiality on the part of the BBC—I do not seek to make a Tory point. Today's Daily Mail says that the BBC is so conscious of that problem that it has asked two independent parties, Lord Skidelsky and Miss Lambert of the Green party, to examine its actions. They concluded that the BBC has something to learn about impartiality and the Conservative party.
  610
  My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham raised an important point. He advanced some new and interesting ideas about a governor with particular responsibility for impartiality or an ombudsman. Those points concern mainly the BBC, but we shall gladly discuss them in Committee. My right hon. Friend and I have discussed the matter with the new chairman of the BBC, Sir Christopher Bland, and he is strongly seized of the importance of maintaining the BBC's worldwide reputation for impartiality on which so much of its prestige depends.
  One of the disappointing aspects of the Opposition's allegedly reasoned amendment was that it accused the Government of not giving enough encouragement to firms to enter the digitalisation business. That is very wrong: I cannot see what more we could have done. We have guaranteed a place on the multiplexes to all existing terrestrial broadcasters so that they may develop their services and we have guaranteed that multiplex operators will be able to operate for free—without making any payments to the Treasury—for the first 12 years. They will be able to roll that over for another 12 years. We have also said that we will review the progress of digitalisation after five years. If the broadcasting technology develops very quickly—as often occurs in that area—we shall re-examine the situation when 50 per cent. of households have digital sets.
  I ask the House to remember that we are the first country in the world to introduce digitalisation as part of its legislative broadcasting programme. I do not believe that it is reasonable to ask the Government to do any more: we have done all that we can to encourage digitalisation. If hon. Members have different notions, they may raise them in Committee and we shall be very glad to respond.
  I have only one minute in which to respond to the other points raised by hon. Members—as the excellent Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), reminds me. We shall return in Committee to the important matters of quality, questions of impartiality, and questions about the funding of S4C and whether it will have proper opportunities to develop other services. I hope that the Committee membership will be balanced and will represent the many views that have been put forward in the House today.
  I strongly deprecate the foolish amendment put down by the Opposition. We had hoped to secure their support as we did in the other place, and I am sorry that we did not succeed. I hope that in Committee we shall convince Labour Members of their unfairness and foolishness. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 297.

  Division No. 98]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Barnes, Harry

  Ainger, Nick

  Battle, John

  Allen, Graham

  Bayley, Hugh

  Alton, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Bell, Stuart

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Ashton, Joe

  Benton, Joe

  Austin-Walker, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  611

  Berry, Roger

  Graham, Thomas

  Betts, Clive

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Blunkett, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Boateng, Paul

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Grocott, Bruce

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

  Gunnell, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hain, Peter

  Burden, Richard

  Hall, Mike

  Byers, Stephen

  Hanson, David

  Caborn, Richard

  Hardy, Peter

  Callaghan, Jim

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Harvey, Nick

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Henderson, Doug

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hinchliffe, David

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hoey, Kate

  Cann, Jamie

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Home Robertson, John

  Chidgey, David

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Church, Judith

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

  Clapham, Michael

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hutton, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ingram, Adam

  Corston, Jean

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cox, Tom

  Jamieson, David

  Cummings, John

  Janner, Greville

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Davidson, Ian

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Keen, Alan

  Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

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

  Khabra, Piara S

  Denham, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dewar, Donald

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dixon, Don

  Lewis, Terry

  Dobson, Frank

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Litherland, Robert

  Dowd, Jim

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Eastham, Ken

  Loyden, Eddie

  Etherington, Bill

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McCartney, Ian

  Fatchett, Derek

  Macdonald, Calum

  Faulds, Andrew

  McFall, John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McKelvey, William

  Fisher, Mark

  McLeish, Henry

  Flynn, Paul

  Maclennan, Robert

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foulkes, George

  MacShane, Denis

  Fraser, John

  McWilliam, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  Madden, Max

  Galbraith, Sam

  Maddock, Diana

  Galloway, George

  Mahon, Alice

  Gapes, Mike

  Mandelson, Peter

  George, Bruce

  Marek, Dr John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Martlew, Eric

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Maxton, John

  Gordon, Mildred

  Meacher, Michael

  612

  Meale, Alan

  Ruddock, Joan

  Michael, Alun

  Salmond, Alex

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Milburn, Alan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Short, Clare

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Simpson, Alan

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Mudie, George

  Soley, Clive

  Mullin, Chris

  Spearing, Nigel

  Murphy, Paul

  Spellar, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Stevenson, George

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Stott, Roger

  O'Hara, Edward

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Olner, Bill

  Straw, Jack

  O'Neill, Martin

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Parry, Robert

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Pearson, Ian

  Timms, Stephen

  Pendry, Tom

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pickthall, Colin

  Touhig, Don

  Pike, Peter L

  Trickett, Jon

  Pope, Greg

  Turner, Dennis

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Tyler, Paul

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Vaz, Keith

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wallace, James

  Purchase, Ken

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wareing, Robert N

  Radice, Giles

  Watson, Mike

  Randall, Stuart

  Welsh, Andrew

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Reid, Dr John

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Rendel, David

  Wise, Audrey

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Worthington, Tony

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Rooker, Jeff

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Rooney, Terry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee w)

  Ms Ann Coffey and

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Bowis, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Brazier, Julian

  Amess, David

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Ashby, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burns, Simon

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Burt, Alistair

  Baldry, Tony

  Butcher, John

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Butler, Peter

  Bates, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Carrington, Matthew

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cash, William

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Booth, Hartley

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Boswell, Tim

  Churchill, Mr

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Clappison, James

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  613

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hannam, Sir John

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Colvin, Michael

  Harris, David

  Congdon, David

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Couchman, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Cran, James

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

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

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hendry, Charles

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hicks, Robert

  Day, Stephen

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Devlin, Tim

  Horam, John

  Dicks, Terry

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Dover, Den

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Duncan, Alan

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Duncan-Smith, lain

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Dunn, Bob

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Elletson, Harold

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Jessel, Toby

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Evennett, David

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Faber, David

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Fabricant, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Knapman, Roger

  Forman, Nigel

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Forth, Eric

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Knox, Sir David

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  French, Douglas

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Gale, Roger

  Legg, Barry

  Gallie, Phil

  Leigh, Edward

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Gamier, Edward

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Gill, Christopher

  Lidington, David

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Lord, Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Luff, Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Gorst, Sir John

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  McLounghin, Patrick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Madel, Sir David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Malone, Gerald

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mans, Keith

  Marland, Paul

  Marlow, Tony

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Mates, Michael

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  614

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mills, lain

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Spring, Richard

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Sproat, lain

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Steen, Anthony

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stephen, Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Stewart, Allan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Sumberg, David

  Norris, Steve

  Sweeney, Walter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Sykes, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Thomason, Roy

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Pawsey, James

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Pickles, Eric

  Tracey, Richard

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Tredinnick, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Trend, Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rathbone, Tim

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Viggers, Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Richards, Rod

  Walden, George

  Riddick, Graham

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Waller, Gary

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Ward, John

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Watts, John

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Wells, Bowen

  Sackville, Tom

  Whitney, Ray

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Whittingdale, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wilkinson, John

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Willetts, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Wilshire, David

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sims, Roger

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wolfson, Mark

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Yeo, Tim

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Soames, Nicholas

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments to the Education (Student Loans) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  Question agreed to.

  BROADCASTING BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Broadcasting Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (1) any expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act, and

  (2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other enactment are payable out of money so provided—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

  Question agreed to.

  BROADCASTING BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Broadcasting Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the inclusion of—

  (1) provisions under or by virtue of which holders of licences granted under the Act by the Independent Television Commission are or may be required to pay sums to that body in connection with such licences and under which financial penalties imposed on bodies holding such licences may be recovered from persons controlling such bodies;

  (2) provisions under or by virtue of which the holders of licences granted under the Act by the Radio Authority are or may be required to pay sums to that body in connection with such licences and under which financial penalties imposed on bodies holding such licences may be recovered from persons controlling such bodies;

  (3) provisions relating to the televising of sporting and other events of national interest under which holders of licences granted by the Independent Television Commission under the Act or the Broadcasting Act 1990 may be required to pay financial penalties to that body;

  (4) provisions for sums falling within paragraph (1), (2) or (3) to be paid into the Consolidated Fund;

  (5) provisions amending the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990 under or by virtue of which the holders of certain licences under that Act may be required to make payments to the Channel Four Television Corporation;

  (6) provisions relating to the financial penalties payable to the Independent Television Commission under the Broadcasting Act 1990;

  (7) provisions under which—

  (a) the Independent Television Commission, the Radio Authority and Sianel Pedwar Cymru are required to pay sums to the Secretary of State as contributions to the expenses of the Broadcasting Standards Commission established under the Act, and

  (b) such sums are paid into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

  Question agreed to.

  Education (Student Loans) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Education (Student Loans) Bill
    Schedule

      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 26.
      10.16 pm
      The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I inform the House that amendment No. 1 involves privilege.
      Mr. Forth: This is a small, technical amendment. We feel that it is necessary in order to implement fully our policy to limit the number of loans that may be taken out by a student in any one year. Regulations under the Student Loans Act 1990 already apply this restriction in respect of loans taken out with the Student Loans Company Ltd. It makes good sense that the position should be the same for private loans when they become available.
      The Bill as originally drafted therefore contained, in paragraph 3(2)(b) of the schedule, a power to limit public loans where an applicant already had a private one. In turn, our contracts with the private lenders would have limited private loans where a public one already existed. However, we reflected further on that after the issue was raised in Committee. As a result, we are bringing the private sector into student loans to create competition and extend student choice. Part of that choice includes the freedom for students to move from one lender to another year by year.
      In these circumstances, it is important that our policy of one subsidised loan per student per year is fully and easily implemented. The amendment deletes the regulation-making power in paragraph 3(2)(b) of the schedule. Instead, the general regulation-making power in section 1(2)(b) of the 1990 Act will be used to limit the number of loans, whether public or private. It is surely sensible that the number of loans be limited in this way. It is fair to students and to the taxpayer. The amendment makes our objective more secure. I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Bryan Davies: As the Minister has said, this issue was considered in Standing Committee. In fact, it was my hon. Friends who drew attention to the important point that none of us would countenance circumstances in which subsidy from the public purse to those who took out student loans should be available more than once in any one student year. Therefore, the Opposition also support this technical amendment, which gives effect to what is clearly the will of the House and which been commended by the other place.
      Lords amendment agreed to [Special Entry].
      Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 3, line 30, leave out ("2(1)") and insert ("2—(a) in sub-paragraph (1)").
      Mr. Forth: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 32, at end insert
      (", and
      (b) after that sub-paragraph insert—
      "(1 A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) above may include provision for the making of payments to governing bodies in respect of the taking by them of steps prescribed by the regulations.)
      Mr. Forth: Currently, higher education institutions have a significant role in certifying students' eligibility for loans. In return, the Student Loans Company pays them a fee for each certificate of eligibility. We intend that to continue. Higher education institutions will also play a role in providing information on their students' eligibility for private sector loans. We intend them to receive payment for whatever work they do in that regard.
      A number of concerns have been expressed, here and in another place, about how much work higher education institutions will have to do, and about its cost. One such concern was that there was no specific provision for payment to such institutions for any eligibility work that they may do on private loan applications. The amendment will remove that concern.
      Paragraph 3 of the schedule would amend schedule 2 of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990. In so doing, it would provide for regulations requiring work on eligibility by higher education institutions to apply to private as well as public loans. It would provide for payments to be made to higher education institutions in relation to work on all loans. It addresses a reasonable concern that was put to us in both Houses. I hope that this House will support it on that basis.
      Mr. Bryan Davies: The Opposition do not oppose the objective of the amendment, but it should be noted that, in justifying it, the Minister laid claim to a position that has not been substantiated either here or in the other place, and is not supported in the higher education sector.
      The Minister claimed that universities are fully recompensed for the administrative costs that they incur in processing student loans. That is palpably not the case. The figures that have been quoted—which are not contested significantly by any source—suggest that universities' costs are probably twice as high as the sum that is currently returned to them. Naturally, the universities are very concerned. These are difficult days for the higher education sector: the downward pressure on resources is fierce, and institutions are hard pressed. Now they are being asked to subsidise the operation of the Student Loans Company, and the process that enables students to obtain the necessary maintenance to enable them to continue their studies.
      In Committee, the Opposition pressed the amendment forcefully, but at that time it did not find favour with the Minister. Now, at last, it has become acceptable to the Government. It will ensure that, even if the universities are not paid the full cost of the exercise in which they are involved, they will at least receive some payment for providing information that is needed by the private sector.
      The higher education sector is anxious for obvious reasons. The Government are making increasing demands on productivity: they are making increasing demands on the
      618
      institutions to fulfil Government policy in regard to the number of students that they accept, while being extremely ungenerous in terms of funds. Although this may be a small area from the universities' point of view, it is an example of their being expected to provide, from limited funds, a subsidy not only for the public sector and the Student Loans Company but, regrettably—under the Bill's provisions—for the private sector, assuming that the private sector system of student support ever gets under way. Perhaps this exercise is already redundant. That was mentioned in the House of Lords because, plainly, the Government are undertaking a review of higher education and student finance and have asked Sir Ron Deering to carry it out.
      This is the last time that the House will have a chance to comment on the Bill, and it is being asked to persist with a Bill that is widely regarded as redundant because it is unlikely to be implemented and in any case contains noxious elements. One such small noxious element is that the private sector will obtain a subsidy from the universities which currently goes to the Student Loans Company and the Minister has still not fully reimbursed universities for their work in this area.
      As I have said, this is the last occasion on which we shall consider the Bill. It is an enabling measure that will empower the Minister to carry out a series of negotiations with various agencies. When and in what form will the House receive a statement from the Minister about the conclusion of the negotiations so that Parliament can be properly reassured about the processes, procedures and conclusions? The Minister has been offered a blank cheque in his negotiations with the banks and financial institutions and, having been empowered in that way, he should inform the House about the conclusions of his negotiations and the House should have a chance to consider any proposals. Perhaps the Minister will say how he intends to fulfil that obligation, which has been pointed out to him repeatedly on Second Reading, in Committee and on Third Reading, and in the other place. It has been said with great force that the Minister should respond to that request.
      Mr. Roy Beggs: It is important that the Minister should return to the House with that information because the legislation will later be applied to Northern Ireland and we ought to know what is intended for us there.
      Mr. Davies: I accept the hon. Gentleman's supportive comment, which plainly shows that there are widespread concerns about the measure. I expressed it in parliamentary terms in the context of both Houses and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his geographical reinforcement of my case.
      Mr. Forth: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the amendment and the spirit in which he expressed at least that element of his speech. However, I cannot accept his contention or the terms in which he put it, because not only are the fees that are payable to higher education institutions entirely a matter between the Student Loans Company and the institutions, but the Department and I are not aware of the higher education institutions pressing particularly hard on the SLC for a review of the terms of the compensatory payments that they receive. The hon. Gentleman exaggerated somewhat in that regard.

      619
      Perhaps concealed in the comments of the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) was a spending commitment on behalf of his party that he would arrange, were he ever in a position to do so, to make much more generous payments to the universities. He was not prepared to do more than hint at that, but I have no doubt that in due course, after he has received the permission of his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), he will make the commitment which seemed to be implied in his comments.
      I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) that we have extended yet again the deadline for the receipt of tenders from private lending institutions, at the request of one of them, by some two weeks to Monday 13 May. That will give them every opportunity to respond positively and comprehensively to our invitation to tender.
      I envisage that at that time, after an appropriate period to consider the tenders, we shall wish to notify the House of the outcome of the tendering process so that everyone is kept fully informed of the position, should the Bill receive royal assent, should its provisions be in place, and depending on the private lenders who respond to the tendering arrangements. It is my wish that the House be kept fully informed. The deadline has been extended, but at a material time after that date I will inform the House fully of the progress being made.
      I hope that the House will now feel able to support the amendment.
      Lords amendment agreed to [Special Entry].
      Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to [Special Entry].

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).

    PUBLIC HEALTH
    That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Oil and Chemical Pollution of Salmon and Migratory Trout) Order 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 856) a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
    Question agreed to.

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

    CONSUMER PROTECTION: UNIT PRICING
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9325/95, on consumer protection in the indication of prices offered to consumers, and supports the Government's view that the Directive, incorporating the amendments in respect of an exemption for small shops, should be adopted.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
    Question agreed to.

    TREASURE BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.50A(1)(a).
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Treasure Bill, it is expedient to authorise the disposal of, or disclaimer of title to, property vesting in the Crown under the Act—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
    Question agreed to.

    TREASURE BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.50A(1)(b).
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Treasure Bill, it is expedient to authorise the treatment of property vesting in the Crown under the Act as part of the hereditary revenues of the Crown to which section 1 of the Civil List Act 1952 applies.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
    Question agreed to.

  M1 (Widening)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  10.31 pm
  Mr. John Carlisle: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Minister for sparing time, once again, to discuss the intended widening of the M1 between junctions 10 and 12. I make no apology for once again bringing the subject before the House. Indeed, the remarks that I make may be somewhat harsh—although in no way do they reflect on my hon. Friend the Minister; we have been very great friends and I think that we will remain so for some considerable time—but certain things need to be said at this stage that have not been said before.
  In 1989 the Government published a White Paper on roads. It proposed that the M1 should be widened in one of its busiest spots. The road carries 120,000 vehicles a day, 20 per cent. of which are heavy vehicles. Indeed, I believe that the figure is now even higher. It is one of the main arterial roads in Britain. Since 1989, there have been at least six Ministers with responsibility for roads and traffic, starting with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley)—that sounds a long time ago—and ending with the present incumbent, who has been in the job for some time.
  I have had at least four Adjournment debates and have raised the subject on the Floor of the House through questions or in speeches on numerous other occasions. I have taken to my hon. Friend and some of his predecessors a number of delegations of pressure groups, residents and constituents from my part of the world. There have been numerous public meetings. There was a public exhibition in November 1992. There are literally mountains of correspondence from my constituents—quite understandably, as the issue affects a great many people. There have been many long hours of discussions both in the constituency, in the Department and in and around my office over a long period.
  Unfortunately, despite all the visits and the representations that I have made on behalf of my constituents, more than six and a half years since the proposal to widen the road, we now face another period of uncertainty. Quite frankly, that has made my constituents frustrated, which is natural, and angry.
  In the time available, I should like to read to my hon. Friend the Minister and the House from a letter that I recently received from Mr. John Neil, secretary of the M1 Action Group Luton. He has been doing that job ever since the road improvement was first proposed and has been a tower of strength to residents in the part of Luton that will be affected. Talking about residents in the part of the town affected, he says:
  "The same residents exposed daily to the ever increasing noise levels and air pollution emanating from the Motorway, have only ever sought from the D.O.T immediate means to bring about some relief to their ongoing suffering. To that end, they have acted as very responsible citizens, with a great deal of tolerance and patience. No demonstrations; no acts of violence or resorting to any other unlawful act. They quite properly called upon their elected Member of Parliament to express their concern over the dreadful conditions under which they are now forced to live. Notwithstanding the efforts of all those involved over the past few years, many residents today entertain feelings of despair since so little has been achieved. It is not difficult to understand such emotions."
  622
  It should not be difficult for the House to understand that people who live in the proximity of such a main road, along which some 120,000 vehicles thunder every day, are bound to feel some anger and frustration at the apparent inactivity. Some of these people were living in the area in the late 1950s before the motorway was built.
  I shall not go over too much old ground but, with the House's permission, I shall quickly draw to my hon. Friend's attention three matters that are extremely important to this case. The first relates to the Budget and public expenditure plans of last November, the second to the programme, and the third to the compensation available to my constituents in many and varied ways.
  My hon. Friend will know that in November, on the basis of the budgetary programme, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced some pruning of the roads programme. Many people thought that that was a sensible move. The £365 million project—the widening of the M1 between junctions 10 and 15—was also to include part of the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Sir G. Bright), who is in his place and whose presence I welcome. The announcement of the delay in that project served to add further uncertainty to an already very difficult situation.
  I fully appreciate the need to try to save money, and I would be the first to say that if savings can be made they should be made. However, what bothers my constituents is not only the timing, to which I shall refer later, but the question whether the savings, which my hon. Friend is still considering, should be made on the very worthwhile projects proposed to mitigate the noise and nuisance suffered by my constituents. I refer, for example, to the provision of noise barriers, not just when the road is completed but while the work is being carried out. My hon. Friend has in the past been very helpful in this respect. Such barriers must be of the most modern and up-to-date construction and they must do all that can be done to reduce the terrible burden—and it is a terrible burden—of noise that permeates the affected part of the town. In fact, the noise is getting worse. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell me that no budgetary constraints will apply to those proposals.
  I must also mention the worthwhile environmental measures. Those of us affected by the widening were pleased to see that in the original plans that were issued as long ago as 1992, such measures included
  "areas of dense planting and mounding or barriers"
  and "visual screening", which were to be part of the new, widened road. I hope that any savings will not be made at the expense of the environmental protection that would be given by such planting and other schemes. It is essential that such elements of the mitigation of noise and nuisance are retained.
  In my Adjournment debate last year, we discussed porous asphalt—a subject that I know is dear to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South. When the road is built, we must make absolutely sure that, if possible, porous asphalt or its equivalent is used, and that tyre noise, which often causes the majority of noise and nuisance, is mitigated by the best modern techniques. If my hon. Friend has to make budgetary cuts, as I know he will, I hope that he does not sacrifice any of the three measures to which I have referred.
  The second element that I must bring to my hon. Friend the Minister's attention is the basis of the programme itself. I remind him that the original plans envisaged work

  623
  on widening of the road commencing in January 1997, or at least in some part of next year. The original plans were made a little time ago. Now, none of us has any idea when the widening will take place, if indeed it will take place. My hon. Friend may well comment on that.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, a letter was recently sent to one of my constituents from Mr. Steven Ryan, a schemes administration official at the Highways Agency, which has probably caused more problems than almost anything else in recent weeks. Part of the letter says:
  "We do not anticipate commencing construction until 2002 at the earliest. Due to the complexity of the scheme, we expect construction to last five years."
  In other words, construction will continue into 2007, yet it was originally thought that the work would start in 1997. If that letter is correct—I know that my hon. Friend has written to me privately about it—it will fill my constituents with utter dismay. If it is correct, I would rather that he told me tonight that the widening of the M1 will not proceed. But if the road is to go ahead—and, frankly, I support it—it must be done as quickly as possible. Such letters cause utter dismay among my constituents and further frustration. How long must we wait until we get more definite news on the road?
  The third element that I should like to bring to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister, which is partly the responsibility of the local valuer and, I think, partly the responsibility of his Department, is the compensation, if any, that is available to constituents who are affected—not necessarily those who have been affected by properties being purchased because they are about to be knocked down or would be so close to the road that it would be intolerable to live in them, but for those who have been affected by the proposals' impact on house prices.
  Again, it is worth reminding the House of the type of suffering that some of my constituents have experienced. I shall quote from a letter that I received only recently from a Mr. and Mrs. Smithson of 175 High street, Leagrave. They have been greatly affected by the widening of the road, and their letter goes to the heart of some of my constituents' problems. Mrs. Smithson says:
  "Our intention has always been to move nearer to our relations when we retired. My husband was made redundant in October 95 from Luton Council and he will be 65 in January 97. We now know it is time we moved. The only reason we lived in Luton was because of my husband's job."
  I regret that because I think that it is a very fine place to live, as I know that hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South would agree. The letter continues:
  "We now have the property on the market with two estate agents. Messrs Alexander for 10 months and now with Connells. We have lowered the price but to no avail as any prospective purchasers that have been to view the property do not wish to proceed when, as we are legally bound to, we inform them of the M1 widening. We can understand this, as like ourselves, they do not wish to have the noise, pollution and disturbance of the M1 widening."
  That is typical of many scores of people up and down the side of the road. As one who enjoys the privilege of living just outside a village in peace and quiet, who gets cross when gliders fly over his property, I can understand that those people are suffering an intolerable nuisance.
  624
  That intolerable nuisance is made even worse by the fact that they unable to move not only because there has been a recession in house prices—that is of course reflected in the price of new properties that they would like to buy—but because, naturally, no one is prepared to buy their properties due to the uncertainty surrounding the M1 widening.
  I must ask my hon. Friend: what happens now? So many people are affected in that way—stuck in houses from which, for genuine reasons such as retirement, they want to move, yet they cannot do so because house prices have fallen so far that they cannot afford to go. What happened to the Colonel Owen case, after which we hoped that more help would be given to people in that position?
  May I cite one more of my constituents, a Mr. Pemberton, who is a single oldish man—bless him—who for some time has been trying to understand a system under which before 1991 the house next door to his, No. 87, was compulsorily purchased because it was said that it would not be fit to live in when the M1 was widened, whereas after 1991 he was told that new designs had been developed so that his house, No. 85, would not be affected so badly as to be compulsorily purchased.
  I have done my best, but I have found it extremely difficult to explain to Mr. Pemberton that that system is fair. Frankly, it is not fair. I am pleased to have received correspondence from the Highways Agency dated 29 March saying that
  "the Team has now been disbanded"—
  perhaps my hon. Friend will help me to understand exactly what that means—and that Mr. Pemberton's case will be re-examined by the motorway operations division.
  My constituents' patience is running out. After so long—it is nearly seven years since the idea was first put into the Department's head—they have had enough. I do not think that they will be lying all over the M1, or will take militant action—thank heavens—but, rightly, they are asking me, "Where do we go from here?"
  I must have from my hon. Friend, if he can give them, some sort of definite programme, and some form of further protection for those on whom the nuisance and the noise is inflicted. I must also have some assurance that further sympathetic consideration will be given to those whose house prices have been badly affected. If that happens, my patience will not run out, but unless we receive satisfactory answers in the weeks and months ahead I shall soon be on my feet again, pressing my hon. Friend on this subject.
  10.47 pm
  The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) on securing yet another debate on this important matter for his constituency, and on his diligence in pursuing his constituents' interests. I also understand the frustration that he has expressed on their behalf about the continuing uncertainty of a scheme that has been long in gestation.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the review of the roads programme that I had to conduct last year in the light of the reduction in the budget for trunk road building. He will know, however, that, at the end of that review, the scheme he mentioned was one of the high-priority schemes that

  625
  remain firmly in the main programme. None the less, we are reviewing it as previously proposed, to see whether there is a way of carrying out the widening more cost-effectively, thus saving precious capital resources and enabling the reduced funding to stretch over more miles of the trunk road and motorway network.
  When I previously reported to the House on the scheme, draft orders for the works were on deposit, and the Highways Agency was receiving objections and representations. However, the estimated cost of the published scheme is nearly £500 million, so, although it would produce a good economic return in terms of the tests we apply, it would also use up a significant part of the annual budget.
  The current review will therefore establish whether some reduction in scale, and thus in costs, can be achieved. That work is now in hand, and it is also taking into account the many detailed points made to the agency during the consultation process. The statutory procedures in respect of the published scheme have been suspended while the review is taking place. I hope later this year to be able to announce the results of the review, and to set out the way forward.
  For the moment, I can tell the House that, in carrying out the review, it will remain the aim to meet the operational objectives of the published scheme. Nor will we compromise on the level of environmental mitigation which was substantial under the previous scheme. Although I am looking for financial savings, I am not looking for them at the expense of either noise or environmental mitigation. That is one of the assurances that I know my hon. Friend wished to hear.
  The agency examines carefully the environmental impact of schemes and the measures needed to mitigate. A considerable advantage in building on the existing network is that it limits intrusion. That is, however, no reason why those living alongside existing routes should suffer as a consequence. The methods now being examined in the scheme review for achieving environmental mitigation may be different from those involved in the original scheme, but we shall aim to achieve the same result.
  Noise levels adjacent to motorways are always a concern, and this scheme is no exception. The overall aim will remain the reduction of existing traffic noise by a significant amount for people living near the motorway. In Luton, barrier heights will vary depending on the local situation. The use of acoustically absorbent barriers where appropriate and justified will reduce reflected noise and offer significant benefits in the urban area. Where possible, barriers will be installed before the start of works to reduce the noise nuisance during construction as well.
  The Highways Agency is also considering the use of quieter road surfacing to reduce noise intrusion. However, I must tell my hon. Friend that predictions for the relevant section of the road show that it has too high a proportion of heavy vehicles for the use of porous asphalt to be viable. However, research into noise-reducing road surfaces is continuing, and if a suitable material is available before a decision has to be taken on the type of surface to be used for the scheme, the Highways Agency will, of course, consider using whatever surfacing is of the requisite strength and has the maximum noise attenuation.
  My hon. Friend referred to the blighting effect of the proposals on the ability of some of his constituents to sell their property. The Highways Agency has so far bought
  626
  27 properties in my hon. Friend's constituency, under the statutory blight legislation, where land will be needed for the scheme. The agency has also used the Secretary of State's discretionary powers to acquire a further 42 properties, but it had to turn down 17 other requests for purchase.
  While the published proposals remain on the table, we shall continue to assess applications against them. However, 11 of the refusal cases have been reviewed against the new guidelines which were introduced on 19 July 1995 following the Colonel Owen judgment. They require the agency to consider diminution in the value of property as well as the predicted effects of noise and other physical factors when reaching a conclusion about whether enjoyment of the property will be seriously affected by either the construction or use of the road.
  Mr. John Carlisle: It is the diminution of value that is so important. My hon. Friend has referred to the cases of those affected whose properties have been purchased by the Highways Agency, and that is straightforward. It is the diminution of value of so many properties—I know the line is very fine—that is worrying my constituents. I am a little disturbed by the numbers that my hon. Friend has quoted. My experience is that the numbers are rather greater. Shall I encourage people who have come to me, but who may not have come to my hon. Friend, to go to the agency?
  Mr. Watts: It is difficult for me to give guidance on that point. Certainly the guidelines are published and available. Any of my hon. Friend's constituents who feel that they might qualify under the guidelines should make an application.
  The difference between the new and the old guidelines is that, under the old, a physical effect had to be proven to qualify for discretionary purchase. Under the new guidelines, both diminution in value and physical effects can trigger entitlement to be assessed for discretionary purchase, although the guidelines explain that, usually, discretion will be exercised only where both diminution in value and some physical effects are to be found.
  None the less, of the cases that have been reviewed, five have been accepted under the new guidelines that were excluded under the old, and four of those are in my hon. Friend's constituency. I know of at least one other case where an apparently anomalous decision is now being re-examined yet again, and I undertake to my hon. Friend that I will look further at the other specific cases that he mentioned in his speech.
  Purchase is not the only remedy. The provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 also give owners the right to claim compensation for any depreciation in the value of their property as a result of the physical effects of the road once it comes into use. That becomes payable one year after a road has opened.
  My hon. Friend urged me to say more about the timetable, and I understand the unease about continuing uncertainty while the review of the scheme is under way. As he mentioned, some dates have been given in the past, but giving them can often raise false hopes or false fears. It is indeed unfortunate that a letter was sent to one of my hon. Friend's constituents giving a date for which there was absolutely no basis. Following the review of the road programme, the agency is still

  627
  working on what is called the cascading of projects, to make recommendations to me about the years in which they should be implemented.
  As I said, I expect to make a further announcement later this year about this scheme. Progress beyond that will depend on the statutory procedures that need to be followed and availability of funding.
  628
  This is a very important scheme—as my hon. Friend said, this is one of the most heavily trafficked parts of the motorway network—and we shall make all the progress we can. The scheme is very much needed, and we shall aim to meet those needs without any undue delay.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress in establishing an office waste minimisation strategy for his Department indicating the targets set. [24501]

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department supports fully the Government's waste strategy set out in the White Paper, "Making Waste Work," Cm 3040. In accordance with the aim of the White Paper, my Department is working towards setting waste minimisation targets by the end of 1996.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress in establishing an office waste minimisation strategy for his Department, indicating the targets set. [24507]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Environmental Impact Assessment
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action his Department is taking to assess the environmental impact of its policies and programmes. [25337]

  Mr. Freeman
  Procedures within my Department provide for the environmental impact of policies and programmes to be assessed on a regular basis.

  Sustainable Development
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if the promotion of sustainable development is one of his Department's objectives; [25335]

  (2) what action his Department is taking to promote sustainable development. [25336]

  Mr. Freeman
  The objective of promoting sustainable development is an integral part of my Department's environmental strategy, which is supported by a comprehensive departmental action plan. The main elements of that plan are to:maximise the efficiency of energy usage;
  minimise wastage in the use of goods and products, and maximise recycling of waste materials;
  maximise procurement of goods and supplies which avoid dependence in their production on non-renewable resources or pollutant substances; and
  maximise the purchase of products based on recycled materials.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Doncaster Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints the prisons ombudsman has received in connection with Doncaster prison since it opened; what were the nature of the complaints; and if he will list those complaints that have been upheld. [24487]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Since the prisons ombudsman began to take complaints from prisoners on 24 October 1994, he has received 26 complaints from Doncaster. Twenty-two of these were ineligible—21 because the prisoner had not exhausted the internal request/complaint system and one because it came from a third party. Investigations were started on the remaining four cases. One complaint was later withdrawn by the prisoner, two complaints were not upheld and one complaint was upheld. Of the complaints received, 10 involved complaints about transfers, seven were about property and five concerned home leave. The remaining four involved a medical matter, an assault, visits and an adjudication.

  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 28 November 1995, Official Report, column 661, which gave details of the one complaint about Doncaster the prisons ombudsman has upheld.

  Prisoners' Brains
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the routine removal of brains and other body organs in post mortems and the arrangements for their return to the body; and if he will make a statement. [24463]

  Mr. Sackville
  The removal of the brain, or other body organs, is a standard procedure in many post mortem examinations, in accordance with Royal College of Pathology guidelines and the clinical judgment of the pathologist. The procedure may be essential for determining the medical cause of death, even in cases where this may not at first appear connected with the condition of the organs in question. We therefore have no plans for a specific review, but these issues will be raised as part of wider discussions with the Department of Health later this year.

  Prisons (Dye Stamping)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons in England and Wales that use dye stamping on the hands of visitors when visiting prisons and their reasons for using this system. [24557]

  Miss Widdecombe
  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 Richard Tilt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 16 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about prisons that use dye stamping on the hands of visitors visiting prisons in England and Wales.

  363
  The most recent date for which centrally held information is available on the use of dye stamping on the hands of visitors is August 1995. This information is given in the attached table.
  The system, which uses ultra violet marker dye, is designed to enable staff to differentiate between visitors and prisoners and to prevent prisoners leaving the visits room or prison either with, or in the place of, a visitor.
  Other establishments use alternative methods such as biometric identification, but dye marking is the cheapest and most easily operated system of visitor identification available.
  Prisons in England and Wales using dye-stamping on the hands of visitors1 visiting prisons in August 1995.

  Aylesbury

  Belmarsh

  Birmingham

  Brinsford

  Bullingdon

  Cardiff

  Erlestoke

  Exeter

  Featherstone

  Frankland

  Gloucester

  Guys Marsh

  Holme House

  Holloway

  Hull

  Lincoln

  Littlehey

  Liverpool

  Manchester

  The Mount

  Northallerton

  Norwich

  Nottingham

  Onley

  Pucklechurch

  Risley

  Rochester

  Shepton Mallet

  Shrewsbury

  Swansea

  Wandsworth

  Wayland

  Winchester

  Wormwood Scrubs

  1Feltham and Long Lartin prisons used dye stamping on the hands of prisoners receiving visits.

  Smoke Detectors
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fires in(a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland, (d) England and (e) the United Kingdom occurred in buildings which did not have smoke detectors in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [24615]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information prior to 1994 is not available. From 1994, information was collected for the first time. Data from this new collection have not been fully processed.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fire officers were injured in the course of their duty in 1995; and if he will make a statement. [24602]

  Mr. Sackville
  In England and Wales in the financial year 1994–95, the latest year for which figures are available, one fire officer died and 737 were seriously injured in the line of duty. Serious injuries are defined as those which result in absence from duty for at least one month or two weeks or more of hospitalisation.

  Detainees
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) men and (b) women being held in detention centres in England and Wales on issues relating to immigration on 30 March. [24556]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  There were 312 males and 55 females detained solely under Immigration Act powers in Immigration Service detention centres in England and Wales on 30 March. These figures exclude persons detained in Prison Service establishments and police cells.

  Liquor Licences
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many premises are licensed to sell intoxicating liquor in(a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland. [23663]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested, with respect to England and Wales, is contained in table 1 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Liquor Licensing Statistics, England and Wales, July 1994–June 1995", a copy of which is in the Library. Information on the number of licensed premises in Scotland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of funding to be made available through the private finance initiative to his Department for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [24886]

  Mr. Howard
  My latest estimates of capital funding generated by the private finance initiative—PFI—are as follows:

  £million

  1995–96

  20.0

  1996–97

  99.5

  1997–98

  229.5

  Taken with the transfer to the private sector of the risk in development and operations involved in PFI projects, the expected private funding will make a valuable contribution to my Department's work.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his Department's proposals for section 11 funding for 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [24960]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  With the exception of a very small number of projects which reached the end of their planned life on 31 March, all approved projects have continued into the 1996–97 financial year. Notifications of allocations for 1996–97 were issued to all grant recipients on 26 February. The figures included adjustments to reflect the fact that there have been movements in costs.

  Consultancy Contract (Probation Qualification)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the award of a consultancy contract to KPMG to advise on the development of the new probation qualification; and if it was awarded after competition. [25339]

  Mr. Sackville
  A contract was awarded to KPMG in January 1996 to advise on the competences required for probation officers on appointment. The contract followed a competitive procurement. The Central Probation Council and the Association of Chief Officers of Probation were invited to participate in the procurement, but declined to do so.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many compliance cost assessments were produced by his Department in 1995; and if he will place copies in the Library. [25273]

  Mr. Howard
  Three compliance cost assessments were produced by my Department in 1995. Copies are available in the Library.

  Charity Commission
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current remuneration of the chair of the Charity Commission; how often he meets representatives of the Charity Commission; and who sets the Charity Commission's terms of reference. [25251]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Charity Commission is a non-ministerial department whose powers and duties are set out in the Charities Act 1993. The head of the department is the Chief Charity Commissioner who, with his fellow commissioners, is appointed by, and accountable for, the commission's general efficiency to my right hon. and learned Friend. The post of Chief Charity Commissioner is currently held by Mr. Richard Fries, appointed by the then Home Secretary in 1992. His current salary is £69,783 per annum. He, other commissioners and commission staff meet Ministers to discuss particular topics when the occasion requires.
  366
  As explained by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minster in answer to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on 1 April, Official Report, column 1, ministerial responsibility in relation to the Charity Commission is being transferred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage as soon as the necessary financial and other arrangements can be made.

  Volcano (Montserrat)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made for people from Montserrat to enter the United Kingdom in the event of a natural disaster; and if he will make a statement. [25486]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The potential immigration implications are being kept under review.

  EC (Civil Service Employment)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the implications of the European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 1991 for service in the police and prison services. [22918]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: The European Communities (Employment in the Civil Service) Order 1991 makes it possible for the Prison Service in England and Wales to appoint suitable candidates who are nationals of other European Union member states. The order does not apply to the police service.

  Fire Service Funding
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet with the chairman of North Wales fire authority to discuss fire service funding. [23432]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 29 March 1996]: My right hon. and noble Friend wrote to the hon. Member today to explain that she would be happy to meet the North Wales fire authority.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the oral answer of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 26 February,Official Report, column 576, if he will list those statutory instruments and Acts of Parliament which have been gold plated in the past five years; and what steps he is taking to amend or repeal each piece of gold plating on existing legislation. [23628]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: The Government's policy is not to add unnecessary burdens when implementing European Community directives. Departments take every opportunity to review existing legislation in the light of this. Officials are currently working on revised guidance to enable Ministers to see where implementing legislation goes beyond the underlying European Community directive.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress in establishing an office waste minimisation strategy for his Department, indicating the targets set. [24510]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 3 April 1996]: Work on waste minimisation strategy for the Home Office is to begin shortly.

  Suicides
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 March,Official Report, column 2, at assessment he has made of the reasons for the (a) rise in male suicides and (b) fall in female suicides. [24136]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have been asked to reply.

  The suicide rate among young men under the age of 25 rose during the 1970s and 1980s but has since stabilised and that for some groups of older men has declined. The suicide rate in older women is also declining, and that in young women is remaining steady. The overall rate of suicide has declined by 4 per cent. between 1990 and 1994.

  The reasons for these trends is being explored. Meanwhile, in pursuing "The Health of the Nation" target of reducing the rate of suicide by 15 per cent. by 2000, we are undertaking a number of initiatives, including focusing on particular occupational and demographic groups which appear to be at higher risk of suicide.

TREASURY

  Works of Art
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of the register of conditionally exempt works of art. [22558]

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 20 June 1995,Official Report, column 149. The Inland Revenue is considering a technical feasibility study, which it has just received, with the aim of making the register available on the Internet.

  Pensions
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance his Department has given to public service schemes, on the application of equal treatment requirements, to guaranteed minimum pensions accruing from pensionable service completed between 17 May 1990 and 5 April 1997. [23584]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None.

  Land (Access)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how members of the public can ascertain what land is accessible under the tax-exempted arrangement. [23815]
  368
  Mr. Jack
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on 29 March,Official Report, columns 776–77.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of(a) imports and (b) exports of manufactured goods in the fourth quarter of 1995. [24825]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  In the year to 1995, fourth quarter, the volume of exports of manufactured goods rose by 3¼ per cent. while the volume of imports of manufactured goods fell by¾ per cent.

  Drug Imports
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the totals of class A and class B drugs confiscated at the United Kingdom's borders in each of the past five years; and what estimate he has made of the percentage these figures constitute of the totals imported into the United Kingdom. [24839]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  HM Customs and Excise has primary responsibility for preventing and detecting the illegal importation and exportation of controlled drugs. Customs seizes illicit consignments both at the United Kingdom's borders and inland, the latter frequently resulting from controlled deliveries or following an initial border seizure. The Department does not hold at the centre information broken down between border and inland seizures, but the following information on total seizures may be helpful.

  The weights of drugs seized in each of the past five calendar years and their estimated street level value when they were seized were:

  Year

  Class A (kg)

  value(£)

  Class B (kg)

  value(£)

  1995

  2,604

  254,579,620

  53,039

  202,945,811

  1994

  3,301

  298,730,928

  47,761

  251,691,927

  1993

  1,549

  121,761,673

  52,633

  244,852,477

  1992

  2,702

  403,908,338

  44,673

  141,149,414

  1991

  1,763

  218,660,819

  27,463

  89,266,608

  The proportion of the total quantity of illicit drugs targeted on the UK which is intercepted by Customs cannot, by the very nature of the trade, be estimated with any degree of confidence. While there has been academic research into the size of the UK drugs market, this has largely been based on an extrapolation from the numbers of registered heroin addicts. Similar use data are not available for other drug types. This research does not provide a sound basis on which any reliable performance indicator could be developed by Customs. It is, however, known that for each kilogram of drugs sized, more is prevented from entering the United Kingdom by the subsequent investigation of the trafficking organisation responsible for the smuggling attempt, the arrest of those involved and the confiscation of their drug-related assets.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what compliance cost assessment has been produced for the White Paper, "Better Accounting for the Taxpayer's Money"; if it is publicly available; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [25269]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No compliance cost assessment has been produced for the White Paper, "Better Accounting for the Taxpayer's Money".

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many (i) male and (ii) female employees in the west midlands were in(a) full-time, (b) part-time, (c) temporary and (d) permanent employment in each year since 1979. [24999]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested can be obtained via the Quantime Labour Force Survey service available in the Library.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in the west midlands were employed in manufacturing industry in each year since 1979; and for each year what was the percentage change over the previous year. [25176]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information showing the number of jobs is provided in the table. Comparable information prior to 1981 is not available.

  Employees in manufacturing in the west midlands region: December1

  Year

  Level (thousands)

  Year-on year (per cent.)

  1981

  716

  -6

  1982

  672

  -3

  1983

  651

  -1

  1984

  646

  -1

  1985

  635

  -2

  1986

  614

  -3

  1987

  614

  -3

  1988

  626

  2

  1989

  634

  1

  1990

  618

  -3

  1991

  559

  -10

  1992

  505

  -10

  1993

  500

  2

  1994

  211

  2

  1995

  515

  1

  1Unadjusted.Source

  ONS.

  Company Directors
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers are company directors according to information supplied on form X of the Inland Revenue survey of personal incomes; and what is the average income from dividends from shares in United Kingdom companies and unit trusts of those taxpayers who are directors. [24929]
  370
  Mr. Jack
  Based on the survey of personal incomes for 1993–94, the number of company directors liable to income tax is 550,000. Their average income from dividends from shares in UK companies and unit trusts in around £4,700.

  Convergence Programme
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to update the convergence programme produced by the United Kingdom in March 1995. [25539]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  An updated convergence programme is today being submitted to the European Commission. Copies of the programme are being placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Investment Tax Allowance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the annual cost to the Exchequer of introducing an investment tax allowance of £200,000 per annum for companies. [22828]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: A 100 per cent. first-year allowance of £200,000 for investment in plant and machinery by companies and unincorporated businesses, introduced from December 1996, has an estimated small initial cost of about £100 million in 1997–98 and would then cost approximately £1.3 billion in 1998£99. The cost would decline subsequently. For companies in groups, it is assumed that the limit is applied to the whole group and not each separate company.

  Kenya
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make statement about the proposed International Monetary Fund—enhanced structural adjustment facility for Kenya. [23150]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: Last month, the Government of Kenya launched a framework for the economic reform agenda for the next three years on which they have worked with the IMF and World bank. A programme under the IMF's enhanced structural adjustment facility, designed to support these reform efforts, is expected to be considered by the IMF's executive board later this month.

  Vocational Education Courses
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to(a) cease and (b) reduce the tax relief available for certain vocational education courses. [24146]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: The Finance Bill being considered by Parliament extends vocational training relief so that tax relief may be given on fees paid for a course which is full time, lasts more than four weeks but less than a year and is aimed at learning or practising knowledge or skills for gainful employment. This tax relief is available to trainees aged 30 or over. We have no plans to change other forms of tax relief for vocational education courses.

  Government Spending
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of Government spending was spent in the years 1988 and 1995 on(a) defence, (b) education and (c) mortgage tax relief. [24015]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: Figures for public expenditure on defence, education and mortgage tax relief expressed as a percentage of general Government expenditure are as follows:

  1988–89 Outturn Per cent.

  1995–96 Estimated outturn Per cent.

  Defence

  10.7

  7.0

  Education

  12.3

  11.9

  Mortgage tax relief paid to non-taxpayers

  0.1

  0.1

  Total mortgage tax relief amounted to £5.4 billion in 1988–89 and –2.7 billion in 1995–96, of which £260 million in 1988–89 and £180 million in 1995–96 paid to non-taxpayers is classified as public expenditure.

  No. 11 Downing Street
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the non-official or party receptions and functions which have been held at No. 11 Downing street since November 1990; [24268]

  (2) if he will list all (a) charity, (b) voluntary organisations, (c) non-official and (d) party receptions and functions which have been held at No. 11 Downing street since November 1990; [24270]

  (3) on which occasions he has used No. 11 Downing street for the purpose of raising funds for the Conservative party since November 1990. [24269]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: No. 11 Downing street is the home of my wife and I in London and I pay tax on it as a benefit in kind. I am not accountable to Parliament for private functions held there on which no public funds are expended.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom citizens were victims of violent crime abroad in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [24597]

  Mr. Hanley
  The numbers of British citizens reported murdered, raped, assaulted or violently robbed abroad in each of the last five years are as follows:

  1991: 145

  1992: 196

  1993: 231

  1994: 257

  1995: 174

  Scott Report
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department first evaluated the information on the Iraqi nuclear programme cited on pages 608 and 609 of the Scott report. [24832]

  Mr. Hanley
  During February 1989.

  Export Bans
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions and the circumstances of all European Commission bans upon the export of a product by an individual member state; and if he will indicate how many of these occasions were against the wishes of the member state. [24578]

  Mr. David Davis
  The information requested is not held centrally. There are a number of bans on the export of certain products from certain member states. Examples are the current ban on live cattle and certain products derived from cattle in the UK, and a ban on pigs for slaughter from certain parts of Germany affected by classical swine fever.

  Land Mines
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions(a) he and (b) his officials have had with Britain's allies concerning banning the manufacture, supply and export of land mines. [25179]

  Mr. Hanley
  In preparation for the final session of the UN weaponry convention review conference in Geneva on 22 April to 3 May, we have recently discussed within the western group the questions on which agreement was not possible at the first session of the review conference in September-October 1995. Appropriate NATO and EU experts' groups have also discussed preparations for the conference.

  Bhutan
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conditions on aid have been applied to Bhutan in the last year. [25407]

  Mr. Hanley
  We do not have an aid programme in Bhutan.

  Bhutanese Refugees
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to representatives of the Indian Government regarding the recent arrest and detention of Bhutanese refugees voluntarily returning to their country; and what future representations are planned concerning this matter. [25408]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are aware of these arrests and detentions. We have made no representations to the Indian Government, but continue to monitor the situation closely with our EU partners.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what humanitarian aid and assistance the Government are currently providing for Bhutanese refugees in Nepal. [25410]
  373
  Mr. Hanley
  In the last financial year, we provided £100,000 for projects to assist Bhutanese refugees in Nepal. No application for funding has yet been made for this financial year.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what future meetings and discussions the Government are planning to hold with the Governments of Bhutan, Nepal and India regarding the situation of Bhutanese refugees. [25406]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have no plans to hold discussions with the Governments of Bhutan, Nepal and India regarding the Bhutanese refugee situation. We believe that the problem is best solved through bilateral negotiation between Bhutan and Nepal.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent meetings have been held with representatives of the Bhutanese refugees currently exiled in camps in Nepal. [25409]

  Mr. Hanley
  Our ambassador in Kathmandu visited the Bhutanese refugee camps in Jhapa last month and talked to representatives of the refugees. A representative of the refugees also called on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 22 March.

  "A Partnership of Nations"
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedures have been put in place by his Department to monitor the environmental impacts arising from the implementation of "A Partnership of Nations" White Paper. [25290]

  Mr. David Davis
  The policies in the White Paper, "A Partnership of Nations", do not have significant environmental implications. It would not be appropriate to monitor their environmental impact.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what alternative courses of action from those detailed in "A Partnership of Nations" White Paper were considered in environmental appraisals undertaken by his Department. [25288]

  Mr. Davis
  No alternative courses of action were considered as a result of environmental appraisals. Such appraisals would not have been relevant to the policies outlined in the White Paper, "A Partnership of Nations".

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what environmental appraisal using the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" produced by the Department of the Environment to "A Partnership of Nations" White Paper has been subject; and if he will publish the appraisal. [25287]

  Mr. Davis
  "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" provides guidance on environmental appraisal of domestic policies which will have significant environmental implications. It is not relevant to the policies outlined in the White Paper, "A Partnership of Nations".

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how "A Partnership 374
  of Nations" White Paper was modified by the results of environmental appraisals undertaken by his Department. [25289]

  Mr. Davis
  The policies outlined in the White Paper, "A Partnership of Nations", do not have significant environmental implications. It would not have been appropriate to carry out an environmental appraisal.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Medical Research Fraud
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the cases of fraud involving medical research studies in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years, and the costs to public funds of prosecuting them. [24481]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service does not maintain a central record enabling all cases of the description given by the hon. Member to be identified. The information sought could be obtained only by a scrutiny of all CPS files over the past 10 years and would involve disproportionate cost.

ENVIRONMENT

  Pollution (Abandoned Mines)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisions are made by(a) his Department, (b) the Coal Authority and (c) the Environment Agency to monitor the incidence and effects of pollution from abandoned mines. [24804]

  Mr. Clappison
  The responsibility for monitoring pollution from abandoned mines lies with the Environment Agency and, where appropriate, the Coal Authority or other owner or operator.

  The Coal Authority monitors pumping at 11 pumping stations, mainly in County Durham. It also measures underground water levels at a number of locations throughout the country. It has carried out pumping trials at more than one location.

  The Environment Agency has an extensive chemical and microbiological monitoring programme for the general assessment of the quality of surface waters in England and Wales. Some 60,000 samples are taken each year for chemical analysis. River stretches affected by minewater discharges will be identified and assessed within this programme, each stretch being sampled 12 times per annum. In parallel with the system for the monitoring of controlled waters, the routine sampling of major discharges takes place approximately four times a year.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what treatment methods other than pumping are currently in use to deal with polluted minewater from abandoned mines; where each is in use; how long it has been in use; and what assessment has been made of its effectiveness. [24803]
  375
  Mr. Clappison
  There are around 10 small-scale pilot treatment projects in England and Wales, which use chemical and physical methods to treat minewaters. These include those on the River Pelenna in south Wales, at Woolley colliery near Barnsley, and at the Wheal Jane tin mine in Cornwall. The Coal Authority is also looking at best practice in the use of treatment methods.

  The Environment Agency routinely monitors the principal discharges from these treatment projects, but is too early to make a precise assessment of the effectiveness of the methods used.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the measures which the Environment Agency is evaluating to deal with pollution from abandoned mines. [24801]

  Mr. Clappison
  The agency monitors surface waters and principal discharges from abandoned mines and undertakes environmental assessments. It is currently funding research, and monitoring the research of others, into a range of treatment methods.

  The measures in the Environment Act 1995 relating to abandoned mines will enhance the agency's ability to ensure that this aspect of water pollution is addressed.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the regulations on the six-month notification period for the abandonment of mines. [24797]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department is in discussion with the Environment Agency and other interested parties on the content of these regulations. It is intended that a consultation paper on the regulations will be issued very soon.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been set aside by(a) the Coal Authority and (b) the Environment Agency for pumping of minewater from abandoned mines in the current financial year and for the next three years. [24799]

  Mr. Clappison
  In the current year, the Coal Authority has set aside £1.2 million for the costs of electricity for pumping and £0.66 million for maintenance of pumping stations, amounting to a total of £1.9 million. It is likely that the budget for future years will be of a similar order, but will depend on future liabilities or potential savings.

  The agency has resources of up to £2 million per annum to cover the cost of pumping and treatment of minewater from Wheal Jane, and expects to spend around £6 million over the three years 1996–97 to 1998–99. It has made no other financial provision for dealing with pumping costs, which would normally be borne by the relevant owner or operator.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list each abandoned mine where pumping of minewater is currently taking place in order to prevent pollution and the date that the mine was abandoned. [24802]

  Mr. Clappison
  The mines where pumping of minewater is taking place to prevent pollution of controlled waters are as follows:376

  Name of mine

  Date of abandonment

  Kimblesworth

  1968

  Kibblesworth

  1976

  Ushaw Moor

  1961

  Page Bank

  pre 1947

  Vinovium

  pre 1947

  Chester Moor

  1968

  Nicholson

  pre 1947

  Lumley 6th

  1966

  Sherburn Hill

  1966

  Wooley

  1987

  Mid Cannock

  1967

  Wheal Jane

  1991

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list each abandoned mine where pumping of minewater ceased and was subsequently reinstated, with the dates of cessation and reinstatement. [24798]

  Mr. Clappison
  The mines where intentional cessation and reinstatement of pumping has taken place are as follows:Mid Cannock—pumping ceased on 16 May 1995, and was restarted on 13 September 1995
  Ushaw Moor—pumping ceased on 10 October 1995, and was restarted on 18 January 1996

  These were temporary cessations which formed part of a process of information gathering by the Coal Authority, and were implemented in consultation with the former National Rivers Authority.

  Contaminated Land
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he will publish the ministerial guidance on contaminated land; [24805]

  (2) when the contaminated land provisions of the Environment Act 1995 will come into effect. [24806]

  Mr. Clappison
  Informal consultations are taking place on a working draft of the statutory guidance on contaminated land, being prepared under section 57 of the Environment Act 1995. I envisage a further round of informal consultations. The formal draft will be published in time to allow three months for consultation before those parts of the final guidance requiring parliamentary consideration are laid before Parliament at the start of the new Session.

  The contaminated land provisions will not be brought into force until the guidance has been formally issued.

  Departmental Staff
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the numbers of staff in each grade in the(a) local development group, (b) local government finance policy (i) local taxation, (ii) local capital, (iii) local authority statistics, (iv) local authority grants and (v) local authority grants and revenue and (c) local government (1) structure, (2) sponsorship and superannuation and (3) competition sections of his Department. [24644]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The table lists the numbers of staff in each grade in all of the directorates, divisions and units that comprise the Department's new local development
  377
  group. Within the local government directorate, LG1 division on local government reorganisations works on structure, LG2 division on local government sponsorship and the local government pensions unit works on sponsorship and superannuation, and LG3 division on local authority contracting out and competition in providing services works on competition.

  Table showing numbers of staff by grade in Local Development Group

  Totals

  Grade 2

  1

  Grade 3

  3

  Grade 5

  13

  Grade 6

  3

  Grade 7

  42

  G7 (Stats)

  6

  G7 (Econ)

  3

  Local Development group of which:

  Totals

  G2 office

  Sec and IT unit

  ERL

  PFU

  Grade 2

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 3

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 5

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Grade 6

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 7

  3

  —

  —

  1

  2

  G7 (Stats)

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  G7 (Econ)

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sn A Stat

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Asst Stat

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SEO

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SRO

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SPTO

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TSO

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Econ Asst

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  HEO

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  EO

  3

  —

  1

  —

  2

  RO

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SPS

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  AO

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1

  PS

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  DS

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  AA

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Totals

  14

  3

  3

  1

  7

  Grade 2's office. Secretariat and IT unit.

  ERL DOE regional link.

  PFU private finance unit.

  LG Directorate of which:

  Totals

  G3 office

  LGI

  LG2

  LGPU

  LG3

  Grade 2

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 3

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 5

  3

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Grade 6

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Grade 7

  12

  —

  3

  3

  3

  3

  G7 (Stats)

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  G7 (Econ)

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sn A Stat

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Asst Stat

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SEO

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  SRO

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  SPTO

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TSO

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Econ Asst

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  HEO

  25

  —

  5

  4

  4

  12

  EO

  21

  —

  5

  5

  3

  8

  RO

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  378

  Table showing numbers of staff by grade in Local Development Group

  Totals

  Sn A Stat

  3

  Asst Stat

  2

  SEO

  16

  SRO

  4

  SPTO

  1

  TSO

  1

  Econ Asst

  1

  HEO

  72

  EO

  69

  RO

  1

  SPS

  4

  AO

  52

  PS

  15

  DS

  2

  AA

  6

  Totals

  320

  379

  LG Directorate of which:

  Totals

  G3 office

  LG1

  LG2

  LGPU

  LG3

  SPS

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  AO

  19

  —

  3

  3

  3

  10

  PS

  4

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  DS

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  AA

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Totals

  94

  2

  18

  18

  16

  40

  LG Local government directorate. Grade 3's office.

  LG1 local government organisation.

  LG2 local government sponsorship.

  LGPU local government pensions unit.

  LG3 local authority contracting out and competition in providing services.

  LGFP Directorate of which:

  Totals

  G3 office

  EF

  FLT

  FLC

  FLAS

  FLG

  FLGR

  Grade 2

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 3

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 5

  6

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Grade 6

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 7

  12

  —

  2

  3

  4

  —

  3

  —

  G7 (Stats)

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  2

  G7 (Econ)

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Sn A Stat

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Asst Stat

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  SEO

  6

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1

  1

  —

  SRO

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SPTO

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TSO

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Econ Asst

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  HEO

  21

  —

  1

  3

  4

  7

  6

  —

  EO

  19

  —

  —

  5

  2

  6

  5

  1

  RO

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SPS

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  AO

  17

  —

  1

  4

  2

  9

  1

  —

  PS

  5

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  DS

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  AA

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Totals

  106

  2

  5

  19

  17

  32

  19

  12

  LGFP Local government finance policy directorate. Grade 3's office.

  EF efficiency scrutiny.

  FLT finance local taxation.

  FLC finance local capital.

  FLAS finance local authority statistics.

  FLG finance local authority grants.

  FLGR finance local authority grants and revenue.

  RD Directorate of which:

  Total

  G3 Office

  Sec

  RD1

  RD2

  RD3

  Grade 2

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 3

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grade 5

  3

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  Grade 6

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Grade 7

  15

  —

  —

  5

  7

  3

  G7 (Stats)

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  G7 (Econ)

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sn A Stat

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Asst Stat

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SEO

  7

  —

  —

  2

  4

  1

  SRO

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  SPTO

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  TSO

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Econ Asst

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  HEO

  25

  —

  1

  6

  15

  3

  EO

  26

  —

  1

  5

  16

  4

  RO

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SPS

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  AO

  14

  —

  2

  3

  7

  2

  380 381

  RD Directorate of which:

  Totals

  G3 Office

  Sec

  RD1

  RD2

  RD3

  PS

  4

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  DS

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  AA

  4

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  Totals

  106

  2

  4

  26

  59

  15

  RD Regeneration Directorate. Grade 3's office.

  Secretariat.

  RD1 regeneration, special grants voluntary sector and HATs.

  RD2 challenge fund, SRB, estate action and partnerships.

  RD3 UDCs, CNT, enterprise zones and English partnerships.

  Castle Cement
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what grounds Castle Cement is appealing against the most recent notice served by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in respect of the works at Clitheroe; and if he will make a statement. [24966]

  Mr. Clappison
  Castle Cement has appealed against variation notice, AR 9435 issued by HMIP under section 10 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 on 23 January 1996. The company contends that the notice is null and void, and also appeals against six specific conditions of authorisation.

  HMIP became part of the Environment Agency on 1 April 1996 and a full copy of Castle Cement's grounds of appeal is available for inspection by the public in the register maintained at the agency's office in Bamber Bridge, Preston. It will also be available in the register maintained by Ribble Valley borough council.

  Biodiversity Project (Dog Whelk)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the biodiversity project announced at the Darwin initiative seminar will include a study of the dog whelk. [24936]

  Mr. Clappison
  None of the 34 Darwin initiative projects announced at last month's seminar to help developing countries protect biodiversity include such a study. "Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report," published in December 1995, recommends that the dog whelk should be among 1,253 species whose conservation status should be monitored. The Government expect to publish their response to the report in the late spring of 1996.

  Public Paths and Byways
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to alter the obligation to reclassify roads used as public paths as byways open to all traffic if vehicular rights are shown ever to have existed. [24962]

  Mr. Clappison
  We have no plans to alter the obligation to reclassify RUPPs as BOATs where vehicular rights exist. However, as the Government announced in the rural White Paper, Cm 3016, we intend to discuss with interested parties the issue of restricting the use of byways by motorised vehicles.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the implications of the research by Aberdeen university in 1995 into dietary nitrate intake on the efficacy of European Commission directives on nitrates in water supplies. [25025]

  Mr. Clappison
  My right hon. Friend has received inquiries from two correspondents and letters from five hon. Members on behalf of three correspondents.

  Open Space
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications he has received during the most recent 12 month period for which information is available for permission to compulsorily purchase metropolitan open space in accordance with section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981; how many certificates he has given; and if he will make a statement. [24950]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  During the year ended 31 March 1996, Government offices received 12 requests for certificates under section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, relating to compulsory purchase of open space. They issued seven certificates during the same period.

  Section 19 sets out a scheme of special protection for commons, open space and certain allotments which ensures that the national stock of such special land is not eroded through piecemeal compulsory purchase.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish a best practice guide regarding management of the use of motorised vehicles on rights of way. [24963]

  Mr. Clappison
  We intend to publish a best practice guide in the summer.

  Green Lanes
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cases of deterioration of green lanes by vehicular use have been brought to his attention in the last year for which figures are available. [24961]

  Mr. Clappison
  Neither my Department nor the Department of Transport keeps statistics of this sort. Few cases of deterioration of green lanes are brought to our attention. Research currently in hand includes an attempt to assess the scale of the problem.

  Asylum Seekers
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what expenditure threshold will trigger local authorities to entitlement to 80 per cent. compensation for unavoidable costs incurred as a result of obligations to asylum seekers. [24976]

  Mr. Clappison
  No decisions have been taken yet on the threshold.

  Stormgate Mining Ltd.
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to obtain information about Stormgate Mining Ltd., with special reference to employers liability insurance cover; and if he will make a statement. [25002]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Health and Safety Executive has served a statutory notice on the Stormgate Mining Co. Ltd., requiring it to produce a current certificate of employers' liability compulsory insurance in relation to its Whittle colliery, Northumberland.

  Outdoor Advertising
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) to what environmental appraisal using the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" produced by his Department, "Outdoor Advertisement Control—Areas of Special Control of Advertisements"—ASCAs—consultation paper has been subjected; and if he will publish the appraisal; [25262]

  (2) how "Outdoor Advertisement Control—Areas of Special Control of Advertisements"—ASCAs—consultation paper was modified by the results of environmental appraisals undertaken by his Department; [25264]

  (3) what alternative courses of action from those detailed in "Outdoor Advertisement Control—Areas of Special Control of Advertisements"—ASCAs—consultation paper were considered in environmental appraisals undertaken by his Department; [25263]

  (4) what procedures have been put in place by his Department to monitor the environmental impacts arising from the implementation of "Outdoor Advertisement Control—Areas of Special Control of Advertisements"— ASCAs—consultation paper. [25265]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 11 March,Official Report, column 418.

  Local Government Ombudsman
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what procedures have been put in place by his Department to monitor the environmental impacts arising from the implementation of the review of the local government ombudsman service consultation paper; [25286]

  (2) what alternative courses of action from those detailed in the review of the local government ombudsman service consultation paper were considered in environmental appraisals undertaken by his Department; [25284]
  384
  (3) what environmental appraisal using the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" produced by his Department the review of the local government ombudsman service consultation paper has been subject to; and if he will publish the appraisal; [25283]

  (4) how the review of the local government ombudsman service consultation paper was modified by the results of environmental appraisals undertaken Department. [25285]

  Mr. Clappison
  Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield's independent report on his prior options review of the Commission for Local Administration, or local government ombudsman service, considered whether the functions presently undertaken by the commission were necessary. It did not in itself have any direct impact on the environment and no environmental appraisal was undertaken.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the percentage increase for band D council tax for(a) each unitary local authority and (b) each district council in England for the year 1996–97 over the year 1995–96. [25250]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on 20 March 1996,Official Report, column 213.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what compliance cost assessment has been produced for the Housing Bill; if it is publicly available; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [25266]

  Mr. Clappison
  A compliance cost assessment has been produced for the Housing Bill; it is publicly available and a copy was placed in the Library of the House on 29 January 1996.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what compliance cost assessment has been produced for the guidance to the Environment Agency; if it is publicly available; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [25268]

  Mr. Clappison
  A compliance cost assessment was produced when the Environment Bill setting up the Environment Agency was introduced, as indicated in the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill. A copy of the CCA is available in the Library.

  There was no need to produce a further CCA for the guidance, which is intended to assist the agency with respect to its objectives and the contribution it is to make towards achieving sustainable development.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many compliance cost assessments were produced by his Department in 1995; and if he will place copies in the Library. [25267]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Seven compliance cost assessments were produced by my Department during 1995. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  "Capital Challenge"
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what procedures have been put in place by his Department to monitor the environmental impacts arising from the implementation of the "Capital Challenge" consultation paper; [25282]

  (2) what alternative courses of action from those detailed in the "Capital Challenge" consultation paper were considered in any environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department; [25280]

  (3) what environmental appraisal using the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" produced by his Department the "Capital Challenge" consultation paper has been subject to; and if he will publish the appraisal; [25279]

  (4) how the "Capital Challenge" consultation paper was modified by the results of any environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department. [25281]

  Mr. Clappison
  Our proposals for a capital challenge fund set out a new mechanism for supporting local authority capital expenditure. The mechanism proposed will not of itself have any direct impact on the environment and no environmental appraisal was undertaken. It is more relevant to focus on the environmental impact of spending proposals approved. I am determined that all local authority capital spending proposals, whether brought forward under capital challenge or under the existing capital finance system, should take proper account of the environmental impact of projects. I therefore intend that, should our proposed pilot scheme go ahead, all bidders would be required to provide a clear assessment of the environmental impact of their proposals. We will also look in particular for projects which reflect the Government's objectives for the promotion of sustainable development.

  Transitional Relief, Waltham Forest
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the figures relating to transitional relief paid to Waltham Forest in the same form and for the same periods as in parts(b) to (d) of his answer to the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) of 7 March, Official Report, columns 304–5. [25399]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Total amount of transitional relief

  1993–94: £378,652,826

  1994–95: £111,283,108

  1995–96: £27,178,1791

  (b) Amount of transitional relief paid to London Borough of Waltham Forest

  1993–94: £582,601

  1994–95: £67,544

  1995–96: £9,0461

  (c) Percentage of total amount of transitional relief paid to

  London Borough of Waltham Forest

  1993–94: 0.15 per cent.

  1994–95: 0.06 per cent.

  1995–96: 0.03 per cent.1

  386

  (d) Amount paid per chargeable dwelling in London Borough of Waltham Forest

  1993–94: £6.45

  1994–95: £0.74

  1995–96: £0.101

  These figures are averages. The actual amount of transitional relief varied according to a household's council tax banding, its composition and its previous liability for community charge.
  1Information for 1995–96 is provisional and is subject to final grant claims to be made during 1996–97.

  Town and Country Planning Act
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the amounts received by(a) the Corporation of London, (b) the inner London boroughs, (c) the outer London boroughs, (d) shire authorities and (e) metropolitan districts, under the provisions of section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in each year since the implementation of the Act, together with the total in each year for English authorities as a whole. [25480]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Under section 12 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, planning obligations must be registered as a local land charge and are therefore available for the public to see.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 15 February to the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend),Official Report, column 663, if he will publish the revised estimates of expenditure on the transitional cost of reorganisation in 1996–97, submitted by the councils of East Riding, Yorkshire, Hull city, Bristol city, Bath and North East Somerset and York district. [25460]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The revised estimates of expenditure on the transitional costs of reorganisation in 1996–97 submitted by the councils of the East Riding of Yorkshire, Hull city, Bristol city, Bath and North East Somerset and York district were as follow:

  Authority

  thousands rounded 1996–97

  East Riding of Yorkshire council

  114,140

  Hull city council

  7,759

  Bristol city council

  11,089

  Bath and North East Somerset council

  9,525

  York district council

  8,321

  1Average of a range of estimates.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what estimate she has made of the annual partnership funding requirement from the private
  387
  and corporate sectors for lottery awards from the good cause bodies other than the National Lottery Charities Board up to 2000. [22013]

  Mr. Sproat
  The information currently available to the Department does not distinguish between sources of partnership funding. The following table shows the figures for those distributing bodies currently able to provide estimates.

  Estimated annual partnership funding requirement to year 2000

  Million

  Private sector

  Corporate sector

  Arts

  Arts Council of England

  Information currently unavailable

  Scottish Arts Council

  Information currently unavailable

  Arts Council of Wales

  £13.8

  £1.2

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland1

  £8.4

  Sports

  Sports Council

  Information currently unavailable

  Scottish Sports Council1

  £25

  Sports Council for Wales

  Information currently unavailable

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  £0.25

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  Information currently unavailable

  Millennium Commission

  Information currently unavailable

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Not applicable

  1 Distributing body does not differentiate in its data collection between private and corporate sponsorship.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of the balance of private and corporate sponsorship available as lottery partnership funding(a) to national institutions and (b) to regional and local projects. [22014]

  Mr. Sproat
  The information currently available to the Department does not distinguish between sources of partnership funding. The following table shows the breakdown for partnership funding to date for those distributing bodies currently able to provide figures.

  Balance of Partnership Funding

  Million

  Private sponsorship

  Corporate sponsorship

  National institutions

  Regional and local projects

  National institutions

  Regional and local projects

  Arts

  Art Council of England1

  £60.8

  £333

  Scottish Arts Council

  Information currently unavailable

  Arts Council of Wales

  £3.3

  £4.8

  £0.25

  £0.44

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland2

  £0.05

  Sports

  Sports Council2

  £175

  Scottish Sports Council2

  £3.7

  £25.8

  Sports Council for Wales

  Information currently unavailable

  388

  Balance of Partnership Funding

  Million

  Private sponsorship

  Corporate sponsorship

  National institutions

  Regional and local projects

  National institutions

  Regional and local projects

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  £0.43

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  Information currently unavailable

  Millennium Commission

  Information currently unavailable

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Not applicable Lottery

  1 Analysis between 'national' and 'regional' institutions is currently not available.

  2 Distributing body does not differentiate in its data collection between private and corporate sponsorship.

PRIME MINISTER

  EU Legislation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 12 March,Official Report, column 535, if he will list each regulation and the Department which takes responsibility for it in the past three years. [23709]

  The Prime Minister
  Information about individual Council and Commission regulations adopted in the last three years can be obtained from the Commission's CELEX database of Community legislation. Information on which Department leads on each individual measure could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 April. [23788]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 April. [23789]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  No. 10 Downing Street
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all the functions, and the dates on which they took place, which were held at No. 10 Downing street where the costs have been met by political parties and organisations for the purpose of providing financial support to political parties since November 1990. [23556]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: There have been so such functions.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Prime Minister what charges are levied on(a) charities, (b) voluntary organisations and (c) non-official or party function organisers permitted to use the invitations secretary as the responding address for invitations to functions at No. 10 Downing street. [23557]
  389
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 April 19961: When charitable or other non-official events are held at No. 10 Downing street, the organisers are responsible for all catering and staff costs, as well as other miscellaneous direct costs. As under previous Administrations, invitations are normally handled by the invitations secretary. This is necessary to ensure that the appropriate security procedures are followed. No charge is levied for this.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Volcano (Montserrat)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effects of the active volcano on the population of Montserrat; and if he will make a statement. [25484]

  Mr. Hanley
  Assessments of both the eruptive state of the volcano and the effects of the resulting forecasts have been continuous since last July. An ODA mission was in Montserrat last week to reassess needs, following the latest relocation of the people into the north of the island on 3 April. A range of relief actions was agreed with the Governor and the Government of Montserrat and is now being implemented.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what resources have been made available in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97 for emergency relief in Montserrat; and if she will make a statement. [25485]

  Mr. Hanley
  Relief commitments by Her Majesty's Government totalled £4.5 million in 1995–96. No specific allocations have been made for 1996–97 as future needs cannot yet be foreseen. Discussions will also take place in Brussels this week to encourage support from the European Commission.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the Governments of islands neighbouring Montserrat concerning assistance in the event of a volcanic eruption. [25487]

  Mr. Hanley
  Productive discussions have been held with the Government of Antigua for off-island evacuation; with the French authorities on Guadeloupe for evacuation and for rapid support on Montserrat in time of crisis; with certain Governments with interests and assets in the area, notably the American, Dutch and Venezuelan Governments; and with other Governments through the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Response Agency.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Schools (Capital Expenditure)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State Education and Employment if she will list total capital expenditure on schools in cash and real terms for each year since 1974–75. [20570]
  390
  Mrs. Gillan
  The table gives the total expenditure on schools capital between 1974–75 and 1994–95—the latest date for which figures are available—in cash and 1994–95 price terms.

  The hon. Gentleman has chosen the base year with care. It should be noted that capital expenditure was higher in real terms before 1974–75 under the Conservative Administration. The level of expenditure in the 1970s reflects both the rise in the school population, as a result of demographic changes and the raising of the school leaving age, and the building work required by comprehensive schools. The fall in expenditure in real terms after 1974–75 was partly the result of the Labour Government having to deal with the International Monetary Fund crisis.

  Between 1979–80 and 1994–95, capital expenditure increased in real terms by over 19 per cent. The introduction of the private finance initiative in the schools sector now offers new opportunities for bolstering capital expenditure on schools by levering in investment from the private sector.

  Capital expenditure on schools 1974–75 to 1994–95

  Year

  Total1

  1994–95 prices

  1974–75

  346.7

  1,818.5

  1975–76

  369.6

  1,545.3

  1976–77

  362.2

  1,334.3

  1977–78

  315.0

  1,021.5

  1978–79

  296.7

  865.3

  1979–80

  325.1

  812.4

  1980–81

  391.1

  826.0

  1981–82

  314.4

  605.5

  1982–83

  327.8

  589.4

  1983–84

  343.1

  589.4

  1984–85

  368.6

  602.9

  1985–86

  396.5

  614.9

  1986–87

  420.2

  632.5

  1987–88

  470.3

  672.2

  1988–89

  628.6

  842.1

  1989–90

  782.3

  979.6

  1990–91

  779.2

  903.2

  1991–92

  795.4

  867.9

  1992–93

  809.1

  848.4

  1993–94

  894.5

  911.3

  1994–952

  968.7

  968.7

  Up to 1992–93 figures include sixth form colleges; in 1993–94 sixth form colleges became the responsibility of the FEFC.

  1 The totals include local education authority schools capital expenditure; Government grant aid to voluntary aided and special agreement schools; governors' contributions to capital cots at VA/SA schools; grant-maintained schools capital grant; Government grants to and private sponsorship of technology colleges and city technology colleges. They do not include provision for repairs at VA/SA schools.

  Figures for sponsorship of city technology colleges amount to £37 million up to 1994–95. However, only £31 million of this is included in the table; information held centrally does not enable the remaining £6 million to be apportioned to specific financial years.

  2Includes provisional figures for LEA outturn expenditure.

  Barnsley and Doncaster Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many days were taken to carry out(a) quality and safety and (b)s financial control audits at Barnsley and Doncaster TEC; what were the costs in each case; and if she will make a statement. [24491]
  391
  Mr. Paice
  In 1995–96, five staff days were spent on a health and safety compliance audit, 25 staff days on a total quality assurance supplier management compliance audit and 85 staff days on financial control audits at Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council. Information on the costs of these audits is not available.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice she has given to the Further Education Funding Council in relation to ensuring access to free further education tuition for asylum seekers who are not eligible for income support because of their asylum status but would pass the means test for a state benefit if they were United Kingdom citizens. [24823]

  Mr. Paice
  None.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total public expenditure on publicity for the accelerated modern apprenticeships. [24575]

  Mr. Paice
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on 13 February 1996,Official Report, column 532.

  No public money has been allocated by this Department specifically for the publicity of accelerated modern apprenticeships.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people started accelerated modern apprenticeships. [24576]

  Mr. Paice
  As at December 1995, there were 400 young people on accelerated modern apprenticeships in England and Wales.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was her Department's original forecast of the number of places that would be available on accelerated modern apprenticeships. [24574]

  Mr. Paice
  Resources were originally made available to support around 9000 places for accelerated Modern Apprenticeships in 1995–96. Feedback from training and enterprise councils and industry training organisations indicated that the needs of the young people involved could be better met by mainstream modern apprenticeships, and the Government agreed to merge accelerated modern apprenticeships and modern apprenticeships from the start of April this year.

  Self-employment
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assistance is available from her Department for unemployed persons wishing(a) to start their own business and (b) to become self-employed. [24814]
  392
  Mr. Paice
  Help for unemployed people wishing to become self-employed or to start their own business is provided through training for work. The Department also contributes to the work of the Prince's Youth Business Trust which helps disadvantaged young people aged 18 to 29 to set up in business through the provision of grants and loans.

  School Premises
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on(a) the discretion of governors in charging outside bodies for the use of schools' premises and (b) guidelines she has issued in respect of minimum or maximum amounts to be charged. [24631]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Guidance on charging outside bodies for the use of school premises is contained in "Our School—Your School", published by the Department for Education and Employment and sent to all schools and local education authorities on 24 October 1995. There are no specific guidelines on minimum or maximum amounts to be charged. Subject to any directions issued by a local education authority might place on its own schools, school governors are free to negotiate charges with users, so long as they at least break even overall. Schools can apply whatever income they earn for the purposes of the school.

  Publication Costs
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total cost of(a) her Department's departmental report for 1996 and (b) "Department for Education and Employment: Action in London", broken down to show the cost of
  (i) compilation and (ii) printing and distribution. [24627]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total cost of the Department's departmental report, published in March 1996, was £60,500. This comprised: (i) compilation, £29,500; (ii) printing and distribution, £31,000.

  The total cost of "Department for Education and Employment: Action in London" was £17,400. This comprised: (i) compilation, £7,900; (ii) printing and distribution, £9,500.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if his Department will accept an average of the annual amount of guided learning hours calculated over the number of weeks in which there are any such hours as a weekly figure when deciding whether students on courses funded by the Further Education Funding Council for Wales are part-time for the purposes of the jobseeker's allowance. [24812]

  Mr. Forth
  The jobseeker's allowance regulations provide that a person who undertakes a course funded or part-funded by the Further Education Funding Council for Wales will be considered to be a part-time student if a document signed on behalf of the establishment which is funded by the FEFC for Wales for the delivery of the course says that the course involves 16 guided learning hours or less a week.
  393
  In the case of courses funded by the Secretary of State for Scotland at a college of further education, a student will be considered to be part-time if a document signed on behalf of the college says that the course involves 16 hours or less a week of classroom or workshop-based programmed learning under the direct guidance of teaching staff; or 21 hours or less a week, made up of 16 hours or less of classroom or workshop-based programme learning under the direct guidance of teaching staff and additional hours using structured learning packages with the support of teaching staff.

  In both cases, the Employment Service will accept these documents as evidence of whether or not a person is a part-time student. In the case of courses funded by the FEFC for Wales, the number of hours per week will be calculated on the basis of a weekly average of the number of guided learning hours for the course. In the case of courses funded by the Secretary of State for Scotland at a college of further education, the number of hours of study per week will be calculated in the same way.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if part-time students in receipt of the jobseeker's allowance will be deemed to have restricted their availability for work where they have paid a fee for the course. [24813]

  Mr. Forth
  People who receive jobseeker's allowance and study part time must remain available for work. Independent adjudication officers will determine whether or not a person is available for work, taking into account all the relevant circumstances of the case: payment of a fee for a course will not automatically mean that a person will be considered to have restricted his or her availability for work.

  For certain jobseekers, the Jobseekers' Allowance Regulations 1996 have the effect that payment of a fee should not be taken into account. For people who have, broadly, been unemployed for three months in the last six no matter relating to their course will be taken into account when determining whether they are available for work providing they are willing and able to rearrange the hours of their course to take a job within the hours they have agreed they are available for work in their jobseeker's agreement.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average grant received by students in(a) 1985, (b) 1990, (c) 1992, (d) 1993, (e) 1994 and (f) 1995; and if she will make a statement. [24617]

  Mr. Forth
  The average net maintenance grants after means-testing received by mandatory award holders in England and Wales in the academic years 1984–85,1989– 90,1991–92 to 1994–95, the latest year for which data are available, are set out in the table. Since 1990–91, eligible students have also had access to non-means-tested student loans.394

  Average net maintenance grants to holders of mandatory awards

  England and Wales

  1984–85

  1,240

  1989–90

  1,390

  1991–92

  1,550

  1992–93

  1,610

  1993–94

  1,670

  1994–952

  1,520

  1 To the nearest £10.2 1994–95 data are provisional.

  Graduates
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of(a) Welsh, (b) Scottish, (c) Northern Irish and (d) English graduates secured full-time employment within one year of graduation in (i) 1985, (ii) 1990, (iii) 1992, (iv) 1994 and (v) 1995; and if she will make a statement. [24614]

  Mr. Forth
  The available information based on graduates' employment position six months after graduation is as follows:

  Percentage of graduates in employment six months after graduating, Great Britain

  Year of qualification

  Percentage

  1985

  63

  1990

  60

  1992

  52

  1994

  57

  Separate figures for each country are not readily available.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many graduates left university and took up careers in industry in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [24608]

  Mr. Forth
  The available information is given in the following table.

  Graduates employed in industry six months after graduating, Great Britain

  Year of qualification

  Numbers

  As a percentage of all graduates with known destination

  1990

  16,200

  15.1

  1991

  12,600

  11.1

  1992

  11,800

  9.6

  1993

  13,200

  9.5

  1994

  16,800

  10.7

  Centre for Health and Academic-related Research, Sheffield
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) which institutions funded the Sheffield centre for health and academic-related research; and who was responsible for negotiating its funding agreements over the last three years; [24632]
  395
  (2) if she will list the staff employed by the university of Sheffield in the Sheffield centre for health and academic-related research, indicating those formerly in the employment of Trent regional health authority; if she will make a statement on the academic research experience of the staff; if she will list the salary levels of these staff; and which bodies are responsible for paying these salaries. [24633]

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not held centrally. Universities are responsible for their own staffing matters.

  Part-time Studies
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the impact of the 1996–97 settlement to universities on the opportunities for part-time studies. [23707]

  Mr. Forth
  The November 1995 Budget settlement confirmed the 1994 plans for higher education recurrent expenditure, but planned capital expenditure was reduced reflecting the policy that capital should, wherever possible, be financed through private finance schemes. I understand that, in response to the Secretary of State's guidance, the Higher Education Funding Council for England has recently decided to allocate extra resources for part-time students in science and engineering in 1996–97.

  Discretionary Awards
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of local authority budgets for education was spent on discretionary awards for each year since 1990. [24125]

  Mr. Forth
  Information is not available in the form requested. The following table shows total local education authority expenditure in England on discretionary awards in the academic years 1990–91 to 1994–95 and total net recurrent local authority expenditure on education in the financial years 1990–91 to 1994–95. Because the figures for discretionary awards expenditure and net recurrent expenditure are not directly comparable, it not possible to calculate the percentage of total expenditure which is attributable to discretionary awards.

  Expenditure by local education authorities: England

  Academic year

  Expenditure on discretionary awards1 £m(cash terms)

  Financial year

  Total expenditure on education1, 2£m(cash terms)

  1990–91

  198

  1990–91

  17,230

  1991–92

  222

  1991–92

  19,451

  1992–93

  219

  1992–93

  20,892

  1993–94

  173

  1993–94

  18,635

  1994–953

  132

  31994–95

  18,392

  Source:
  1 LEA returns of form 503G and LEA RO1 returns to the Department of the Environment.

  Notes:
  2Net recurrent expenditure, ie., total recurrent expenditure, excluding joint arrangements, minus customer and client receipts and revenue from LEAs for pupils and students educated by other authorities.
  3Provisional.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of average local authority costs incurred in the statementing procedure for a child; and how many children were statemented in the last year for which figures are available.[24126]

  Mrs. Gillan
  In 1994, the latest year for which information is currently available, local education authorities' returns indicate that statements were issued for the first time in respect of some 45,800 children. The Department does not collect information on the average cost of statutory assessments.

  Devon and Cornwall Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the membership of the business and Education board of the Devon and Cornwall training and enterprise council since 1987 by(a) name, (b) dates of birth and (c) remuneration given. [24648]

  Mr. Paice
  Membership of the main board and training and enterprise council area boards of Devon and Cornwall TEC is listed in the annual review report of the TEC, which was established in 1990. Board directors are appointed within the eligibility criteria set out in the Department's contract with the TEC. The appointments are made by the TEC. No remuneration is given. The hon. Member will need to contact the TEC for the further information that he seeks about the dates of birth of board directors.

  Student Unions
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many representations she has received on making membership of students' unions voluntary; and if she will make a statement. [25009]

  Mr. Forth
  Membership of students' unions was made voluntary by the Education Act 1994, which gave students the right not to belong to their students' union. Since September 1994, when this provision came into force, there has been one representation that membership should be on an opt-in basis.

  Nursery Places, Lancashire
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children are currently in nursery places in Lancashire; what percentage this is of the children of nursery age; and what estimate she has made of the change in each case from the introduction of the nursery voucher scheme. [24876]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In January 1995, the latest date for which information is available, 8,130 or 21 per cent. of children aged three and four were being taught in maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools in Lancashire Local Education Authority area. In addition, 12,867 or 33 per cent. of children aged three and four were being taught in infant classes in maintained primary schools.
  397
  The number of additional places for four-year-olds created through the nursery voucher scheme in any local authority area will depend on the response of providers to parental demand. I am confident that providers of all types, either alone or in partnership, will satisfy parental demand over time.

  After-school Care
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the current number of places available for after-school care; and what plans she has to increase aid provision. [24877]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Since the out-of-school child care initiative started in April 1993, 57,145 places have been created in England up to the end of February 1996. Further funding of £12.5 million has been made available to extend the initiative for a further three years from April 1996.

  "Lifelong Learning"
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she plans to introduce as a result of the consultation process on the "Lifelong Learning" document. [25172]

  Mr. Paice
  There has been a tremendous interest in the consultation exercise, which is now being analysed. It would be premature to make any announcements at this stage. The Government will be responding in due course. The Department already has many successful measures in place to support lifetime learning.

  Aggregate Schools Budget, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the 1996–97 aggregate schools budget for Liverpool local education authority. [24923]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Liverpool's aggregated schools budget for 1996–97 is £140,991,000. This figure is taken from budget statement published by the local education authority under section 42 of the Education Reform Act, 1988.

  Security Guards (Schools)
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the use of private security guards in schools. [24884]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Whether or not to employ security guards is a matter for schools and local education authorities to decide in the light of their assessment of security risks and the range of measures which can be taken to reduce those risks in the circumstances of each school. I am aware that some schools do employ such staff, mainly for security patrols outside school hours. The Department produces guidance on a range of security measures for schools, including the use of security guards.

  Merseyside Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress Merseyside TEC is making in meeting the criteria for the award of a three-year licence. [25371]
  398
  Mr. Paice
  I am pleased to announce the award of a three-year licence to Merseyside TEC, which has now completed the process of meeting the rigorous standards that we set.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many compliance cost assessments were produced by her Department in 1995; and if she will place copies in the Library. [25260]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department for Education and Employment or its predecessors produced two compliance cost assessments in 1995:

  (a) for the Activities Centres (Young Person's Safety) Bill; and

  (b) for the employment code of practice under the Disability Discrimination Act 1985.

  Copies are available in the Library.

  Dance and Drama Students
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she plans to make a statement on alternative funding proposals for students of dance and drama. [25248]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to make such a statement.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent assessment she has made of the number of local education authorities that currently make discretionary awards to students of dance and drama. [25249]

  Mr. Forth
  Discretionary awards are a matter for local education authorities. No recent assessment of the distribution of such awards by subject has been made.

  Left-handedness
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will conduct a survey of the teacher training institutions to establish what strategies they have in place to enable new teachers to assist left-handed pupils with their writing. [25367]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Office for Standards in Education publishes reports following its inspections of initial teacher training courses. The Teacher Training Agency accredits course providers to ensure that they meet the Secretary of State's criteria. These criteria require new teachers to be able to identify and to respond appropriately to relevant individual differences between pupils. Despite being left-handed, I see no need for further information from providers in this respect.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action the Government are taking within the Council of Ministers to end age discrimination in Europe.[25330]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Government's policy is to tackle age discrimination through this Department's campaign for older workers. The campaign, which I head, operates through persuasion and education. It aims to persuade employers of the business benefits in recruiting, retraining
  399
  and retaining workers on merit; to raise awareness of the importance of older workers; and to support older workers in remaining active in the labour market.

  On the 29 June 1995, the Council of Ministers adopted the resolution on the employment of older workers, reference 8258/95 SOC 201. A copy has been deposited in the House of Commons Library. The resolution recognises the significance of older workers as an employment issue. Equally, it recognises the importance of member states following their own policies in combating this problem.

  Schools Statistics
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list in rank order for each local education authority the number and percentage of pupils obtaining five GCSEs at grade C or above in the latest year

  Maintained schools in England1

  Local Education Authority

  Pupils aged 15 achieving 5 or more GCSE grades A 2—C, 1994–95

  Pupils aged 17 achieving 3 or more GCE A/AS passes, 1994–95

  Number

  Percentage

  Rank

  Number

  Percentage

  Rank

  Kingston upon Thames

  756

  55.5

  1

  254

  49.3

  46

  Sutton

  982

  52.9

  2

  466

  59.3

  11

  Barnet

  1,618

  52.7

  3

  532

  46.7

  60

  Harrow

  1,087

  52.5

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Isles of Scilly

  11

  52.4

  5

  —

  —

  —

  West Sussex

  3,912

  51.0

  6

  727

  47.5

  55

  North Yorkshire (inc York)

  4,061

  50.2

  7

  1,243

  68.9

  3

  Gloucestershire

  2,919

  49.4

  8

  907

  54.8

  24

  Surrey

  4,491

  49.3

  9

  1,000

  51.4

  39

  Buckinghamshire

  3,789

  49.1

  10

  1,766

  56.7

  20

  Dorset

  3,347

  48.8

  11

  1,064

  54.8

  24

  Wiltshire

  2,976

  48.4

  12

  707

  51.6

  37

  Berkshire

  4,075

  48.3

  13

  1,518

  56.7

  19

  Richmond upon Thames

  682

  48.1

  14

  —

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  5,543

  47.9

  15

  2,096

  51.1

  40

  Solihull

  1,369

  47.9

  15

  72

  21.5

  95

  Somerset

  2,298

  47.7

  17

  269

  48.9

  47

  Stockport

  1,389

  47.5

  18

  —

  —

  —

  Bromley

  1,359

  47.4

  19

  569

  53.2

  30

  Trafford

  1,019

  47.1

  20

  302

  78.0

  1

  Cheshire

  5,431

  46.8

  21

  1,583

  58.7

  13

  Cornwall

  2,490

  46.3

  22

  370

  43.9

  68

  Hampshire

  7,489

  46.0

  23

  183

  40.1

  75

  Oxfordshire

  2,636

  45.8

  24

  845

  51.9

  36

  Suffolk

  3,248

  45.8

  24

  1,065

  48.8

  48

  Shropshire

  2,300

  45.6

  26

  344

  53.3

  28

  Bury

  921

  45.3

  27

  —

  —

  —

  Redbridge

  1,127

  45.1

  28

  529

  49.7

  44

  Lincolnshire

  3,101

  44.8

  29

  1,121

  66.4

  5

  Cambridgeshire

  3,304

  44.5

  30

  743

  49.4

  45

  Sefton

  1,500

  43.8

  31

  422

  53.6

  26

  Warwickshire

  2,337

  43.8

  31

  796

  60.1

  9

  Cumbria

  2,329

  43.5

  33

  888

  61.6

  8

  Devon

  4,709

  43.2

  34

  1,195

  46.8

  59

  Norfolk

  3,494

  43.2

  34

  900

  48.7

  49

  Bexley

  1,064

  43.1

  36

  338

  48.6

  50

  Wirral

  1,668

  43.1

  36

  636

  57.7

  17

  Hereford and Worcester

  3,296

  43.0

  38

  915

  58.4

  15

  Essex

  7,512

  42.8

  39

  1,827

  53.1

  32

  Northumberland

  1,724

  42.8

  39

  617

  47.3

  56

  Wigan

  1,664

  42.4

  41

  116

  50.9

  41

  Havering

  1,196

  42.1

  42

  284

  59.9

  10

  East Sussex

  2,712

  41.9

  43

  411

  40.1

  75

  Kent

  7,516

  41.9

  43

  2,960

  52.6

  35

  Lancashire

  6,684

  41.7

  45

  1,139

  65.2

  6

  Dudley

  1,480

  41.6

  46

  72

  55.8

  23

  Camden

  706

  41.5

  47

  312

  44.0

  67

  Bolton

  1,313

  41.4

  48

  314

  68.7

  4

  400
  for which figures are available together with (a) the number and percentage of pupils obtaining three A-level passes, (b) the average primary school class size, (c) the average secondary school class size, (d) expenditure per primary pupil and (e) expenditure per secondary pupil; and if she will indicate in each of (a) to (e) the local education authority's rank order. [24030]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]The following table lists in rank order for each local education authority the number and percentage of pupils obtaining five GCSEs at grade C or above in 1994–95 together with(a) the number and percentage of pupils obtaining three or more GCE A-level or AS equivalent passes in 1994–95,
  (b) the average primary school class size, (c) the average secondary school class size, (d) expenditure per primary pupil and (e) expenditure per secondary pupil. In each case, the local education authority's rank order is indicated.
  401

  Maintained schools in England1

  Local Education Authority

  Pupils aged 15 achieving 5 or more GCSE grades A 2—C, 1994–95

  Pupils aged 17 achieving 3 or more GCE A/AS passes, 1994–95

  Number

  Percentage

  Rank

  Number

  Percentage

  Rank

  Avon

  4,058

  41.2

  49

  1,140

  45.3

  64

  North Tyneside

  888

  40.2

  50

  205

  48.2

  51

  Northamptonshire

  2,873

  40.0

  51

  961

  46.9

  58

  Derbyshire

  4,307

  39.8

  52

  1,266

  59.1

  12

  Leicestershire

  4,167

  39.7

  53

  1,287

  53.0

  33

  Bedfordshire

  2,565

  39.3

  54

  854

  57.4

  18

  Enfield

  1,200

  39.3

  54

  449

  47.2

  57

  Isle of Wight

  529

  39.1

  56

  204

  50.9

  41

  Hounslow

  989

  39.0

  57

  233

  32.6

  86

  Merton

  578

  39.0

  57

  88

  41.3

  74

  Staffordshire

  4,699

  38.7

  59

  1,315

  57.9

  16

  Hillingdon

  926

  37.8

  60

  290

  42.2

  72

  St. Helens

  832

  37.6

  61

  214

  56.6

  22

  Kirklees

  1,702

  37.5

  62

  327

  53.3

  28

  Calderdale

  884

  37.1

  63

  312

  47.9

  54

  Croydon

  1,160

  36.8

  64

  104

  23.4

  92

  Gateshead

  847

  36.4

  65

  216

  46.0

  62

  Sheffield

  1,872

  36.3

  66

  411

  64.6

  7

  Kensington and Chelsea

  179

  36.2

  67

  64

  37.2

  78

  Rotherham

  1,195

  36.2

  67

  288

  46.7

  60

  Nottinghamshire

  4,055

  36.0

  69

  1,292

  53.2

  30

  Leeds

  2,737

  35.8

  70

  1,010

  53.5

  27

  Wakefield

  1,279

  35.2

  71

  164

  42.4

  71

  Brent

  686

  35.1

  72

  192

  25.9

  91

  Durham

  2,514

  34.4

  73

  575

  50.7

  43

  Coventry

  1,142

  34.0

  74

  377

  43.7

  69

  South Tyneside

  655

  34.0

  74

  29

  34.5

  82

  Humberside

  3,666

  33.8

  76

  754

  53.0

  33

  Cleveland

  2,506

  33.6

  77

  145

  56.6

  21

  Ealing

  815

  33.5

  78

  181

  36.4

  80

  Tameside

  881

  33.3

  79

  8

  26.7

  90

  Rochdale

  789

  32.8

  80

  123

  42.9

  70

  Waltham Forest

  740

  32.7

  81

  43

  33.1

  85

  Oldham

  995

  31.9

  82

  177

  51.6

  37

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  334

  31.8

  83

  101

  45.3

  64

  Doncaster

  1,071

  31.5

  84

  449

  48.1

  52

  Walsall

  1,082

  31.3

  85

  418

  45.8

  63

  Birmingham

  3,510

  31.2

  86

  1,079

  48.1

  52

  Sunderland

  1,202

  31.1

  87

  183

  58.7

  13

  Wolverhampton

  905

  30.9

  88

  265

  37.3

  77

  Wandsworth

  476

  30.0

  89

  103

  27.3

  88

  Barnsley

  730

  29.0

  90

  60

  74.1

  2

  Lewisham

  576

  29.0

  90

  129

  31.9

  87

  Westminster

  353

  28.8

  92

  127

  34.5

  82

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  782

  28.5

  93

  277

  44.7

  66

  Greenwich

  726

  28.3

  94

  111

  22.6

  94

  Bradford

  1,673

  28.1

  95

  564

  35.3

  81

  Salford

  650

  27.9

  96

  —

  —

  —

  Barking & Dagenham

  469

  27.6

  97

  64

  27.0

  89

  Haringey

  462

  27.5

  98

  75

  22.7

  93

  Sandwell

  963

  26.9

  99

  111

  33.2

  84

  Liverpool

  1,414

  26.1

  100

  447

  37.1

  79

  Hackney

  328

  23.9

  101

  28

  19.4

  96

  Newham

  607

  23.7

  102

  17

  16.2

  98

  Lambeth

  285

  23.2

  103

  1

  3.3

  101

  Manchester

  900

  22.5

  104

  73

  42.0

  73

  Southwark

  372

  22.2

  105

  1

  1.4

  102

  Tower Hamlets

  435

  21.7

  106

  40

  14.4

  100

  Knowsley

  349

  19.2

  107

  24

  18.5

  97

  Islington

  221

  17.4

  108

  20

  15.4

  99

  Corporation of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total England

  528,319

  40.4

  54,482

  50.06

  1The figures for GCSE and GCE A/AS achievements and the class sizes are based on LEA and grant maintained schools in England. The unit costs are based on LEA maintained schools only and excluded grant maintained schools.

  2The percentages of 15-year-old pupils achieving five or more GCSE grades A*-C and 17-year-old pupils achieving three or more GCE A/AS passes are based on those on roll in maintained schools at January 1995.

  402 403

  Single teacher class sizes January 1995

  1994–95 unit costs

  Primary

  Secondary

  Pre-primary and primar

  Secondary

  Local Education Authority

  Class size

  Rank

  Class size

  Rank

  Cost (£)

  Rank

  Cost (£)

  Rank

  Kingston upon Thames

  29.5

  108

  20.0

  4

  1,730

  80

  2,518

  86

  Sutton

  28.0

  91

  21.5

  44

  1,860

  88

  2,514

  85

  Barnet

  26.5

  26

  19.4

  2

  1,763

  85

  2,415

  81

  Harrow

  27.1

  57

  22.9

  96

  2,043

  96

  2,598

  90

  Isles of Scilly

  17.3

  1

  26.0

  108

  2,471

  106

  4,484

  108

  West Sussex

  26.5

  26

  21.9

  65

  1,668

  64

  2,240

  47

  North Yorkshire (including York)

  26.2

  20

  20.7

  19

  1,577

  29

  2,180

  31

  Gloucestershire

  26.7

  34

  21.6

  50

  1,274

  1

  1,937

  1

  Surrey

  25.6

  11

  21.6

  50

  1,744

  82

  2,234

  45

  Buckinghamshire

  27.3

  61

  20.6

  15

  1,636

  48

  2,256

  50

  Dorset

  27.6

  75

  21.8

  62

  1,510

  10

  2,061

  11

  Wiltshire

  26.9

  44

  21.4

  40

  1,548

  17

  2,125

  20

  Berkshire

  27.0

  52

  20.3

  9

  1,630

  45

  2,238

  46

  Richmond upon Thames

  26.1

  17

  23.5

  104

  1,884

  89

  2,373

  76

  Hertfordshire

  26.5

  26

  20.0

  4

  1,717

  75

  2,264

  54

  Solihull

  27.6

  75

  21.6

  50

  1,605

  34

  2,225

  38

  Somerset

  27.0

  52

  22.5

  87

  1,660

  58

  2,113

  18

  Stockport

  27.5

  70

  21.9

  65

  1,566

  24

  2,152

  25

  Bromley

  28.4

  100

  20.2

  8

  1,634

  46

  2,231

  42

  Trafford

  29.0

  105

  21.8

  62

  1,477

  5

  2,319

  65

  Cheshire

  27.3

  61

  21.3

  35

  1,529

  13

  2,176

  29

  Cornwall

  27.0

  52

  22.2

  81

  1,615

  41

  2,202

  33

  Hampshire

  27.7

  80

  22.3

  84

  1,645

  52

  2,177

  30

  Oxfordshire

  25.9

  14

  21.1

  31

  1,680

  67

  2,285

  58

  Suffolk

  24.9

  3

  20.9

  24

  1,690

  69

  2,182

  32

  Shropshire

  26.6

  31

  21.5

  44

  1,605

  34

  2,413

  80

  Bury

  27.8

  84

  23.0

  99

  1,492

  7

  2,032

  5

  Redbridge

  29.2

  106

  20.6

  15

  1,678

  66

  2,553

  82

  Lincolnshire

  26.8

  39

  20.0

  4

  1,588

  30

  2,384

  77

  Cambridgeshire

  27.3

  61

  21.8

  62

  1,540

  15

  2,160

  26

  Sefton

  27.6

  75

  21.9

  65

  1,487

  6

  2,227

  40

  Warwickshire

  26.9

  44

  20.6

  15

  1,665

  62

  2,349

  71

  Cumbria

  26.2

  20

  21.0

  26

  1,541

  16

  2,034

  7

  Devon

  26.7

  34

  21.3

  35

  1,554

  20

  2,203

  34

  Norfolk

  25.4

  7

  20.0

  4

  1,600

  33

  2,342

  69

  Bexley

  28.6

  103

  21.4

  40

  1,536

  14

  2,232

  44

  Wirral

  26.1

  17

  20.5

  13

  1,567

  25

  2,294

  61

  Hereford and Worcester

  25.5

  10

  21.9

  65

  1,643

  51

  2,063

  13

  Essex

  26.9

  44

  21.9

  65

  1,734

  81

  2,321

  66

  Northumberland

  27.2

  59

  22.7

  90

  1,528

  12

  1,944

  2

  Wigan

  28.0

  91

  21.6

  50

  1,474

  4

  2,130

  21

  Havering

  27.4

  67

  22.0

  74

  1,715

  74

  2,570

  88

  East Sussex

  27.5

  70

  21.3

  35

  1,692

  70

  2,359

  74

  Kent

  27.7

  80

  20.7

  19

  1,555

  21

  2,276

  57

  Lancashire

  27.9

  88

  21.6

  50

  1,661

  60

  2,345

  70

  Dudley

  27.3

  61

  22.9

  96

  1,575

  26

  2,205

  35

  Camden

  27.3

  61

  19.8

  3

  2,057

  98

  2,790

  99

  Bolton

  28.7

  104

  21.3

  35

  1,646

  54

  2,261

  53

  Avon

  27.8

  84

  21.1

  31

  1,613

  40

  2,336

  67

  North Tyneside

  26.9

  44

  22.1

  77

  1,636

  48

  2,145

  23

  Northamptonshire

  26.7

  34

  20.8

  23

  1,618

  42

  2,265

  55

  Derbyshire

  27.9

  88

  21.7

  57

  1,596

  32

  2,290

  59

  Leicestershire

  26.5

  26

  22.2

  81

  1,612

  38

  2,274

  56

  Bedfordshire

  26.8

  39

  21.9

  65

  1,674

  65

  2,231

  42

  Enfield

  28.4

  100

  21.0

  26

  1,761

  84

  2,359

  74

  Isle of Wight

  26.3

  23

  22.1

  77

  1,607

  36

  2,030

  4

  Hounslow

  27.4

  67

  21.5

  44

  1,931

  92

  2,582

  89

  Merton

  27.0

  52

  22.0

  74

  1,931

  92

  2,663

  95

  Staffordshire

  27.6

  75

  22.0

  74

  1,565

  23

  2,104

  15

  Hillingdon

  26.8

  39

  20.7

  19

  1,777

  86

  2,625

  93

  St. Helens

  27.0

  52

  20.3

  9

  1,521

  11

  2,247

  49

  Kirklees

  28.2

  96

  20.9

  24

  1,607

  36

  2,256

  50

  Calderdale

  27.5

  70

  21.0

  26

  1,651

  56

  2,104

  15

  Croydon

  28.1

  94

  22.2

  81

  1.725

  79

  2,165

  27

  Gateshead

  26.0

  15

  20.4

  11

  1,638

  50

  2,257

  52

  Sheffield

  26.8

  39

  22.6

  88

  1,612

  38

  2,110

  17

  Kensington and Chelsea

  25.1

  4

  18.5

  1

  2,397

  104

  3,327

  106

  Rotherham

  25.8

  13

  21.4

  40

  1,719

  77

  2,220

  36

  Nottinghamshire

  27.4

  67

  20.6

  15

  1,692

  70

  2,396

  79

  404 405

  Single teacher class sizes January 1995

  1994–95 unit costs

  Primary

  Secondary

  Pre-primary and primar

  Secondary

  Local Education Authority

  Class size

  Rank

  Class size

  Rank

  Cost (£)

  Rank

  Cost (£)

  Rank

  Leeds

  28.2

  96

  20.5

  13

  1,645

  52

  2,223

  37

  Wakefield

  27.9

  88

  21.7

  57

  1,590

  31

  2,046

  9

  Brent

  26.9

  44

  21.0

  26

  1,718

  76

  2,033

  6

  Durham

  27.7

  80

  21.9

  65

  1,757

  83

  2,122

  19

  Coventry

  27.8

  84

  22.9

  96

  1,705

  72

  2,418

  82

  South Tyneside

  26.3

  23

  22.6

  88

  1,623

  44

  2,062

  12

  Humberside

  27.7

  80

  22.8

  91

  1,652

  57

  2,304

  62

  Cleveland

  26.9

  44

  22.1

  77

  1,505

  8

  2,172

  28

  Ealing

  26.6

  31

  22.1

  77

  1,969

  94

  2,457

  84

  Tameside

  29.5

  108

  23.8

  105

  1,447

  3

  2,046

  9

  Rochdale

  29.2

  106

  23.3

  103

  1,552

  19

  2,225

  38

  Waltham Forest

  26.5

  26

  23.0

  99

  1,792

  87

  2,395

  78

  Oldham

  28.5

  102

  22.8

  91

  1,621

  43

  2,293

  60

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  25.6

  11

  22.8

  91

  2,482

  107

  3,316

  105

  Doncaster

  28.1

  94

  21.4

  40

  1,444

  2

  2,025

  3

  Walsall

  26.0

  15

  20.4

  11

  1,664

  61

  2,314

  63

  Birmingham

  28.2

  96

  21.7

  57

  1,721

  78

  2,356

  73

  Sunderland

  25.4

  7

  21.0

  26

  1,576

  28

  2,142

  22

  Wolverhampton

  26.2

  20

  21.6

  50

  1,648

  55

  2,341

  68

  Wandsworth

  25.2

  5

  21.7

  57

  2,268

  101

  3,053

  102

  Barnsley

  27.5

  70

  22.8

  91

  1,550

  18

  2,102

  14

  Lewisham

  25.4

  7

  21.6

  50

  2.097

  99

  2,677

  96

  Westminster

  25.3

  6

  21.1

  31

  2,440

  105

  2,825

  100

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  27.6

  75

  21.3

  35

  1,660

  58

  2,314

  63

  Greenwich

  26.4

  25

  21.7

  57

  2,028

  95

  2,772

  98

  Bradford

  27.8

  84

  22.8

  91

  1,681

  68

  2,041

  8

  Salford

  27.3

  61

  21.9

  65

  1,507

  9

  2,151

  24

  Barking & Dagenham

  26.7

  34

  21.2

  34

  1,891

  90

  2,353

  72

  Haringey

  27.2

  59

  21.5

  44

  2,300

  102

  2,986

  101

  Sandwell

  28.2

  96

  21.9

  65

  1,666

  63

  2,244

  48

  Liverpool

  27.1

  57

  20.7

  19

  1,634

  46

  2,603

  91

  Hackney

  26.1

  17

  21.5

  44

  2,249

  100

  3,138

  103

  Newham

  27.5

  70

  24.2

  106

  1,711

  73

  2,623

  92

  Lambeth

  24.6

  2

  21.5

  44

  2,573

  108

  3,782

  107

  Manchester

  26.9

  44

  22.3

  84

  1,558

  22

  2,435

  83

  Southwark

  26.9

  44

  24.7

  107

  1,898

  91

  2,681

  97

  Tower Hamlets

  26.7

  34

  23.1

  101

  2,393

  103

  3,194

  104

  Knowsley

  28.0

  91

  22.4

  86

  1,575

  26

  2,227

  41

  Islington

  26.6

  31

  23.2

  102

  2,055

  97

  2,657

  94

  Corporation of London

  26.8

  39

  N/A

  —

  3,635

  109

  N/A

  —

  Total England

  27.1

  21.5

  1,661

  2,270

  1The figures for GCSE and GCE A/AS achievements and the class sizes are based on LEA and grant maintained schools in England. The unit costs are based on LEA maintained schools only and excluded grant maintained schools.

  2 The percentages of 15-year-old pupils achieving five or more GCSE grades A*-C and 17-year-old pupils achieving three or more GCE A/AS passes are based on those on roll in maintained schools at January 1995.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Challenge Programme
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department's challenge programme was introduced; and when it will be completed. [24196]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department runs a number of challenge programmes. The regional challenge was launched in February 1995 and the winners were announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy last December. Following the success of that round, we intend to launch a second round, probably early next year. In July 1995, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced details of the export challenge to trade associations and the winners of this challenge were announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade in March. The technology foresight challenge was launched in September 1995. The final results of this challenge are expected to be 406
  announced in May or June. In February 1996, we announced at the launch of our information society initiative—the first of a number of challenges designed to encourage business support organisations to participate in the initiative. The results of this first challenge, which is for trade associations, will be announced in June 1996. Details of the further challenges under the initiative will be given later in the year. Finally, my Department has also jointly funded the skills challenge with the Department for Education and Employment. The results of the second round of this challenge were announced recently. The Department continues to look for new areas that would benefit from the introduction of challenge funding.

  Industry Council
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Industry Council meeting held on 28 March. [25119]
  407
  Mr. Eggar
  The Council adopted resolutions on the co-ordination of activities in favour of small and medium-sized enterprises—SMEs—and on an industrial policy for the EU pharmaceutical industry. The Council also agreed conclusions on a Commission communication on the impact of international developments on the textile and clothing sector.

  The Commission made oral presentations on its proposal for a new SME multi-annual programme for the period 1997 to 2000, on its green paper on innovation and the work of the research/industry task forces on its communication on the challenges facing the EU defence-related industry and on its communication on the competitiveness of EU maritime industries.

  The Council debated the issue of how many separate directives should be adopted on food for particular nutritional uses—"dietary foodstuffs". It did not prove possible to reach a common position on the basis of the presidency's compromise proposal, which is expected to be discussed further at the Internal Market Council on 28 May.

  Shipbuilding was raised under other business. The Commission indicated that it would produce a proposal for extending the existing directive on aid to shipbuilding, in the event of further delays in the ratification of the OECD agreement. Denmark circulated a short paper on the need to strengthen EU monitoring of shipbuilding aid rules. Finally, the Commission provided information on the Bremer Vulcan aid case and made clear that it would take firm action. Germany acknowledged that the case represented a misuse of public funds.

  The presidency outlined its plans for an EU-Mediterranean conference of Industry Ministers on 21 May.

  No votes were taken at the Council.

  Coal Mining
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will discuss with the Coal Authority, as early as possible, arrangements to establish a register of all companies involved in mining operations in the United Kingdom and to ensure the deposit of a copy of each company's current employers liability insurance certificate. [25003]

  Mr. Page
  In accordance with the provisions of section 35 of the Coal Industry Act 1994, a register of licences granted for the carrying out of coal mining operations has been established by the Coal Authority. The enforcement of legislative requirements on employers' liability insurance is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the measures which the Coal Authority(a) has taken to date and (b) proposes to take to deal with pollution from abandoned mines. [24800]

  Mr. Page
  This is a matter for the Coal Authority. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Oil and Gas Exploration
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions he has held with Amoco (UK) exploration company concerning the future 408
  decommissioning of the north-west Hutton installation; and when the company submitted an abandonment programme for the structure. [24368]

  Mr. Page
  Neither my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade nor any other DTI Minister has had discussions with Amoco about decommissioning the north-west Hutton installation. The owners of the installation have not yet been directed to submit a decommissioning programme.

  Work Force Representatives
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how work force representatives will be elected for the purposes of Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 requirements; how this process will be monitored; what challenge and appeal safeguards are included; what will be the time scale for elections; how the electorate will be(a) determined and (b) monitored; and what will be the term of office for those elected. [24124]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, as amended, an employer is required to provide, long enough before the transfer of an undertaking for consultation to take place, information to appropriate representatives of any employees who may be affected by the transfer. Appropriate representatives may be representatives of an independent trade union recognised by the employer in respect of those employees or representatives elected by the employees themselves, whether specifically for that purpose or for some other relevant purpose.

  The regulations do not specify detailed rules for the election by the affected employees of representatives or the term of their office, but provision is made for complaints to be made to an industrial tribunal about an employer's failure to consult appropriate representatives. If the elected representatives or a recognised trade union consider that the employer has not consulted them as required, or the employees affected have not been given a proper opportunity to elect representatives, they may present a complaint to an industrial tribunal.

  Company General Meetings
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will be publishing a consultative document on the Companies Act provisions under which shareholders may table resolutions for discussion at the annual general meeting. [25354]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have today published a consultative document seeking views on the provisions of the Companies Act relating to the circulation of shareholders' resolutions. This follows up the Government's undertaking to consult on the recommendation of the former Employment Committee in its report, "The Remuneration of Directors and Chief Executives of Privatised Utilities" that the Companies Act should be amended to require shareholders' resolutions, where they are supported by a sufficient number of shareholders and are limited in length, to be circulated by the company to all shareholders without cost.
  409
  The consultative document seeks views on whether the existing rules operate effectively. It considers whether good practice in circulating shareholders' resolutions without charge should be incorporated into a statutory requirement and whether a tightening up of the rules would be appropriate. It also examines some related questions concerning the wider issue of communication between shareholders and the board.

  Copies of the consultative document "Shareholder Communications at the Annual General Meeting" have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Home Accident Prevention Initiatives
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to make the provision of home accident prevention initiatives a mandatory function of local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [24939]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There are no plans to make home accident prevention initiatives a mandatory function of local authorities. Many local authorities already participate in home accident prevention, underpinned by the wide range of free home safety awareness literature provided by my Department's consumer safety unit. However, it is important that local authorities are free to balance this activity alongside other competing priorities.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to provide specific funding for local authorities to provide home accident prevention initiatives; and if he will make a statement. [24938]

  Mr. Taylor
  There are no plans for specific funding for local authorities to provide home accident prevention initiatives. However, my Department makes a wide range of free home safety literature available to local authorities and provides a grant in aid to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which is used to support four regional home safety officers who work closely with accident prevention staff in local authorities.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many accidents in the home necessitated hospital treatment for each year for which records are available; and if he will make a statement. [24899]

  Mr. Taylor
  The number of home accident victims treated in accident and emergency units in the United Kingdom in 1994 is estimated at 2.9 million—according to one report of the home accident surveillance system, HASS, for 1994.

  Estimates for earlier years—1977 onwards—are given in the appropriate HASS reports, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Prior to 1987, the estimates refer to England and Wales only.

  Nuclear Power Industry (Privatisation)
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are his proposals for employees and pensioners of the nuclear electricity industry to participate in the forthcoming British Energy share offer; and if he will make a statement. [25353]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government strongly believe in the positive effects of employee share ownership and I welcome the excellent opportunity which privatisation of British Energy provides for its employees to claim a410
  significant stake in the future of their company. This package is comparable to those offered to employees during previous Government flotations and is in line with out intention of extending share ownership as widely as possible.

  I am confident that British Energy's employees will be keen to take advantage of the offer and I look forward to seeing high levels of take-up.

  Employees of the British Energy Group will be offered free shares to a fully paid value of about £160, plus shares at a fully paid value of about £2 for every year of continuous service within the electricity supply industry on the day before the prospectus is issued.

  Employees will also be offered two free fully paid shares for every share bought at the offer price on a matching basis up to a maximum fully paid value of about £500-worth of free shares. Under this element of the package, if an employee bought shares with a fully paid value of £250, he would receive additional free shares to a fully paid value of £500.

  These free and matching shares will be available to employees who have completed at least six months' continuous service within the British Energy Group or, where applicable, Nuclear Electric plc, on the day before the prospectus is issued.

  In addition, employees will be able to buy shares up to a maximum fully paid value of about £1,400 of additional shares at a discount of 20 per cent. from the public offer price.

  Employees applying for shares will be treated on a priority basis, over the general public, up to an individual fully paid limit of shares worth about £18,000.

  These discount and priority shares will be available to each person employed by the British Energy Group on the day before the prospectus is issued.

  Magnox Electric employees have been part of the effort by the industry which has brought it to the point where the more modern part can be privatised. The co-operation of Magnox has been vital in the run-up to the restructuring of the industry, which took effect at the end of March. In recognition of this co-operation, special arrangements have been made for employees of Magnox Electric to participate in the British Energy share offer.

  Employees of Magnox Electric will be able to buy shares in British Energy up to a maximum fully paid value of about £1,400 of additional shares at a discount of 20 per cent. from the public offer price. Employees applying for shares will be treated on a priority basis, over the general public, up to an individual fully paid limit of shares worth about £18,000. The discount and priority shares will be available to each person employed by Magnox Electric on the day before the prospectus is issued.

  Pensioners of both the British Energy Group and Magnox Electric will be able to apply on a priority basis, over the general public, for shares up to a fully paid limit of about £16,600.
  411
  The extent to which employees and pensioners will be able to apply for shares on a priority basis, over the general public, may be subject to scaling down if the number of shares applied for by employees and pensioners exceeds a prescribed proportion of the total number on offer.

  Further details of the share offer arrangements will be made available individually to employees and pensioners in due course. These will include, where applicable, the requirements of the Inland Revenue as they apply to these offers.

  Environmental Technology and Services
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how much was spent on promoting exports in the environmental technology and services industry in 1995–96; [24640]

  (2) what is the budget for the year 1995–96 of the joint environmental markets units; and what amount of that budget was spent on export services. [24641]

  Mr. Page
  The full range of the Government's export promotion and support services were available to the UK environmental technology and services industry in 1995–96. In addition, the joint environmental markets unit-JEMU-and the UK technology partnership initiative-TPI-were also specifically concerned with promoting UK environmental technology and services overseas. The forecast outturn for general export services, excluding staff and overheads, in 1995–96 is approximately £53 million, though it is not possible separately to identify how much was spent promoting exports for the environmental sector. The 1995–96 forecast outturn for JEMU-TPI, excluding staff and overheads, is £431,000, much of which has supported export-related activity either directly or indirectly. £n addition, in many cases, TPI funds have leveraged local resources to promote UK technologies and services.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what account was taken of the effects on environmental technology manufacturers when his Department recommended that the Department of the Environment postpone the upgrading deadlines in the process guidance notes; and if a full cost-benefit analysis was obtained. [24643]

  Mr. Page
  The decision to postpone the upgrading deadlines in the process guidance notes did not result from a recommendation by my Department. It is for the Department of the Environment, as lead Department, to assess the costs and benefits to the environment and to all those affected by any decision relating to environmental policy.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take into account the economic cost to environmental technology manufacturers when he makes representations to the Department of the Environment concerning the four-year revision of all chief inspectors evidence notes and process guidance notes. [24642]

  Mr. Page
  The costs and benefits to all parties with an interest in the revision of these guidance notes will be considered by the Department of the Environment, as the lead Department, at the appropriate time.
  412
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what proposals he has developed a specific export strategy for the environmental technology and services industry; [24638]

  (2) what plans his Department has to encourage exports in the environmental technology and services industry. [24639]

  Mr. Page
  The full range of the Government's export promotion and support services are available to UK suppliers of environmental technologies and services. In addition, in 1992 the Government established a joint environmental markets unit—JEMU—bringing together resources from my Department and the Department of the Environment to ensure that UK firms are informed of the large and growing environmental market opportunities and to help them exploit these opportunities.

  As part of a developing strategy, JEMU commissioned a report on the strengths and weaknesses of the UK industry and its global competitiveness, "The UK Environmental Industry: Succeeding in the Changing Global Market". Following this report, the unit has been working closely with the Government's overseas trade services-OTS-including British embassies and high commissions overseas to identify key markets for UK environmental goods and expertise. As a result, environmental technology and services is currently targeted as a priority in 48 of the top 80 UK export markets. JEMU and OTS are also working with industry, trade associations and others to promote export opportunities and to raise the profile of the UK industry abroad.

  In addition, JEMU manages the UK technology partnership initiative-TPI-which provides information to business in rapidly industrialising and developing countries on UK environmental technology and expertise. TPI publishes regular information and sponsors overseas seminars about UK capabilities. It has recently reviewed its strategy and is currently producing a directory of 1,000 UK environmental supply companies active or keen to be active in some 37 priority markets. It also aims to expand its network of 3,500 active overseas business multipliers.

  As part of its lead sponsorship role, JEMU is currently working with the UK environmental industry to assist it in identifying the factors which affect the industry's competitiveness and in developing a strategy for improved performance. This will include a focus on responding to export opportunities.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many compliance cost assessments were produced by his Department in 1995; and if he will place copies in the Library. [25275]

  Mr. Lang
  My Department published 20 compliance cost assessments in 1995. Copies have already been placed in the Library of the House.

  Domestic Gas and Electricity Bills
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the projected average(a) gas and (b) electricity bill per household on a regional basis for 1996–97; what were the equivalent figures in 1995–96; and what is the percentage change in each case. [24927]

  Mr. Eggar
  For the financial year 1995–96, the average regional household electricity bills excluding VAT are given in the table. In England and Wales, the regions represent those covered by the regional electricity companies.

  Region

  Average electricity bill1 during the financial year 1995–96, excluding VAT£

  Eastern

  264.94

  East Midlands

  275.78

  London

  277.26

  Manchester and North Wales (MANWEB)

  297.99

  West Midlands

  272.10

  Northern

  282.09

  North West (NORWEB)

  255.16

  South East (SEEBOARD)

  260.50

  Southern

  270.30

  South Wales

  311.64

  South West

  294.69

  Yorkshire

  272.02

  Scotland

  272.10

  Northern Ireland

  326.66

  UK average

  275.33

  1 Average for a typical domestic consumer with consumption of 3,300 kWh of electricity a year. Calculated from published tariffs and standing charges. The average bill represents the amount paid by a typical household in the financial year including any rebates received by the households.

  In addition, domestic electricity customers in England and Wales will have received a £50 discount on their bills in the first quarter of 1996, following the flotation of the National Grid.

  For gas, there was no regional difference in pricing to households in the financial year 1995–96. The average household gas bill for a typical customer with consumption of 17,600 kWh per year in 1995–96 was £305.44 excluding VAT.

  My Department does not make projections of electricity or gas prices.

  British Coal Enterprise
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what sums have been received from the sale of British Coal Enterprise. [25131]

  Mr. Page
  The sale of British Coal Enterprise, BCE, is a matter for British Coal. I understand that the corporation has not yet completed the sale of all of the activities of BCE.

  Public Interest Disclosure Bill
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many representations his Department has received since 26 February on the Public Interest 414
  Disclosure Bill; and (a) how many of these were in favour of the Bill and (b) how many indicated that the Bill would pose an undue burden on business. [25333]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In the period 26 February to 10 April, my Department received 10 letters expressing support for the Bill and none expressing opposition.

  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what public consultations his Department intends to take in respect of the Public Interest Disclosure Bill. [25332]

  Mr. Taylor
  None.

  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations his Department undertook on the Public Interest Disclosure Bill during March. [25331]

  Mr. Taylor
  None.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Clerk to the Justices (Middlesex Petty Session)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how often, over the last three years, in each of the Middlesex area petty session courts the clerk to the justices has clerked cases. [25154]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Magistrates courts are locally managed by magistrates courts committees under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979. The sort of information requested is not kept centrally and it is not the sort of information the Department would expect to receive from individuals MCCs.

  Clerk to the Justices (Brent)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what salary the clerk to the justices in Brent receives as chief executive in addition to his salary as clerk. [25156]

  Mr. Evans
  Under the provisions of section 26A of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979, justices' chief executives and justices clerks are employed under contract by magistrates courts committees, on terms which the courts committees decide. I do not have access to individual contracts.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what were the costs to public funds arising from the recent successful appeal by the Brent court clerk to an industrial tribunal against her dismissal; if he will provide a breakdown of the costs; and if he will make a statement about the circumstances that led to this case. [25160]

  Mr. Evans
  Magistrates courts are locally managed by magistrates courts committees under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979. The Department has not been notified of either the amount of the legal costs incurred by the magistrates courts committee, or the amount of the agreed settlement, made in 1994, between the magistrates courts committee and the former employee.

  These amounts would have been paid from locally held funds, and no request for additional cash-limited grant was made to cover these payments.

  Court Administration Costs (Middlesex)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what, over the last three years, have been the administrative costs of each of the petty sessional courts in the Middlesex area. [25155]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The areas of eight magistrates courts committees fall within the Middlesex area. Expenditure information is collected and held by this Department at committee and not petty sessional court level. The audited gross revenue expenditure for these eight committees for the three most recent available financial years, as reported to this Department by the responsible local authorities to those magistrates courts committees is:

  £

  Committee

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Barnet

  1,692,643

  1,852,997

  1,906,629

  Brent

  2,509,038

  2,620,844

  2,799,017

  Ealing

  1,689,984

  1,996,810

  1,984,330

  Enfield

  1,642,974

  1,698,950

  1,800,809

  Haringey

  1,714,042

  1,781,759

  2,197,974

  Harrow

  720,115

  761,579

  802,260

  Hillingdon

  1,542,868

  1,636,486

  1,748,196

  Hounslow

  1,895,440

  1,963,763

  2,076,765

  Brent Court
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the chief inspector of magistrates courts services last conducted an inspection into the efficiency of the Brent court; when the court will next be inspected; and what assessment he has made of the efficiency of the Brent court. [25161]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The magistrates courts service inspectorate was established in January 1993 with the appointment of the chief inspector, Mrs. Rosemary Melling, to inspect and report on the administration and organisation of all the 100 magistrates courts committees. The inspectorate is still carrying out its first inspection cycle. The inspection of the Brent MCC area is due to take place in November 1996. The subsequent inspection report will be published no later than May 1997.

  Licensed Premises (Children's Certificates)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the cost of administering children's certificates for licensed premises, broken down by(a) inspections, (b) magistrates' time and (c) printing costs. [23662]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  At the time of the policy assessment, it was considered that there would be an initial surge of work in the magistrates courts but that this would then level off and be cost neutral. Since the introduction of children's certificates, there has been no evidence to suggest that this assessment was wrong.

  Courts (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department: how many magistrates courts there were in Wales in(a) 1979, (b) 1989, (c) 1993 and (d) at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement. [24623]
  416
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The provision of courthouses is a matter for the magistrates courts committee in conjunction with the paying authority. The Lord Chancellor is involved only when there is an appeal by a local authority against a proposed closure. Information is therefore not collected centrally.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what was the cost of administering(a) county courts and (b) Crown courts in Wales in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [24598]

  Mr. Evans
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer. I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 16 April 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the cost of administering Crown and county courts in Wales.
  The table below sets out the cost to the Wales and Chester Circuit since 1990. The figures are in respect of the Circuit as a whole and therefore includes areas of Cheshire. It is not possible to give a separate breakdown for Welsh courts alone. Figures for 1995/96 have not yet been finalised.

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  County

  10.153

  12.158

  14.251

  15.160

  16.274

  Crown

  6.210

  8.525

  10.321

  10.093

  10.727

  Total

  16.363

  20.683

  24.572

  25.253

  27.001

  Legal Aid Board
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has for the Legal Aid Board to contract out its visits systems to solicitors' offices; and what is the estimated cost to the Legal Aid Board of the franchise audit operation. [24777]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  There are no plans for the Legal Aid Board to contract out its system of franchise audit visits to solicitors' offices. The audit costs are not currently separable from the overall administrative cost of franchising, which was £3.2 million in 1995–96. This included the cost of auditing and related costs such as the recruitment and training of auditors.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he now has to ensure that remand prisoners are brought to trial within a reasonable time. [24794]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Cases where defendants are on remand are treated as a priority in the magistrates courts and Crown court. In the Crown court, with the national introduction of plea and directions hearings, defendants who are remanded in custody are brought before the court within four weeks of committal, and a date is given for the trial, unless there is a good reason for not doing so. For both the Crown court and the magistrates courts, a sub-group of the trials issues group is considering the operation of current time guidelines and in particular the extent of compliance with those guidelines.
  417
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many cases in each of the last three years for which figures are available courts in England and Wales met the 70-day limit in magistrates courts and 112 days in Crown courts for bringing remand prisoners to trial. [24795]

  Mr. Evans
  For the Crown court, defendants on remand were brought to trial within 112 days as follows: 1993: 16,579 (77 per cent), 1994: 17,632 (74 per cent), 1995: 19,373 (77 per cent). Figures are not collected in the magistrates' courts on the same basis. However, sample figures indicate that the proportion of defendants remanded in custody throughout, whose proceedings within the magistrates' courts were completed within 70 days is as follows: 1993: 81 per cent, 1994: 84 per cent, 1995: 81 per cent.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Compassion in World Farming Exhibition
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he will consider an application for an exhibition relating to Compassion in World Farming to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [24646]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 17 June to Friday 21 June 1996.

  Arts Council Exhibition
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Arts Council to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [25449]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 15 July to Friday 19 July 1996.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what date his Department will make available(a) to employers and (b) to occupation pension scheme administrators, definite details of the Contributions Agency's NIRS 2–national insurance recording system-information system. [23158]

  Mr. Heald
  The administration of the Contributions Agency is a matter for Mrs. Faith Boardman, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from George Bertram to Mr. John Denham, dated 4 April 1996:
  As the Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency is away from the office on annual leave, I have responsibility for answering questions about operational matters relating to the Agency and the National Insurance (NI) scheme in her absence.
  418
  I have been asked to reply to your question regarding the availability of details of the Agency's NIRS2 Information system to employers and occupational pension scheme administrators.
  The NIRS2 information system will replace the current National Insurance Recording System (NIBS) and will be designed to ensure that current burdens on employers and Occupational Pensions Schemes are decreased. The first details of the new system will appear in the information pack issued to Employers starting in February 1997.
  Details of the contracted our arrangements from 6 April 1997 will be issued in draft shortly, with final guidance to be issued to Occupational Pension Schemes in the Autumn.
  Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain the position.

  Industrial Injuries Benefit
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many adjudicating medical decisions awarding industrial injuries disablement benefit have been made; and how many reviews of existing benefits have been instigated at the request of the Benefits Agency; [23765]

  (2) how many applications for industrial injuries disablement benefit are outstanding; what is the waiting time for processing them; and what is the total value of the payments currently suspended, subject to review. [23766]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of industrial injuries disablement benefit is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will reply to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Ursula Brennan to Ms Joan Walley, dated 3 April 1996:
  As Peter Mathison is on leave at present, the Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking how many adjudicating medical decisions awarding Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB) have been made; how many reviews of existing benefits have been instigated at the request of the Benefits Agency; how many applications for IIDB are outstanding; what is the waiting time for processing them; and what is the total value of the payments currently suspended, subject to review.
  The number of adjudicating medical decisions in the period 1 March 1995 to 29 February 1996 was 24,467, the latest information available.
  Information about the number of reviews of existing benefit instigated at the request of the Benefits Agency is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  The number of claims outstanding at the end of February 1996, was 25,813. These were made up of 10,253 claims in respect of industrial accidents and 15,560 claims in respect of prescribed diseases.
  Annex A gives details of the current claims clearance targets.
  Information on the number of outstanding applications and the number of cases where payment is currently suspended subject to review is unavailable and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  419

  Annex A

  Target set for 1995–96

  Target achieved 1 April 1995 to 29 February 1996

  Industrial Accidents

  60 per cent. in 70 days

  62.6 per cent. in 70 days

  90 per cent. in 150 days

  92.4 per cent. in 150 days

  Prescribed Diseases

  63 per cent. in 100 days

  73 per cent. in 100 days

  90 per cent. in 200 days

  94.5 per cent. in 200 days

  These figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Severe Hardship Payments
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the number of young people claiming severe hardship payments currently(a) nationally, (b) in London, (c) in Waltham Forest, (d) in Redbridge and (e) in Leyton. [24137]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of income support is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ursula Brennan to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 3 April 1996:
  As Peter Mathison is on leave at present, the Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking what are the number of young people claiming severe hardship payments currently (a) nationally, (b) in London, (c) in Waltham Forest, (d) in Redbridge and (e) in Leyton.
  The information is not available in the form requested. Statistics are not kept for specific geographical areas, but for Benefits Agency (BA) Districts.
  The number of young people who claimed severe hardship in November 1995 nationally, England, Scotland and Wales, was 9977. The number claiming in the BA Districts which include the London postal area was 571. However this will include some claims from people living outside London, see Annex. The number claiming from Lea Roding District was 60. The Lea Roding District comprises of Ilford, Leytonstone and Walthamstow offices, which includes Waltham Forest, Redbridge and Leyton. These figures are provisional and may be subject to change.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Annex

  Bankside

  Barnet*

  City East

  Ealing*

  Euston

  Hackney and Islington

  Leaside

  London Central

  Neasden

  Newham

  North Surrey*

  Palace

  South Circular*

  South West Thames

  Thameside*

  *The area covered by these Districts includes postal areas outside of London.

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people(a) had social security
  420
  benefits withdrawn and (b) were ruled ineligible for such benefits due to the changes in social security regulations for asylum seekers, in the first four weeks following implementation of the regulations. [24422]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. In the four weeks beginning 4 March, the Benefits Agency was notified by the Home Office of 702 negative decisions on asylum status involving social security benefit claims.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security who will be responsible for the funding of free school meals to the children of asylum seekers who would hitherto have qualified for means-tested state benefits. [24977]

  Mr. Evans
  Free school meals remain available only to those pupils whose parents are in receipt of income support.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the(a) original and (b) revised target dates for the announcement of decisions on PFI deals for his Department's site changes in Tyne and Wear; and if he will give the reasons for the change in target dates. [23700]

  Mr. Heald
  The administration of the Contributions Agency is a matter for Mrs. Faith Boardman, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter for George Bertram to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 4 April 1996:
  As the Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency is away from the office on annual leave, I have responsibility for answering questions about administration matters relating to the Agency in her absence.
  I have been asked to reply to your question regarding the target dates for the announcement of decisions on PFI deals for Agency's site changes in Tyne and Wear.
  The original date for making an announcement of the decision on the Newcastle Estate Development PFI was April 1996. The revised date for making an announcement is now June 1996.
  The change in the target date is to allow the opportunity for clarification of parts of each company's Best and Final offer to be sought. In consultation with our advisors, central departments, the Private Finance Panel Executive and the bidders, the evaluation process has been adjourned. The Newcastle Estate project is a complex one with many facets which need to be addressed. As a pathfinder project within PFI it is breaking new ground and establishing guidelines for future projects.
  I am confident that this additional information will enable the best decision to be made.

  Money Purchase Pensions
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what kind of pension guarantees a money purchase pension scheme offers the employee; and if he will make a statement. [24822]

  Mr. Heald
  Occupational money purchase pension schemes do not offer pension guarantees. Contributions to the scheme by employees and members are invested in a fund, the value of which is used either to provide a pension or to purchase an annuity from an insurance company on retirement. The rate of pension is therefore dependant on the level of contributions made, the
  421
  investment performance of the resulting fund and, where an annuity is purchased, the prevailing annuity rates at the time of retirement.

  With money purchase schemes which are contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme, SERPS, employers must guarantee to make contributions which at least equal the value of the reduction in national insurance contributions that they and their employees enjoy.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice he has made available to employers and unions since 1988 about the quality of a good money purchase scheme; and what steps he has taken to ensure such schemes have a level of predictability. [24820]

  Mr. Heald
  The Department produced two guides in 1988, the year in which employers were first able to set up money purchase schemes contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme, SERPS. Both the NP41, "New Pension Choices for Employees" and the NP42, "New Pension Choices for Employers" explain how money purchase schemes work, the difference between contracted-out money purchase, COMP, and salary-related pension schemes, the factors which affect the eventual rate of pension payable and the legal requirements which employers have to satisfy to be able to establish such schemes.

  From April 1997, the Government are introducing age-related rebates for COMP schemes. The rebates are designed to ensure that the value of the final pension reflects more closely the value of the benefit forgone by contracting out of SERPS.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to ensure that older employees will not be disadvantaged if their employer switches from a salary scheme to a money purchase scheme; and if the measures will be retrospective to 1988. [24821]

  Mr. Heald
  Employers set up occupational pension schemes voluntarily and the decision to switch from one type of provision to another is a matter for them. Where an occupational scheme is contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme, SERPS, certain specific conditions have to be met if the nature of the provision is altered-the accrued rights of all members have to be secured, interested parties such as trades unions have to be consulted and members must be kept fully informed about the change. Scheme members in such situations should consider seeking independent financial advice on their pension position.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the proportion of occupational pension schemes that are currently money purchase schemes; and what is the approximate number of employees covered by such schemes. [24819]

  Mr. Heald
  In 1991, the latest year for which data' are available, it is estimated that 71 per cent. of occupational pension schemes2, covering around 900,000 members, were arranged on a money purchase basis3.

  The figures are based on information from both contracted-in and contracted-out occupational schemes.

  Notes:
  1 1991 survey on occupational pension schemes by the Government Actuary's Department.
  422
  2This figure should be treated with a degree of uncertainty due to the limitations of the sampling method for small occupational schemes.
  3This figure includes hybrid schemes where the main benefits are defined by the accumulation of the contributions paid.

  Industrial Deafness
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of claimants awarded a five-year provisional disablement assessment for industrial deafness lose it after the initial five-year period; and what is the main reason given for discontinuing it. [24817]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not readily available in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The number of all re-assessments in respect of occupational deafness, including those following the initial five-year assessment, and those re-assessed to less than 20 per cent. for the latest years available, is set out in the table. In the case of occupational deafness, entitlement to industrial injuries disablement benefit ceases if the percentage assessment of disability is less than 20 per cent.

  Occupational deafness re-assessments

  Period

  Number referred for re-assessment

  Number re-assessed to less than 20 per cent.

  1990

  1,192

  126

  1991

  1,169

  145

  1992

  1,098

  182

  1993

  1,136

  177

  1994

  896

  122

  Based on 100 per cent. count of cases.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the proportion of occupational pension schemes that are currently money purchase schemes; and what is the approximate number of employees covered by such schemes. [24819]

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if people who were claiming unemployment benefit before 7 October will still be covered by the current part-time earnings rules during their period on transitional protection. [24793]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Yes.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people who failed the incapacity benefit all-work test have had their benefit reinstated on appeal. [25136]

  Mr. Burt
  Up to the end of February 1996, 2,111 claimants who had been found capable of work following the all-work test had the decision reversed on appeal.

  Pensions
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what regulations have been made under section 45(5) of the Social Security (Contributions and Benefits)
  423
  Act 1992 defining the years to be disregarded in calculating the earnings-related component of the retirement pension; what further regulations he plans to make; and what categories of persons are affected by them. [25312]

  Mr. Heald
  No regulations have been made under section 45(5) of the Social Security (Contributions and Benefits) Act 1992. We made it clear in the White Paper "Equality in State Pension Age" that the regulations would be made at the appropriate time.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that the relevant maintenance payments are made without any further delay to Mr. S. Sadler (CSA Reference PBU/JHR/1012755 177). [24302]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The Child upport Agency can pass on only payments of maintenance which have been made by an absent parent. The chief executive of the Child Support Agency, Miss Ann Chant, will write to the hon. Member separately detailing the enforcement action the agency has been taking and updating him on recent details of this case.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what new proposals he has to improve the Child Support Agency; and when he expects to present them to Parliament. [24837]

  Mr. Mitchell
  On 2 April, the Government published their response to the second report in the 1995–96 Session of the Social Security Committee and a report on a review of the good cause provisions of the Child Support Act 1995. These described a number of new measures which should improve aspects of the system.

  In addition, I recently announced plans for the recruitment of an independent complaints examiner, improvements to the agency's compensation scheme and the introduction of interest payments on maintenance collected but not transferred promptly to the parent with care.

  These measures build on major legislative changes introduced by the Child Support Act 1995. As the Government have consistently made clear, we keep all aspects of child support under close scrutiny and make changes whenever necessary.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to help lone parents to work. [24840]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Successive improvements in family credit have been designed to assist lone parents to take work. The reduction in the qualifying hours to 16, the introduction of a maintenance disregard, the introduction of help with child care costs in family credit and the other in-work benefits are measures of particular importance to lone parents. Around 200,000 lone parents have moved from income support to family credit since 1992.
  424
  From this month, the child care disregard in the in-work benefits has been increased from £40 to £60 a week. Out-of-school child care provision will be extended by a further 18,000 places on top of the nearly 60,000 generated in the last three years. The back-to-work bonus and the child maintenance bonus will be introduced in October 1996 and April 1997 respectively. They will encourage part-time work and provide opportunities to build up a tax-free lump sum on leaving benefit for work. Also in April 1997, a major new pilot will commence, providing training and employment opportunities to up to 25,000 lone parents.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many landlords in the last available financial year received direct payments of housing benefit totalling(a) more than £500,000, (b) between £250,000 and £500,000 and (c) between £100,000 and £250,000. [25382]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available centrally as housing benefit is administered by local authorities.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 22 February, Official Report, column 313, if he will provide the figures on housing benefit in London 1994–95. [25381]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is set out in the tables.

  Table 1: Average number of housing benefit recipients for London boroughs—1994–95

  Local authority

  Recipients

  Barking and Dagenham

  18,300

  Barnet

  19,900

  Bexley

  11,500

  Brent

  33,200

  Bromley

  16,000

  Camden

  33,200

  City of London

  1,300

  Croydon

  24,400

  Ealing

  26,800

  Enfield

  17,900

  Greenwich

  26,900

  Hackney

  40,300

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  23,100

  Haringey

  39,600

  Harrow

  10,900

  Havering

  11,700

  Hillingdon

  15,300

  Hounslow

  17,900

  Islington

  33,100

  Kensington and Chelsea

  18,200

  Kingston upon Thames

  7,500

  Lambeth

  47,400

  Lewisham

  35,700

  Merton

  12,300

  Newham

  37,400

  Redbridge

  12,900

  Richmond upon Thames

  9,700

  Southwark

  42,900

  Sutton

  10,200

  Tower Hamlets

  33,000

  425

  Table 1: Average number of housing benefit recipients for London boroughs—1994–95

  Local authority

  Recipients

  Waltham Forest

  22,900

  Wandsworth

  30,500

  Westminster

  25,000

  Note:
  Figures given are an average of four quarters each year.

  Source:
  Housing benefit management information system—100 per cent. quarterly counts.

  Table 2: Housing benefit expenditure in London boroughs

  £millions

  Local authority

  1994–95

  Barking and Dagenham

  36.1

  Barnet

  66.3

  Bexley

  31.3

  Brent

  117.0

  Bromley

  47.4

  Camden

  113.1

  City of London

  3.5

  Croydon

  82.5

  Ealing

  100.8

  Enfield

  63.7

  Greenwich

  74.8

  Hackney

  146.0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  74.9

  Haringey

  142.3

  Harrow

  40.8

  Havering

  27.2

  Hillingdon

  50.0

  Hounslow

  50.9

  Islington

  103.1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  71.1

  Kingston upon Thames

  24.8

  Lambeth

  126.3

  Lewisham

  91.9

  Merton

  37.2

  Newham

  122.3

  Redbridge

  52.4

  Richmond upon Thames

  28.3

  Southwark

  117.4

  Sutton

  27.5

  Tower Hamlets

  74.3

  Waltham Forest

  66.6

  Wandsworth

  100.8

  Westminster

  124.0

  Source:
  Department of the Environment.
  DSS planning and finance division.

  Note:
  Not all of the figures given are final audited figures and may be subject to change.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many compliance cost assessments were produced by his Department in 1995; and if he will place copies in the Library. [25271]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  In 1995, this Department produced 15 compliance cost assessments, copies of which are in the Library.

WALES

  Drugs (Juveniles)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what budget was allocated by his Department for juvenile drug prevention education in 1994–95; and if he will make a statement; [24609]

  (2) what initiatives his Department is taking to combat juvenile drug abuse in the current year; and if he will make a statement; [24611]

  (3) what funds his Department is forecast to have allocated in 1995–96 for juvenile drug prevention education; and if he will make a statement. [25017]

  Mr. Richards
  Activity to combat drug misuse in Wales is undertaken by a variety of organisations, from both the statutory and voluntary sectors. Many of these are funded wholly or partly by the Welsh Office. It is not possible to identify separately either the amounts of expenditure or the activity which is specifically targeted at juvenile drug misuse. The new Welsh drug and alcohol strategy, which will be published soon, set out a comprehensive framework for tackling drug and alcohol misuse.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many buildings which are listed as being of historical importance are currently being renovated in(a) Gwynedd, (b) Clwyd and (c) Wales; and if he will make a statement. [24605]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Under the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 and the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the Department gives grant for the repair of buildings of outstanding historic or architectural interest and for works which enhance conservation areas. The number of buildings currently being assisted under these provisions is:Gwynedd: 51
  Clwyd: 69
  Wales: 353

  The heritage lottery fund is currently contributing towards the cost of repairing 22 historic buildings in Wales, one each in Clwyd and Gwynedd.

  Local authorities are empowered to grant aid historic buildings but information on this assistance is not held centrally, nor is information on buildings of historical importance which are being renovated without grant aid.

  Schools (Grant-maintained Status)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools in Wales applied for grant-maintained status in(a) 1994 and (b) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [24607]

  Mr. Richards
  None and one, respectively.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is(a) the standard admission number of each grant-maintained school and (b) the number of pupils which each of these schools plans to admit in September 1996. [25166]
  427
  Mr. Richards
  The grant-maintained equivalent of the standard number in LEA schools is the approved admission number. This is set when a school is approved for grant-maintained status. The details are as follows:

  School

  Approved admissions number

  Our Lady and St. Michael's RC Primary, Abergavenny

  39

  Ysgol Caergeiliog, Ynys Môn

  21

  Derwen Primary, Higher Kinnerton

  30

  Ysgol Pen-y-Bryn, Colwyn Bay

  34

  Ysgol Gynradd Llanerfyl, Welshpool

  8

  St. Cyres Comprehensive School, Penarth

  270

  Mary Immaculate RC High School, Cardiff

  150

  Stanwell Comprehensive School, Penarth

  182

  Ysgol Bryn Elian, Colwyn Bay

  161

  Eirias High School, Colwyn Bay

  200

  Ysgol Emrys ap Iwan, Abergele

  220

  St. Alban's RC Comprehensive School, Pontypool

  116

  Cwmcarn GM School, Cwmcarn

  133

  Brynmawr GM School, Brynmawr

  127

  Bishop Vaughan Catholic Comprehensive School, Swansea.

  185

  The Maelor School, Wrexham

  92

  Information on the number of pupils that each school plans to admit in September 1996 is not available centrally.

  Departmental Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure on publicity campaigns commissioned by his Department from 1 April 1995 to

  Gross current expenditure on repair and maintenance of local authority school buildings, fixed plant and grounds, at cash prices1

  £million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Clwyd

  3.3

  3.7

  3.7

  4.8

  5.6

  Dyfed

  3.9

  3.5

  4.3

  3.5

  3.1

  Gwent

  4.9

  5.5

  6.4

  6.5

  7.0

  Gwynedd

  2.5

  2.5

  2.5

  2.9

  2.9

  Mid Glamorgan

  10.3

  12.5

  11.5

  11.6

  9.9

  Powys

  1.5

  1.9

  2.1

  0.8

  0.7

  South Glamorgan

  4.4

  4.7

  5.5

  5.7

  5.0

  West Glamorgan

  6.4

  6.6

  5.9

  5.5

  7.1

  Wales

  37.0

  40.9

  42.0

  41.4

  41.4

  Note:
  1Excludes all capital expenditure. Excludes grant-maintained schools. Includes salaries of building maintenance workers and groundsmen, cost of materials, contract charges, including those relating to compulsory competitive tendering arrangements, recharges by external agencies, charges from direct service organisations, architects, engineers and surveyors and expenditure on energy conservation and on health and safety. Excludes salaries of caretakers, cleaners, etc.

  Source:
  Local authority returns.

  Housing and Care Report
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the report on "Crossing the Housing and Care Divide" by the Housing Corporation; if he will make it his policy to assist the elderly to remain in their own homes; and if he will make a statement. [24540]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government's community care policy recognises that people should be helped to continue to live in their existing housing where this is 428
  1 March 1996; what was (a) the purpose and (b) the cost of each publicity campaign; and if he will make a statement. [24610]

  Mr. Hague
  Forecast outturn for overall publicity expenditure in 1995–96 is £1.7 million, made up of many individual publicity projects, details of which can be produced only at disproportionate cost. However, two areas of significant publicity expenditure were:

  £

  Promotion of Business Connect

  187,000

  Placing of public notices relating to trunk road and special road schemes

  258,000

  Snowdonia Mountain Rescue Services
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times Snowdonia mountain rescue services were called into action in 1995; and if he will make a statement. [24606]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held by the Welsh Office.

  School Buildings (Repair and Maintenance)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amount was spent on repair and maintenance of school buildings(a) by each local education authority in Wales and (b) in Wales as a whole for each financial year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [24616]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is given in the following table. Figures for 1995–96 are not yet available.

  their preference and it is practicable and cost-effective for them to do so. Bringing together housing and social services within the new unitary authorities provides good opportunities for close working.

  The Welsh Office already provides considerable help to older people through its support of home renovation grants, minor works grants, disabled facilities grants and care and repair agencies. We shall continue to provide such support under new measures in the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill.

  British Coal Enterprise
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the effects on the terms of loans to small enterprises in Wales of the privatisation of British Coal Enterprise. [25004]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Existing loans made by British Coal Enterprise will be transferred to the new owners of the business funding activity as part of the sales process; their terms will not be affected by the sale. The terms of any new loans negotiated after the sale is concluded will be a matter for the parties to the loan.

  Rural White Paper
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what procedures have been put in place by his Department to monitor the environmental impacts arising from the implementation of "A Working Countryside for Wales: Wales Rural White Paper". [25294]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The cross-department team being set up to oversee the implementation of the White Paper will consider economic, social and environmental issues. It will include representatives of the Welsh Office environment division and the Countryside Council for Wales.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what alternative courses of action from those detailed in "A Working Countryside for Wales: Wales Rural White Paper" were considered in the environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department; [25292]

  (2) what environmental appraisal using the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" produced by the Department of the Environment "A Working Countryside for Wales: Wales Rural White Paper" has been subject to; and if he will publish the appraisal; [25291]

  (3) how "A Working Countryside for Wales: Wales Rural White Paper" was modified by the results of an environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department. [25293]

  Mr. Jones
  The White Paper represents a review of the full range of the Welsh Office's responsibilities which affect rural Wales. It was prepared in the light of the Government's policy of supporting sustainable development and protecting and conserving the environment, and is not itself susceptible to environmental appraisal, I am confident that the policies it sets out will separately and together improve the environment in rural Wales.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Small Businesses (Subsidised Loans)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what projects the £29 million subsidised loan scheme for small businesses from the EU special support programme for peace and reconciliation will be spent. [24527]

  Mr. Ancram
  The interest relief subsidy scheme under the EU special support programme for peace and reconciliation is designed to encourage productive 430
  investment in industry, related services and tourism. As the scheme has only recently been launched and will be open to applications until 28 February 1997, it is not possible to indicate which projects will benefit.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights was commissioned to review the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989; what research reports SACHR has commissioned; how much he expects the review to cost; and when SACHR's report is due to be published. [24529]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  An undertaking was given to this House that there would be a full review of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 after it had been operated for five years. In November 1994, I invited SACHR to assume responsibility for the review. Research projects commissioned by SACHR are as follows:

  (i) Vacancies, access to employment and long-term unemployment: three case studies.

  (ii) Specialist experience of FE legislation, the FEC and the FET: the experience of the Equality Forum.

  (iii) A review of the impact of TSN on public expenditure patterns and policy making in Northern Ireland.

  (iv) A review of the implementation and potential of PAFT.

  (v) A review of local councils' economic development activities.

  (vi) Long-term unemployment and the Community Work Programme in West Belfast.

  (vii) The impact of public sector job losses on employment equality.

  (viii) Public Attitudes to Fair Employment Issues; the Northern Ireland Social Attitudes Survey.

  (ix) Complainants' experiences of, and attitudes towards, FE legislation, the FEC and the FET.

  (x) A review of selected aspects of educational and training policy in Northern Ireland.

  (xi) The FEC as a regulatory and enforcement agency, Dr. Hilary Metcalf, Policy Studies Institute.

  (xii) A comparative review of 'fair employment'/equality of opportunity statutes and caselaw, affirmative action measures permitted adopted, in other jurisdictions, drawing comparisons with, and conclusions for, fair employment in Northern Ireland.

  (xiii) A Review of practice and procedure in the FET.

  (xiv) A critical review of the concept of 'fair participation'.

  (xv) A review of 'the Merit Principle'.

  (xvi) A paper reviewing FET case law.

  (xvii) To provide a critical response to the papers produced by projects 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 (`the legal group') together with an overview of the issues raised by all of them.

  (xviii) Change and continuity in the views of NI Political Parties and non-party organisation on employment equality issues and Fair Employment Legislation.

  (xix) Employers' experiences of, and attitudes towards, FE legislation, the FEC and the FET.

  The cost of the review is as follows: 1995–96£422,000; 1996–97—£248,000.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many directions have been given under section 6 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. [25237]
  431
  Mr. Ancram
  A total of 344 directions were given between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 1995.

  Roman Catholic Men (Employment)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Roman Catholic men are of economically active age in Northern Ireland. [24530]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The 1991 census of population provides the most recent information on the total population of Northern Ireland by age, religion and economic activity. The number of Roman Catholic men recorded in the census as being of economically active age—16 to 64—was 175,283.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of men in Northern Ireland of economically active age are Roman Catholic. [24531]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The 1991 census of population provides the most recent information on the total population of Northern Ireland by age, religion and economic activity. The percentage of men in Northern Ireland of economically active age—16 to 64—recorded in the census as Roman Catholic was 36.5 per cent.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Roman Catholic men in Northern Ireland are in employment. [24532]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The 1991 census of population provides the most recent information on the total population of Northern Ireland by age, religion and economic activity. The number of Roman Catholic men in Northern Ireland recorded in the census as in employment was 100,584.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of the men in employment in Northern Ireland are Roman Catholic. [24533]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The 1991 census of population provides the most recent information on the total population of Northern Ireland by age, religion and economic activity. The proportion of men in employment in Northern Ireland recorded in the census as Roman Catholic was 31.2 per cent.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Roman Catholic men are employed by(a) the Royal Ulster Constabulary and (b) the Army. [24534]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The numbers of men serving in the Royal Ulster Constabulary at 1 April 1996 who are perceived to be from the Roman Catholic community are:

  Number

  Regulars

  602

  Full-time reserve

  187

  Part-time reserve

  39

  Total

  828

  Information relating to employment by the Army is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
  432
  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of the men employed by(a) the Royal Ulster Constaulary and (b) the Army are Roman Catholic. [24535]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The proportion of men serving in the Royal Ulster Constabulary at 1 April 1996 who are perceived to be from the Roman Catholic community is:

  Percentage

  Regulars

  8.0

  Full-time reserve

  6.4

  Part-time reserve

  3.9

  Total

  7.2

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Roman Catholic men would be employed in(a) the Royal Ulster Constabulary and (b) the Army if the number employed were in proportion to the percentage of men of economically active age in Northern Ireland who are Roman Catholic. [24536]

  Sir John Wheeler
  If the number of Roman Catholic men in the RUC were similar to the percentage of Roman Catholic men who are economically active—36.5 per cent.—there would be approximately 2,751 Roman Catholic men in the regulars and 1,067 in the full-time reserve.

  Information relating to the Army is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many fewer Roman Catholic men are employed in Northern Ireland than would be the case if the number employed were in exact proportion to the percentage of men of economically active age in Northern Ireland who are Roman Catholic. [24537]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The 1991 census of population provides the most recent information on the total population of Northern Ireland by age, religion and economic activity. The number of Roman Catholic men of economically active age in employment in Northern Ireland was 100,584. This is 17,054 fewer than if the number employed were in exact proportion to the percentage of men of economically active age in Northern Ireland recorded as Roman Catholic.

  Fair Employment Tribunal
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases brought by individuals have been dismissed by the fair employment tribunal since January 1990. [25234]

  Mr. Ancram
  A total of 159 complaints brought by individuals have been dismissed by the fair employment tribunal during the period 1 January 1990 to 31 March 1996.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the cases heard by the fair employment tribunal were(a) individual cases of alleged discrimination, (b) appeals by employers to the tribunal and (c) applications by the commission for enforcement of undertakings. [25231]
  433
  Mr. Ancram
  The fair employment tribunal heard 207 complaints between 1 January 1990 and 31 March 1996. All involved individual complaints of alleged discrimination and there were no appeals by employers to the tribunal or application by the commission for enforcement of undertakings.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases before the fair employment tribunal have been settled; and of these cases how many were settled on terms endorsed on counsel's brief since January 1990. [25233]

  Mr. Ancram
  During the period 1 January 1990 to 31 March 1996, 50 complaints were conciliated by the Labour Relations Agency and 1,122 complaints were withdrawn. It is not known how many of these complaints were settled on terms endorsed on counsel's brief.

  Gas Licences
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on terms of licences being prepared by the Department for Economic Development for gas network development and supply of gas over that network indicting(a) what towns or districts are (i) to be included and (ii) to receive priority, (b) what measures are being taken not to prejudice network development and supply to a wider area and (c) what measures are being taken to promote network development and gas supply to the north-west; and what measures will be taken to encourage competition through the natural gas supply network on the same basis as in Great Britain. [24869]

  Mr. Ancram
  Premier Energy Suppliers Ltd. has sought a licence for the development of a natural gas industry in an area comprising Belfast, Lisburn, Newtownabbey, Carrickfergus, Larne, Holywood, Newtownards and Bangor and the Department has entered into discussions on the terms of such a licence. The roll-out of the new gas industry would be based on a development plan which has yet to be agreed.

  The licence would provide for third party access to the main transmission pipeline and gas could be taken through the licensed area to other areas.
  434
  The introduction of natural gas to the north-west, or any other area of Northern Ireland, would be undertaken by the private sector on the basis of commercial viability.

  The Department's objective is the introduction of competition in gas supply at the earliest possible stage. Periods of exclusivity may, however, be required given the very significant commercial risks associated with the development of a new gas industry.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases before industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland were settled since January 1990; and of these how many cases were settled on terms endorsed on counsel's brief. [24991]

  Mr. Ancram
  During the period 1 January 1990 to 31 March 1996, a total of 4,419 complaints to industrial tribunals were conciliated by the Labour Relations Agency and 8,839 complaints were withdrawn. It is not known how many of these complaints were settled on terms endorsed on counsel's brief.

  Peace Process
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the cost of the peace process broken down into costs of travel, accommodation, printing and ministerial and civil service time. [25259]

  Mr. Ancram
  It is not possible to provide the detailed information in the form requested.

  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in preparation for elections leading to all-party negotiations on 10 June. [25543]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have today published the draft of a Northern Ireland (Entry into Negotiations, Etc.) Bill, to be introduced in the House tomorrow. In parallel, following consultations with the political parties on the proposals in the consultation paper of 15 March, I have published as Command Paper 3232 the best judgment of the British and Irish Governments on the most suitable and broadly acceptable ground rules for the negotiations starting on 10 June 1996.

TRANSPORT

  Drivers' Hours (Cumbria)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons EU drivers' hours regulations now apply to some bus services in Cumbria hitherto governed by United Kingdom drivers' hours regulations. [23341]

  Mr. Norris
  UK rules apply to services less than 50 km long; the EU drivers' hours rules apply to regular services longer than 50 km using vehicles with 18 or more seats.

  Oil Pollution (Sea Empress Incident)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what have been the total costs incurred to date by the marine pollution control unit in clean-up operations following the Sea Empress incident; and what has been the cost of(a) the charter of oil skimming and recovery vessels, (b) the hire of road tankers for collected oil, (c) aerial spraying operations, (d) beach cleaning operations and (e) other related activities; [23287]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the likely final total costs to be incurred by the marine pollution control unit in all clean-up operations and related activities following the Sea Empress incident. [23288]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Ms Joan Walley, dated 16 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about MPCU costs following the Sea Empress incident.
  PQ 127C
  The final cost of the operation is estimated to be between £7m and £9m. To date the MPCU have received invoices totalling just over £3m.
  PQ 137C
  (a) The charter of oil skimming and recovery vessels invoiced to date, including manpower and the hire of equipment, is £1,140,040. There are still a number of invoices for vessel charter outstanding.
  (b) The hire of road tankers for collected oil was organised through the local oil industry and local authority roads and highways departments. Information on these costs is not currently available.
  (c) Aerial spraying and surveillance costs amount to £387,796 for aircraft and £317,796 for mobilising and transporting dispersant and for purchasing replacement dispersant.
  (d) Beach cleaning operations are still ongoing in a number of locations. To date the MPCU has been invoiced for £1,094,356.
  (e) Scientific support costs, car hire, overtime, travel and subsistence and minor miscellaneous items amount to £67,429.

  EDS Software
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the savings to date to his Department and his Department's agencies from out-sourcing arrangements made with the EDS software computer system; what assessment he has made of the equivalent costs of carrying out this work in-house; and if he will make a statement. [24361]
  436
  Mr. Norris
  At the time the contracts were awarded, the Department of Transport forecast that it would make savings of at least 25 per cent. The savings realised have been in line with this forecast.

  Shipping Companies (Assistance)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the shipping companies which have received assistance under(a) the Government assistance for training scheme and (b) the development of certificated sectors scheme in the past 12 months; and if he will provide a breakdown of the level of the assistance given to each company. [24476]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Marine Safety Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 16 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the amount of assistance received by shipping companies under the Government Assistance for Training (GAFT) and Development of Certificated Seafarers (DOCS) Schemes in the last 12 months, as the responsibility of administering the schemes lies with the Marine Safety Agency (MSA).
  May I first explain that assistance under the GAFT scheme, currently £55 per week, is not payable to shipping companies but to eligible trainees via "Managing Agents". The total assistance paid in the last 12 months amounted to £3.22 million of which £151,360 was paid to Managing Agents to cover administrative costs, at the rate of £110 per annum for each trainee.
  As regards DOCS, financial assistance is paid to eligible companies against the cost of each junior officer undergoing training for a second certificate of competency. The grant of £16 per training day for each trainee, amounted to £1,518,436 in the last 12 months. A breakdown of payments to companies is attached at Annex A.

  Annex A: Developments of Certificated Seafarers Scheme. Payments made from 1 April 1996 to 31 March 1996

  Company

  Payments £

  ARC Marine Ltd.

  17,984

  Bibby International Services (IOM) Ltd.

  26,736

  Boston Putford Offshore Safety

  20,304

  BP Shipping Ltd.

  265,856

  Cable and Wireless Marine Ltd.

  17,232

  Cunard Line Ltd.

  30,432

  Delta Marine Personnel Services Ltd.

  6,896

  Denholm Ship Management (TOM) Ltd.

  34,128

  F T Everard and Sons Ltd.

  18,128

  James Fisher and Sons (Liverpool) Ltd.

  55,296

  James Fisher and Sons Plc

  2,864

  London and Overseas Freighters (UK) Ltd.

  33,856

  Lowline Ltd.

  27,024

  Mobil Shipping Co Ltd.

  48,768

  Northern Marine Management Ltd.

  48,112

  Oil Ltd.

  43,360

  P&O Containers Ltd.

  171,136

  P&O Cruises Ltd.

  73,872

  P&O Tankships Ltd.

  12,800

  Petroleum Shipping Ltd.

  45,280

  R Lapthorn and Co Ltd.

  3,728

  Ropner Shipping Services Ltd.

  11,988

  Shell Marine Personnel (IOM) Ltd.

  332,640

  Souter Shipping Ltd.

  22,752

  South Coast Shipping Ltd.

  13,184

  Star Offshore Services Marine Ltd.

  1,328

  Stena Line Ltd.

  32,736

  Stirling Ship Management Ltd.

  8,400

  437

  Annex A: Developments of Certificated Seafarers Scheme. Payments made from 1 April 1996 to 31 March 1996

  Company

  Payments £

  Texaco Overseas Tankship Ltd.

  176

  The Maersk Company (IOM) Ltd.

  91,440

  Total

  1,518,436

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will identify the climbing company contracted to clear tree-bound protestors from the route of the Newbury bypass; and what are the forecast payments to this company. [24792]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Mike Gapes, dated 16 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about the climbing company contracted to clear tree bound protestors from the route of the Newbury Bypass and the forecast costs of the work.
  I understand from the Deputy Sheriff of the Royal County of Berkshire that he has used expert climbers from two companies: Nathan & Company (Sheriffs Officers) Ltd and Richard Turner Ltd.
  We expect the cost to be around £600,000 in total.

  Rail Privatisation
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what occasions he has held discussions with the franchising director about the timing of the franchising programmes; and if he will make a statement. [24765]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets regularly with the franchising director to discuss franchising issues including the timing of the franchising programme. He last met the franchising director on 26 March.

  The franchising programme is gaining momentum. Five franchises have been awarded: South West Trains, Great Western, InterCity East Coast, Gatwick Express and Network SouthCentral. The franchising director is in the final stages of negotiating franchise awards for Midland Main Line. LTS Rail has been re-tendered and the franchising director will award the franchise as soon as practicable. Initial bids were received for Chiltern and South Eastern on 22 March. Initial bids were invited for South Wales and West and Cardiff on
  27 March and are to be received by 6 June. The franchising director will issue invitations to tender for Anglia and Thames as soon as practicable. Further franchises are being developed and progress will be announced by the franchising director in due course.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to take a decision on the proportion of Railtrack to be sold in the forthcoming flotation; and if he will make a statement. [25436]

  Mr. Watts
  We intend a sale of substantially all of the Government's shares in Railtrack, subject to reserving shares to satisfy share bonus entitlements.

  Railtrack (Asset Maintenance)
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list studies commissioned by his Department into the costs of maintenance of Railtrack's assets over the next 10 years; and if he will indicate their conclusions. [24767]

  Mr. Watts
  My Department has not commissioned any such studies.

  Railtrack (Track Access Performance)
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much compensation has been paid by train operating companies to passengers for delays attributable to Railtrack since introduction of the track access performance monitoring regime. [24550]

  Mr. Watts
  The track access performance regime sets out compensation arrangements between Railtrack and train operators. It is not concerned with payments to passengers for late trains, which are made under operators' passenger charters.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the track access performance monitoring regime for Railtrack was introduced; and if he will make a statement. [24568]

  Mr. Watts
  Live running of the track access performance regime started on 10 December 1995.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what amount in supplementary track access charges has been paid by train operating companies and freight operating companies to cover the cost of compensation under the track access performance monitoring regime. [24551]

  Mr. Watts
  In 1995–96, passenger TOCs paid to Railtrack a supplementary access charge of £75 million. This charge was agreed between BR and Railtrack following a consultation exercise by the Rail Regulator.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much compensation has been paid to train operating companies and freight operating companies by Railtrack under the track access performance monitoring regime since its inception. [24549]

  Mr. Watts
  This is a commercial matter between Railtrack and the companies concerned.

  Tolls (Disabled People)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements he has made for motorists who are registered as disabled in contracts for the operation of roads and bridges where tolls are charged. [24796]

  Mr. Watts
  All the Acts under which Government have agreed concessions for the operation of tolled roads and bridges require exemptions from tolls for the disabled.

  Helicopter Search and Rescue Services
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many sorties have been flown in the last year by the Coastguard helicopter based at Lee-on-Solent. [24572]
  439
  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Peter Viggers, dated 16 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of sorties flown by the Coastguard helicopter at Lee-on-Solent.
  During 1995 the Coastguard helicopter based at Lee-on-Solent was tasked on 258 occasions. Since 1 January 1996 up to and including 31 March 1996 the aircraft has been tasked on 31 occasions.

  Road Contracts
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the design, build, finance and operate road contracts he expects to have let by April 1997, indicating for each the construction, non-maintenance projects he expects to have begun within these contracts by April 1997. [24775]

  Mr. Watts
  To date, four design, build, finance and operate projects have been let to the private sector:A69 Carlisle to Newcastle DBFO Project, which includes the A69 Haltwhistle bypass scheme;
  M1–A1 Yorkshire link DBFO project, which includes the M1–A1 link road: Lofthouse to Bramham scheme;
  A1(M) Alconbury to Peterborough DBFO project, which includes the A1(M) Alconbury to Peterborough improvement scheme;
  A419/A417 Swindon to Gloucester DBFO project, which includes the A419–A417 Cirencester and Stratton bypass scheme, A417 north of Stratton to Nettleton improvement scheme and A419 Latton bypass scheme.

  Construction on these six schemes within the four DBFO projects will start in the 1996–97 construction season.

  A further four DBFO projects remain on course to be let by the late spring. Contracts for these projects are currently being negotiated with private companies. It is reasonable to expect that construction of the schemes encompassed by these four projects will have begun by April 1997, assuming that negotiations deliver bids which are good value for money. These projects are:
  A168–A19 Dishforth to Tyne tunnel DBFO project, which includes the A19 Norton to Parkway interchange improvement scheme;
  A30–A35 Exeter to Bere Regis DBFO Project, which includes the A30 Honiton to Exeter improvement scheme and A25 Tolpuddle to Puddletown bypass scheme;
  A50–A564 Stoke to Derby link DBFO project, which includes the A564 Doveridge bypass scheme;
  M40 Junctions 1 to 15 DBFO project, which includes the M40 junction 1A to 3 widening scheme.

  Derailment (Wakefield)
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the derailment of a goods train on 9 March at Healey Mills yard, Wakefield. [24769]

  Mr. Watts
  On Saturday 9 March 1996, three wagons of a goods train were derailed in the marshalling yard at Healey Mills near Wakefield. At the time of the derailment the train was moving very slowly. There was no danger to other trains and no one was injured.

  Broken and Cracked Rails
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent changes have occurred in procedures for dealing with broken and cracked rails identified by the ultrasonic test train. [24766]

  Mr. Watts
  I am informed by Railtrack that there have been no recent changes in procedures for dealing with broken and cracked rails.

  British Transport Police
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if franchise agreements for rail operations will stipulate(a) the mandatory use of the British Transport police and
  (b) an obligation for operators to contribute to the costs of this service. [24764]

  Mr. Watts
  The British Transport police will continue, as a unified public force, to be responsible for policing Britain's rail network. Police services will be provided to all licensed railway operators, who will be obliged, through licence conditions, to enter into agreements with the British Transport police to use and pay for all law and order functions that require the use of professional police resources.

  Railways (Passenger Complaints)
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average cost of dealing with a passenger complaint under the current railway system; and what was the equivalent cost(a) one, (b) two and (c) three years ago. [24547]

  Mr. Watts
  Figures on the average cost of answering customer complaints about railway services are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Derailments (Rugby)
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many freight train derailments have taken place in Rugby during the last 12 months. [24768]

  Mr. Watts
  One freight train derailment at Rugby has been reported to the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate during the last 12 months.

  Railcard Information
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what safeguards are in place to ensure that information about railcard holders and railcard promotional schemes is not used by train operating companies that run bus and coach services to target and undercut other train operating companies' services with bus and coach services. [25439]

  Mr. Watts
  Arrangements between train operating companies prohibit the information on railcard databases being used in connection with the development of any product operating as an alternative to the railcard.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information is available to privatised train operating companies regarding the personal details of railcard holders. [25435]
  441
  Mr. Watts
  The inter-operator agreements governing the railcards provide for all operators to have access to any information held on a railcard database. Information held on railcard databases is protected under the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Railway Accident (Aisgill)
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the inquest will take place into the fatal railway accident at Aisgill on 31 January 1995. [25438]

  Mr. Watts
  An inquest into the railway accident at Aisgill is due to be held by the coroner for the Carlisle area assisted by an inspecting officer of railways. Setting a date for the inquest is a matter for the coroner. The inspector's report, under section 8 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1871, will be made public.

  Railtrack (Safety Offences)
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) improvements notices and (b) prosecutions have been initiated by the Health and Safety Executive against Railtrack since 1 April 1994. [25437]

  Mr. Watts
  Since 1 April 1994, the Health and Safety Executive has initiated 18 improvement notices and one prosecution against Railtrack.

  Crash Barriers
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the places where crash cushions have been installed in the last 12 months. [25419]

  Mr. Watts
  No crash cushions have been installed on the trunk road network in the last 12 months. Information on roads which are the responsibility of other highways authorities is not comprehensively available.

  Rail Services (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact of reduced staffing levels at railway stations on disabled access to train services. [25482]

  Mr. Watts
  None. The reduction of staffing levels at stations is a matter for individual station operators. All station operators are required to have regard to the needs of people with disabilities as a condition of being granted a licence to operate.

  The Department has carried out research recently into ways of enabling disabled people to travel safely to and from unstaffed stations. Among the options considered, in consultation with disabled people, were information systems and tactile and audible signals to help visually impaired people and stair lifts to provide access between platforms for people with walking difficulty. Other equipment, such as train-mounted ramps, has been used successfully at unstaffed stations by train operating companies.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of(a) the percentage increase in traffic on roads by the year 2005 and (b) the cost of consequent delays and inefficiencies. [25221]
  442
  Mr. Watts
  The Department's most recent forecasts show road traffic in 2005 between 16 per cent. and 26 per cent. higher than in 1996.

  The Department does not make estimates of the national cost of delays and inefficiencies. These costs at a national level are very difficult concepts to pin down. Others have made estimates of the UK cost of congestion on the basis of work carried out by the Organisation for Economic Congestion and Development some six years ago. However, the method used contains a number of gross simplifications and the results are consequently unreliable.

  Our own assessments focus on the appraisal of individual transport projects. They start from the baseline of current conditions and estimate the reduction in costs in the area concerned that can be achieved by implementing the project. These estimates are backed up by an on-going extensive programme of research on methodology.

  Overcrowded Trains (Safety)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 26 March,Official Report, columns 543–44, what assessment was made by the Health and Safety Executive of the additional time an overcrowded train will take to evacuate in the event of an accident. [25246]

  Mr. Watts
  The time taken to evacuate a train will depend on the type of accident and its location. This is particularly relevant when an accident occurs on electrified lines or where there are trains running on adjacent lines.

  In all incidents other than fires, it is preferable that passengers do not attempt to leave the train until directed to do so by railway staff or the emergency services. In such circumstances, crowded trains do not present a hazard for passenger safety.

  Marine Pollution
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those substances in respect of which, when spilled at sea, compensation for damage can be claimed from the international oil pollution compensation fund. [25328]

  Mr. Norris
  Under the terms of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, compensation is available from the international oil pollution compensation fund for pollution damage caused as a result of spills of "persistent hydrocarbon mineral oil" when carried as cargo at sea, or spills of bunker oil from laden tankers. A comprehensive list of substances which fall within this definition is not readily available, but it does include orimulsion.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if damage caused by a spillage at sea of orimulsion is covered by the international oil pollution compensation fund. [25327]

  Mr. Norris
  Yes.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to produce a compliance cost assessment for the forthcoming White Paper on transport policy; and if it will be publicly available. [25278]

  Sir George Young
  It is the Department's policy to produce compliance cost assessments for all regulatory proposals which have an impact on business, voluntary organisations and charities. Copies of all assessments are sent to the Libraries of both Houses and are available, on request, from this Department.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many compliance cost assessments were produced by his Department in 1995; and if he will place copies of them in the Library. [25277]

  Mr. Norris
  This Department produced 17 compliance cost assessments for new regulations last year. In common with other Government Departments, copies of cost assessments are placed in the House Libraries.

  Bull Bars
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of bull bars in Britain he estimates will be banned under the present proposed amendment to the European external projection directive now being considered by the Commission; and what vehicles will be included. [24834]

  Mr. Norris
  The present proposed amendment to the European external projections directive will apply to the type approval of new cars, including car-type four-wheel drive vehicles, and to bull bars for these vehicles which are sold separately. The effect would be to allow a ban of all bull bars with a rigid metal surface for these vehicles.

  Millennium Exhibition
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ensure there are adequate facilities for river traffic in connection with the millennium exhibition at Greenwich. [25005]

  Mr. Norris
  It is anticipated that the majority of visitors would use means of transport other than the river and would therefore benefit from the improvements in transport capacity outlined in the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) on 11 March,Official Report, columns 470–71. The development of a river service to the millennium exhibition is a matter for the private sector in conjunctions with the consortium running the exhibition, but the Government would consider the case for contributing to the provision or upgrading of necessary piers in that connection.

  London Underground
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the operation by a separate organisation of(a) telecommunications, (b) power supply and transmission, (c) ticketing, (d) train maintenance, (e) train operating, (f) station management including staffing,(g) railway signalling and (h) track maintenance and renewal on the London Underground. [25512]
  444
  Mr. Norris
  Whether services are best provided in-house or by contractors is a matter for London Underground to decide. It is currently holding competitions under the private finance initiative for projects involving telecommunications, electricity generation and distribution, and ticketing and revenue collection. Some train and track maintenance work is already carried out by contractors.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what investigations are being made into the power failure on the London Underground system on 6 April; who is conducting these investigations; to whom they will report; what findings will be published; and when. [25509]

  Mr. Norris
  London Underground Ltd. staff are carrying out an investigation into the power failure on the underground on 6 April and the lessons to be learned. The investigation is under the direction of Denis Tunnicliffe, LUL's managing director, and its report will be made to the board of London Transport. The report is expected to be completed in early May. Publication of its findings would be a matter for the LT board.

  Bus Routes (London)
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers London borough councils have to determine(a) whether London Transport will be permitted to run single or double-decker bus routes and (b) to site bus stops in (i) trunk roads and (ii) local roads. [25383]

  Mr. Norris
  London boroughs have powers to make orders to regulate traffic, including buses, on roads for which they are the highway authority. The siting of stops is a matter for London Transport and either the appropriate borough in the case of local roads, or the Traffic Director for London in the case of stops on the red route network—which includes all trunk roads.

  Silvertown to Woolwich Rail Tunnel
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the bodies represented on a project team to investigate engineering, environmental and financial aspects of the proposed Silvertown to Woolwich rail tunnel; who is responsible for its chairing and administration; to whom it will report; what bodies will need to give consent to any recommendations of the project team; and what is the planned timetable for its operation and subsequent activities. [24577]

  Mr. Norris
  British Rail, Railtrack, London Transport and the London Docklands development corporation are jointly undertaking a study into the feasibility of the scheme for a rail tunnel between Silvertown and Woolwich. It is hoped that the results of the study will be put to me soon, with a view to a subsequent public report. I shall consider their recommendations carefully, especially with regard to the scope for private finance, the case for and affordability of any public funding, and whether powers should be sought. There is, as yet, no firm timetable.

SCOTLAND

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department will accept an average of the annual amount of hours' study undertaken, calculated over the number of weeks of the course, as a weekly figure when deciding whether students are part time for the purposes of the jobseeker's allowance. [24811]

  Mr. Forth
  The jobseeker's allowance regulations provide that a person who undertakes a course funded or part-funded by the Further Education Funding Council for Wales will be considered to be a part-time student if a document signed on behalf of the establishment which is funded by the FEFC for Wales for the delivery of the course says that the course involves 16 guided learning hours, or less, a week.

  In the case of courses funded by the Secretary of State for Scotland at a college of further education, a student will be considered to be part time if a document signed on behalf of the college says that the course involves 16 hours or less a week of classroom or workshop-based programmed learning under the direct guidance of teaching staff; or 21 hours or less a week, made up of 16 hours or less of classroom or workshop-based programme learning under the direct guidance of teaching staff and additional hours using structured learning packages with the support of teaching staff.

  In both cases, the Employment Service will accept these documents as evidence of whether or not a person is a part-time student. In the case of courses funded by the FEFC for Wales, the number of hours per week will be calculated on the basis of a weekly average of the number of guided learning hours for the course. In the case of courses funded by the Secretary of State for Scotland at a college of further education, the number of hours of study per week will be calculated in the same way.

  Housing Revenue Account (Borrowing)
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the level of borrowing consent for the housing revenues account capital budget of each local authority in(b) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [24612]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Local authority housing capital allocations: 1995–96 and 1996–97 borrowing consent

  Housing revenue account

  Authority

  Borrowing consent £ million

  1995–96

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  0.063

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  0.644

  Roxburgh

  1.474

  Tweeddale

  0.609

  Central

  Clackmannan

  0.327

  Falkirk

  3.038

  Stirling

  3.595

  Dumfries and Galloway

  446

  Local authority housing capital allocations: 1995–96 and 1996–97 borrowing consent

  Housing revenue account

  Authority

  Borrowing consent £ million

  Annandale and Eskdale

  0.543

  Nithsdale

  2.782

  Stewartry

  0.000

  Wigtown

  1.177

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  2.234

  Kirkcaldy

  1.629

  North East Fife

  0.000

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  0.577

  Banff and Buchan

  0.000

  Gordon

  2.337

  Kincardine and Deeside

  0.770

  Moray

  0.000

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  0.433

  Caithness

  1.082

  Inverness

  2.404

  Lochaber

  1.970

  Nairn

  0.263

  Ross and Cromarty

  2.915

  Skye and Lochalsh

  1.077

  Sutherland

  0.496

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  1.691

  Edinburgh

  18.488

  Midlothian

  2.280

  West Lothian

  0.000

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  0.004

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  0.880

  Clydebank

  3.486

  Clydesdale

  0.874

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  0.201

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  0.847

  Cunninghame

  3.086

  Dumbarton

  3.959

  East Kilbride

  0.471

  Eastwood

  0.741

  Glasgow

  58.788

  Hamilton

  0.000

  Inverclyde

  5.048

  Kilmarnock and Londoun

  2.460

  Kyle and Carrick

  0.448

  Monklands

  3.820

  Motherwell

  5.336

  Renfrew

  9.986

  Strathkelvin

  2.049

  Tayside

  Angus

  0.597

  Dundee

  8.414

  Perth and Kinross

  0.769

  Islands areas

  Orkney

  0.000

  Shetland

  2.949

  Westerm Islands

  2.556

  1996–97

  Aberdeen City

  1.691

  Aberdeenshire

  3.901

  Angus

  1.048

  Argyll and Bute

  0.984

  Clackmannan

  0.926

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3.892

  Dundee City

  10.012

  East Ayrshire

  2.888

  East Dunbartonshire

  2.571

  East Lothian

  1.911

  447

  Local authority housing capital allocations: 1995–96 and 1996–97 borrowing consent

  Housing revenue account

  Authority

  Borrowing consent £ million

  East Renfrewshire

  0.693

  Edinburgh City

  16.512

  Falkirk

  4.750

  Fife

  1.963

  Glasgow City

  58.001

  Highland Region

  7.269

  Inverclyde

  4.072

  Midlothian

  2.144

  Moray

  0.537

  North Ayrshire

  2.943

  North Lanarkshire

  11.925

  Orkney

  0.000

  Perthshire and Kinross

  1.813

  Renfrewshire

  8.832

  Scottish Borders

  2.231

  Shetland

  2.217

  South Ayrshire

  1.499

  South Lanarkshire

  1.222

  Stirling

  2.756

  West Dunbartonshire

  6.078

  West Lothain

  1.496

  Western Isles

  2.223

  Road Congestion
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish maps showing forecasts of future road congestion for Scotland on the same basis as those published for England. [25178]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In 1992, the Government published the document "Roads, Traffic and Safety 1992", which included a summary of the findings of the Scottish Office's then recently completed trunk and key principal road network review.

  This review included a level of service analysis of existing and forecast future road congestion for Scotland. Figures 3.5a and 3.5b on page 14 of "Roads, Traffic and Safety 1992" are maps illustrating the level of service analyses for 1990, and for 2010 assuming high national road traffic forecasts. A copy of the document is in the Member's Library.

  Chess
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the amount of public expenditure on chess in Scotland during the current year and during each of the five previous years. [25189]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Scottish Chess Association has been offered a grant of £7,850 to assist with the cost in the current financial year of maintaining its headquarters operation. The information set out in the table details the financial assistance provided in each of the five previous years:

  Year

  Headquarters grant £

  1991–92

  6,500

  1992–93

  11,000

  448

  Year

  Headquarters grant £

  1993–94

  7,500

  1994–95

  8,800

  1995–96

  7,850

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy in respect of the separate funding arrangement administered by the Scottish Office Education Department to the Scottish Chess Association. [25190]

  Mr. Robertson
  The Scottish Office Education and Industry Department provides grant funding to the Scottish Chess Association to assist with the cost of operating its headquarters administration. Grant is paid through a scheme which assists national voluntary organisations in the community education field in terms of the Further Education (Approved Associations) (Scotland) Grant Regulations 1989. Grant support to SCA takes into account costs of promoting the development of chess amongst young people particularly through schools.

  Local Government Reform
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the method of calculating the capital expenditure allocation for 1996–97 for the new unitary authorities in Scotland. [25359]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Capital allocations for the new unitary authorities have been determined partly by formula and partly following consideration of authoritiess' financial plans and annual policy statements. The new councils will also receive an allocation to cover expenditure they incur as a result of legal commitments entered into by their predecessors.

  Council Tax
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the costs(a) in cash terms and (b) at current prices of (i) introducing the community charge in Scotland and (ii) introducing the council tax in Scotland. [25420]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Scottish Office provided additional capital allocations amounting to £21 million for the introduction of the community charge and additional provision of £24 million within the 1992–93 local government finance settlement for the introduction of the council tax. These are cash figures, and equate to £37.7 million and £25.8 million respectively at current prices. Local authorities expenditure returns, however, indicate that they spent only £7.3 million—cash—or £7.9 million—current prices—of the £24 million in preparation for the council tax in 1992–93.

  Fatal Accident Inquiries
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state for each year since 1976 the number of instances where there has been a death to which section 1 of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 applies, and the next of kin has requested a fatal accident inquiry and such inquiry has been(a) refused and (b) held; and if he will take steps to ensure that where under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden

  449
  Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 a fatal accident inquiry is not held contrary to the wishes of the next of kin, steps are taken to explain the reason for such decision to the next of kin with particular reference to the use of a private interview. [25427]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate informs me that the information requested concerning the number of death cases which fall into the categories referred to by the hon. Member is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I understand from the Lord Advocate that procurators fiscal, where appropriate, will interview relatives of the deceased to ascertain whether there is any wish for a fatal accident inquiry to be held. In the course of the interview, the procurator fiscal will explain the public inquiry system and the criteria for holding inquiries. The interview also gives the next of kin the opportunity to obtain information from the procurator fiscal about the cause and circumstances of the death. If it is decided not to hold a fatal accident inquiry, this decision will be communicated to the next of kin.

  Right to Buy
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will amend the Tenants' Rights etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 so that tenants of council houses whose titles disclose rights of pre-emption to superiors or prohibitions against sub-division are entitled to the benefit of the right to buy. [25429]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The interaction between a tenant's right to buy under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, which consolidated earlier legislation, and rights of pre-emption by feudal superiors is at present the subject of an appeal to the House of Lords. It would be inappropriate to amend the legislation in advance of the outcome of the appeal.

  Meanwhile, it remains the Government's view that local authorities are free to remove any such obstacle to the exercising of the right to buy by negotiating a waiver of any pre-emption rights with the feudal superior or by applying to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland under section 1 of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations have been received and from whom that the Tenants' Rights etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 should be amended in order to ensure tenants have a statutory right to purchase properties whose titles contain rights of pre-emption and prohibition against sub division. [25430]

  Mr. Robertson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 19 October 1995,Official Report, column 321. No further representations have been received.

  Education for Sustainable Development Group
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what(a) recommendations; (b) public consultations and (c) public statements have been made by the education for sustainable development group within the Scottish Office since its establishment in September 1995; and if he will provide details. [25423]
  450
  Mr. Kynoch
  In "A Scottish Strategy for Environmental Education", published in June 1995, the Secretary of State asked his advisory group on sustainable development, chaired by Sir Charles Fraser, to take on a national role in environmental education as part of its wider programme on sustainable development. It established a sub-group on education for sustainable development with a remit to review and report on education for sustainable development and the environment, with particular regard to:promoting a strategic approach and assessing its effectiveness;
  suggesting priorities for resource allocation;
  focusing attention on concerns within sustainable development, in which education has a major influence;
  suggesting research and monitoring which might underpin the setting of targets; and
  making recommendations to the advisory group on sustainable development.

  The sub-group, chaired by Professor Bart McGettrick, has met on four occasions, beginning on 31 July 1995, and will shortly publish its first action plan setting out its planned programme of activity.

  Private Landed Estates
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what mechanisms are in place for monitoring the use of publicly funded(a) grants and (b) loans to private landed estates in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [25465]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  There are no separate mechanisms for monitoring the use of publicly funded assistance to private estates in Scotland. Each grant or loan scheme includes its own mechanism for monitoring, and the conditions attaching to the monitoring exercise are applied to all recipients of assistance irrespective of their land tenure status.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those land owners known to the Scottish Office at the present time who own estates in Scotland of over 500 acres, and express their total land holding as a percentage of the total land area of the country; and if he will make a statement. [25514]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not available for the whole of Scotland. Information on title to land over two hectares which has been registered on the land register is available from the Registers of Scotland executive agency.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the publicly funded(a) grants and (b) loans received by the Atholl estate since 1979; what mechanisms are currently in place to monitor the use of such payments; and if he will make a statement. [25466]

  Mr. Robertson
  Details of financial assistance given to Atholl estate since 1979 are not held centrally. The collation of this information could be achieved only at disproportionate cost.

  The monitoring of any such payments is designed to ensure the achievement of the particular scheme objectives and the fulfilment of individual scheme conditions.

  Ministerial Aircraft
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the total costs of running his ministerial aircraft since his appointment; and if he will provide a breakdown of journeys, giving dates and the passengers on each journey. [25493]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There is no ministerial aircraft.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of departmental expenditure on administration for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90, (c) 1991–92, (d) 1993–94, (e) 1994–95, (j) 1995–96 and (g) 1996–97. [11409]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]Gross running costs for the Scottish Office, excluding the Scottish Prison Service, are as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Cash

  Real terms

  1996–97

  184.0

  184.0

  1995–96

  189.2

  194.4

  1994–95

  185.9

  196.3

  1993–94

  188.4

  202.6

  1991–92

  175.1

  201.7

  1989–90

  142.0

  187.7

  1979–80

  58.0

  153.0

  With the exception of those for 1979–80 and 1989–90, the cash figures above are shown in appendix 3 of the 1996 departmental report for my departments (Cm 3214). The figures for 1979–80 are not strictly comparable with those for later years owing to the introduction of superannuation charges of approximately 13 per cent. which have been taken into account from 1989–90 onwards, the introduction of charges for the occupation of Government offices in 1983–84—which now amount to some £25 million per annum—and various shifts of responsibility from UK Departments to the Scottish Office. The total effect of these changes has been to increase the figures over the period by an amount estimated in 1996–97 to be approximately £40 million per annum.

  BSE
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of BSE have been identified in Ayrshire in each of the past 10 years; and how many farms were involved. [23761]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Cases

  1986

  Nil

  1987

  Nil

  1988

  5

  1989

  25

  1990

  65

  1991

  93

  1992

  250

  1993

  277

  1994

  166

  452

  Year

  Cases

  1995

  64

  1996

  6

  Total

  951

  Farms may count in more than one year. The total number of farms involved is 383.

  Scottish Pre-School Play Association
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his meeting with Mrs. Doreen Black of the Scottish Pre-School Play Association. [22194]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: On 25 March I met the chairman and chief executive of the Scottish Pre-School Play Association. We had a useful and informative exchange of views and in particular I welcomed their support for our expansion of pre-school provision. I undertook to consider carefully the points made by the association.

  Departmental Promotion
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much the Scottish Office has spent promoting(a) the right-to-buy scheme and (b) exemptions from prescription charges in 1995–96; and of that, how much was spent in each case on (i) television, (ii) radio and (iii) the press. [24459]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 April 1996]: In 1995–96, my Department spent £168,000 on promoting the right-to-buy scheme, of which £111,000 was spent on television and £57,000 on press. A total of £21,000 was spent on a press campaign to publicise exemptions from prescription charges.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total expenditure on publicity campaigns commissioned by his Department from 1 April 1995 to 1 March 1996, showing (i) the medium, (ii) the purpose and (iii) the cost of each publicity campaign. [24460]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 April 1996]: The information requested is as shown:

  Medium

  Purpose

  Cost £

  Radio and press

  To recruit members to Children's Panels

  88,000

  Cinema, radio, press, posters, leaflets and booklets

  Campaign against housebreaking

  244,000

  Television

  Campaign against domestic violence

  84,000

  Television and press

  To encourage electoral registration

  60,000

  Television and leaflet

  To encourage pre-planning of fire escape route

  323,000

  Press and leaflet

  To inform men over 60 of changes in prescription charge legislation

  21,000

  Press

  To recruit organ donors

  35,000

  453

  Medium

  Purpose

  Cost £

  Television, cinema, radio and posters

  To encourage enrolment in children's traffic club; to encourage young drivers to drive more carefully and discourage speeding

  320,000

  Television and press

  Informing public sector tenants of their right to purchase their homes

  168,000

  Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the application of schedule 1 to the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 to Scotland; and what reply he has given. [13815]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 7 March 1996]: Forty-eight letters have been received from members of the Banking Insurance and Finance Union asking for the Government's support in seeking dialogue between BIFU and the Committee of Scottish Clearing Bankers with a view to reversing the decision by the Scottish clearing banks to harmonise their bank holidays with those in England and Wales.

  Replies to these letters have made it clear that the banks took their decision for business reasons, after taking their own legal advice. They did not consult the Scottish Office about their decision, nor were they obliged to do so. The days on which banks decide to close or open is a matter for them.

  The statutory bank holidays in Scotland remain those set out in schedule 1 to the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 or proclaimed each year under that Act. The legislation does not expressly require the banks, or any other employer, to close on bank holidays. Its general effect is to provide certain financial safeguards for banks who do not transact business on those days. The Government have noted the decision of the Scottish clearing banks, and although we have no present plans to change the legislation on bank holidays, we will continue to keep the position under review.

  Bank holidays, like all other pay and conditions issues, are a contractual matter for agreement between employers and employees. The law does not give any statutory rights to time off, or extra pay, on bank holidays. The initiative lies entirely with the banks and their decision is not one in which the Government can intervene.

DEFENCE

  Cyprus (Murder)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who has funded the legal costs for the defence of riflemen of the Royal Green Jackets against the charges of assault and manslaughter of Louise Jensen in Cyprus in September 1994. [24072]

  Mr. Soames
  The legal costs for the three soldiers have been funded from the Army legal aid scheme.

  Daedalus Site
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what current plans he has for the future of the Daedalus site at Lee-on-Solent. [24571]

  Mr. Soames
  The HMS Daedalus site is surplus to MOD requirements and is due to be vacated by the Navy on 31 July 1996. A working group comprising MOD officials and officers from the relevant local authorities has been set up to consider its future use, development opportunities and an appropriate disposal strategy.

  Alderney
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to release the papers relating to the wartime occupation of Alderney. [24613]

  Mr. Soames
  We hope to release the few remaining closed papers covering the wartime occupation of Alderney later this year.

  HMS Dolphin
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of HMS Dolphin. [24570]

  Mr. Soames
  Options for the future use of HMS Dolphin are currently being considered. Any proposals for change will be subject to consultation.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops are currently on active service in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement. [25014]

  Mr. Soames
  There are currently some 10,500 UK troops with the NATO peace implementation force in Bosnia.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which British aircraft are currently in use in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement. [25011]

  Mr. Soames
  RAF Chinook, RN Sea King and Army Air Corps Lynx and Gazelle helicopters operate with UK forces in Bosnia. RAF Harrier GR7, Tristar and E-3D AWACS aircraft based in Italy and C130 aircraft from the UK operate in support of IFOR.

  Departmental Properties
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answers of 11 December 1995,Official Report, columns 482–84 and 1 April, Official Report, columns 38–41, what factors led to information on the number of properties owned by his Department in each parliamentary constituency being currently unavailable. [24922]

  Mr. Soames
  The Defence housing executive took over the management of the family quarters estate from the services on 1 April 1996. The estate is managed by area managers who report to regional controllers and details of all the properties are now held centrally by address and postal code. Cross referencing to parliamentary constituencies can presently be done only at
  455
  disproportionate cost. Copies of a map showing the regions and areas will be placed in the Library when they are available.

  Defence Spending
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what amount(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of gross national product was spent on defence in the last year for which figures are available by (i) each NATO country, (ii) Japan, (iii) Switzerland, (iv) Finland and (v) Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [25008]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of defence expenditure by NATO countries in 1994 are contained in page 82 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. According to The Military Balance 1995/96, compiled by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, comparable information for Japan, Switzerland, Finland and Ireland is as follows:

  Defence expenditure 1994 $ million

  As percentage of GDP

  Japan

  45,800

  1.0

  Switzerland

  4,300

  1.6

  Finland

  1,970

  2.0

  Ireland

  622

  1.2

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, for each European member of NATO, defence expenditure expressed(a) by proportion of gross national product and (b) on a per capita basis. [25398]

  Mr. Soames
  This information is contained in page 82 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the fast jet types which are authorised to conduct night low flying in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [25010]

  Mr. Soames
  The fast jet types normally authorised to operate in the United Kingdom night low flying system are: Canberra, F15, Harrier, Jaguar and Tornado.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low flying movements were recorded over Wales in 1995; and if he will make a statement. [25157]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) gave him on 16 February 1994,Official Report, column 818.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Llanishen
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 April,Official Report, column 95, when he expects to have an estimate of the decommissioning costs of Atomic Weapons Establishment, Llanishen, Cardiff, and for how long the site will require sterilisation before any after-use. [25193]
  456
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  An estimate of the decommissioning costs of the atomic weapons establishment, Llanishen, Cardiff was made in 1994. It was taken into account in reaching the decision to close the factory. A period of sterilisation will not be required once the work of decontaminating the site has been completed in accordance with the requirements of the local authority.

  Armed Forces (Roles)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what roles and functions are carried out by Her Majesty's armed forces that are not carried out by other European members of NATO. [25397]

  Mr. Soames
  The roles and tasks of Her Majesty's armed forces are set out in annex A of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. The main functions they carry out which are not mirrored by other European members of NATO's integrated military structure include the provision of nuclear forces, the defence of our dependent territories and military aid to the civil power in Northern Ireland.

  Asbestos, Broughton Moor
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will authorise a full land and building contamination survey for asbestos by the Royal Ordnance Environmental Services Group on the former Royal Navy armaments depot—RNAD—site at Broughton moor, Cumbria. [25261]

  Mr. Soames
  Royal Ordnance Environmental Services Group was among the unsuccessful bidders for a term contract to carry out land quality assessments of MOD sites. A site assessment of the former RNAD Broughton moor, of which asbestos contamination is one element, has now been completed.

  Torbay Submarine
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the recent failure in the steering system of the atomic-powered submarine Torbay in Plymouth sound. [25395]

  Mr. Soames
  HMS Torbay's electrical primary steering gear failed as the submarine was leaving Devonport naval base on 12 March. Torbay was brought to a controlled stop under her primary hydraulic steering gear, which was activated automatically. She then moved to a mooring buoy and, following successful checks and repairs, proceeded to sea. She remained under control at all times and was throughout accompanied by two tugs, as is standard practice for nuclear submarines in Plymouth sound, although a third tug was made available as a precaution. This was a minor incident with no nuclear or other safety implications.

  Legal Costs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spent on legal costs in defending personnel in military and civilian courts in each of the last five years; and what is his estimate for the current year. [24831]
  457
  Mr. Soames
  Service legal aid is available to accused service personnel who are to be tried by courts martial, or wish to appeal to the courts martial appeal court, or are to be tried by a civilian criminal court outside the UK in respect of an offence committed while off duty, or are to be tried before standing civilian courts. Records of the total costs of this aid are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Bulford Barracks
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is his policy to reduce overcrowding at barracks in Bulford; and what assessment he has made of the number involved. [24873]

  Mr. Soames
  It is our policy that soldiers should, wherever possible, live in appropriately scaled accommodation. To this end, an assessment was made of the barracks at Bulford which showed that the single soldier accommodation was significantly overcrowded and in need of refurbishment. The move from Bulford of 249 Signal Squadron and the Allied Command Europe Mobile Force (Land) Combat Service support battalion will ease the overcrowding problem and allow the existing accommodation to be refurbished. It will also enable more efficient use to be made of the barracks at Colerne and Hullavington to which these units will relocate.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will replace the 350 service personnel due to vacate Bulford barracks in 1997 and 1998 with a like number; and if he will make a statement. [24874]

  Mr. Soames
  There are currently no plans to make any significant increases in the number of Army personnel based at Bulford. The deployment of Army units and the use of the defence estate are, however, kept under review to ensure that defence resources are employed cost effectively while maximising operational capabilities.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when 249 Signal Squadron will vacate Bulford barracks; [24918]

  (2) when Allied Command Europe Mobile Force (Land) Combat Service support battalion will vacate Bulford barracks. [24919]

  Mr. Soames
  We expect both of these moves to occur during 1998, but the precise timings have yet to be decided.

  Accommodation
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of units(a) single accommodation and (b) married quarters at (1) Craigiehall, Edinburgh (2) Glencorse, Peniciuk, (3) Benbecula and (4) King's barracks, Kirkudbright. [25188]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is given below:

  Single accommodation

  Family accommodation

  Craigiehall, Edinburgh

  221

  110

  Glencorse, Penicuik

  792

  51

  458

  Single accommodation

  Family accommodation

  Benbecula

  692

  212

  King's barracks, Kirkcudbright1

  —

  —

  1 Temporary hard lying accommodation available for training purposes only. A development programme on Kirkcudbright will provide 480 units of single accommodation by 2001.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many compliance cost assessments were produced by his Department in 1995; and if he will place copies in the Library. [25276]

  Mr. Soames
  The MOD is not a regulator of business or responsible for any primary or secondary legislation which impacts significantly upon business. However, my Department published one compliance cost assessment in November 1995 to accompany the new Reserve Forces Bill because of its potential impact on some businesses. A copy was placed in the Library of the House.

  NATO Implementation Force
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Territorial Army and Army Reserve are to be called out for the second phase of the United Kingdom's contribution to the NATO implementation force in former Yugoslavia. [25325]

  Mr. Soames
  Approval has been given to call out up to 575 members of the TA and Army Reserve to provide support to operations in former Yugoslavia. They will report from 29 April 1996 to the mobilisation centre and those selected will undertake refresher training before deployment. All are volunteers.

  Project D154
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the costs quoted in the original bid; what are the current estimated costs of Project D154; what is the reason for the difference; and from what source the additional expenditure will be met. [25411]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The 1993 comparator offer by Devonport Management Ltd.—DML—was some £236 million. Comparison between this and the heads of agreement recently signed with DML for construction of nuclear submarine refitting facilities would be unrealistic because the 1993 offer was not of contractual qualify and different factors, for example different levels of risk, were included in the prices. Certain contractual details, including price, remain subject to negotiation and are commercially confidential. Any additional costs will be contained within my Department's forward expenditure totals.

  Radar Base, Mormond Hill
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to(a) use or (b) dispose of the former MOD radar base at Mormond Hill; and if he will make a statement. [25424]
  459
  Mr. Soames
  Part of the site at Mormond Hill is to be retained for on-going MOD requirements. The remainder is expected to be offered for sale on the open market.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for public consultation prior to a final decision on the future of the former MOD radar base at Mormond Hill; and if he will make a statement. [25425]

  Mr. Soames
  Any change of use by a purchaser of the surplus site at Mormond Hill would require planning permission in the normal way. It would be for the local planning authority to take account of any representations from the public.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with(a) commercial firms and (b) other bodies on the future of the former MOD radar base at Mormond Hill; and if he will make a statement. [25426]

  Mr. Soames
  Communications have been received from two telecommunications companies, a local landowner and a power company and from the director of planning and economic development for the Aberdeenshire council and from the Grampian regional council.

  Emergency Aid, Montserrat
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many defence personnel and what equipment is currently deployed on emergency aid duties in Montserrat; and if he will make a statement. [25488]

  Mr. Soames
  There are currently no defence personnel or equipment deployed on emergency aid duties in Montserrat. However, the West Indies guardship is on standby in the region and we are in close and regular contact with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about possible requirements for military assistance.

  Apprentice Training
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to restructure apprentice training within the Army. [25538]

  Mr. Soames
  A review of apprentice training arrangements in the Army has recommended, subject to consultation, that they should be restructured along the lines of the Government flagship initiative on modern apprenticeship training, which is intended to raise the competence and competitiveness of the UK work force as a whole.

  The Army's scheme, which will encompass the Royal Engineers, Royal Signals, Royal Signals Corps and the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, would be open to young people aged sixteen and a half to eighteen and a half, and would commence with a common 28-week foundation course at Rowcroft barracks, Arborfield followed by technical training at the appropriate arm or service's trade training school and a period of on-the-job training leading to the award of a national vocational qualification—NVQ—level three within three to four years.
  460
  The proposals would necessitate some revision to our previous plans to transfer all R Signals apprentice training to Blandford. Under the new arrangements, future R Signals apprentices would still complete their trade training at Blandford, but only after completing their 28-week foundation course at Arborfield.

  Rosyth
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guarantees he will provide for the current Rosyth dockyard pension and redundancy arrangements following its sale; and what plans he has in respect of the pension fund surpluses. [25373]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  In respect of the overall pension and redundancy arrangements at Rosyth Royal Dockyard plc, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), on 3 July 1995,Official Report, columns 84–90. The treatment of any surplus that the next valuation of the Rosyth Royal Dockyard pension scheme may disclose will be fully consistent with the trust deed and rules of the pension scheme and will not affect the pension benefit entitlements of scheme members and beneficiaries.

  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guarantees he will provide for the work load of Rosyth Royal Dockyard plc following its sale. [25372]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Government's policy on the allocation of work to Rosyth dockyard continues to be governed by the principles announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary as Defence Secretary, on 24 June 1993,Official Report, columns 447–50, which I confirmed in my answer on 2 April 1996, Official Report, column 98. The precise contractual arrangements relating to the work in question are the subject of negotiation between my Department and the tenderer for Rosyth Royal Dockyard plc, Babcock International Group plc. It would be inappropriate to give details of these discussions, which are commercially confidential.

  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to announce the outcome of the proposed sale of Rosyth Royal Dockyard plc; and what factors underlie the delay in that announcement. [25362]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  As I made clear in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir J. Spicer) on 2 April,Official Report, column 98, negotiations continue with Babcock International Group plc in respect of the proposed sale of Rosyth Royal Dockyard plc and there has been no delay in any announcement. It would not be appropriate to comment on the details of those negotiations while they are under way. Privatisation of Rosyth Royal Dockyard plc remains the Government's preferred option, subject to the right terms being secured and to the completion of appropriate consultation with employees and others.

  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements for the provision of nuclear refuelling and refitting facilities will be included in the terms of the sale of Rosyth dockyard. [25361]
  461
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Under the terms of the proposed sale of Rosyth Royal Dockyard plc, the purchaser will be required to carry out all allocated refit work, surface and nuclear, that is placed with the dockyard by my Department. Appropriate terms for this work are being negotiated as part of the continuing negotiations with Babcock International Group plc to which I referred in my answer of 2 April,Official Report, column 98. There is a continuing programme of appropriate works at Rosyth to enable the dockyard to fulfil its refit programme.

  Devonport Management Ltd.
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the issues which have been the subject of negotiations with DML since 1994. [25363]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The main subjects of discussion between my Department and DML since 1994 have been the proposed privatisation of Devonport Royal Dockyard plc and the provision of new nuclear refuelling and refitting facilities at Devonport—Project D 154— on which I made a statement on 2 April,Official Report, column 98. There have also been the routine discussions appropriate between my Department and a major contractor about on-going refit and other contracts. Details of such discussions are commercially confidential.

  Military Equipment Exports
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many jobs in Scotland are dependent(a) directly and (b) indirectly on the export of military equipment; and if he will provide a breakdown by (i) parliamentary constituency and (ii) local government area within Scotland. [25422]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Statistics are not held in the form requested. Owing to the complexities and methodological problems involved, it would be extremely difficult to generate the information required and this could be achieved only at disproportionate cost. Tables 1.9 and 1.10 of the 1995 edition of "UK Defence Statistics" include figures for the number associated with direct employment in the production of defence equipment in the UK, by region, and the number employed in the UK associated directly and indirectly with defence expenditure. A copy of this publication is held by the Library of the House.

  Torture Equipment
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations are taking place into the producer of the "Dispatches" programme on the export of torture equipment by his Department's police; and how much the investigation has cost so far. [24952]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the chief constable/chief executive of the Ministry of Defence Police. I have asked the chief constable/executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Walter Boreham to Mrs. Anne Clwyd, dated 16 April 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Despatches programme, as this falls into my area of responsibility as Chief Constable/Chief Executive of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency.
  462
  My officers have conducted an investigation regarding the Despatches programme screened on 11 January 1995, and have submitted a report to the Crown Prosecution Service. I am awaiting their advice.
  I estimate the cost of the investigation to be £3,600.

  Married Quarters
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list (1) the number of married quarters for service personnel stationed in Scotland, for(a) Army, (b) Navy, (c) Royal Air Force and (d) Royal Marines personnel, (2) the location of the housing and (3) the number of housing units at each location. [25187]

  Mr. Soames
  Family quarters are no longer managed by the individual services but are now managed centrally by the Defence housing executive through a system of seven regional controllers and 24 area managers. There are 6,702 family quarters in areas 23, 24 and 25 which cover the whole of Scotland.Area 23: Glasgow, Helensburg, Dumfries, Prestwick, Benbecula and Sterling.
  Area 24: Perth, Edinburgh, Penicuik, Pitreavie, Turnhouse, Melrose, Kinross, Dumfermline, Windygates, Cupar, Dundee, Leuchars, Arbroath and Rosyth.
  Area 25: Inverness and Highlands sites, Kinloss, Lossiemouth, Buchan, Saxa Vord, Stornoway and Thurso.

  The number of housing units within each area is as follows:

  Area 23: 1,778

  Area 24: 2,506

  Area 25: 2,418.

  Boards of Inquiry
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances his Department's boards of inquiry are set up; who carries out the inquiry; in what circumstances the reports or conclusions of boards of inquiry are made public; and how many boards of inquiry have been launched in each of the past five years. [24959]

  Mr. Soames
  A board of inquiry—BOI—is set up in accordance with Section 135(1) of the Army Act 1955 and BOI (Army) Rules 1956, section 135 of the Air Force Act 1955 and BOI (Air Force) Rules 1956 and Queen's Regulations for the Royal Navy by authority of the Defence Council.

  A BOI must be convened in certain circumstances such as unlawful absence exceeding 21 days, the capture by the enemy of a person subject to military law, the death of a person abroad in a military establishment where no inquiry is required by civil law, disablement of a ship, and aircraft accidents. BOIs may also be convened in a variety of other circumstances where the incident affects military service.

  In general, a BOI may be convened by the service boards, an officer not below the rank of colonel or equivalent or, in certain circumstances, an officer of any rank commanding a unit or detachment.

  Boards of inquiry are internal fact-finding investigations undertaken for military purposes and to prevent a recurrence of a similar incident. As such, they are not in the public domain. Boards of inquiry reports

  463
  are, however, made available, subject to the minimum security requirements, to the next of kin of deceased service personnel who are killed in in-service accidents.

  Records covering the number of BOIs convened are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing Safety Group
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy that the position of the fishing industry safety group will be safeguarded following changes to the Marine Safety Agency. [24816]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Marine Safety Agency to write my hon. Friend.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. John Townend, dated 16 April 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your Question about safeguarding the position of the Fishing Industry Safety Group (FISG) following changes to the Marine Safety Agency (MSA).
  Procedures for consultation on safety matters with the fishing industry, of which FISG is an important part, are currently being reviewed with the full participation of the industry. As part of the review, industry representatives met recently with MSA officials to discuss consultation procedures, including FISG. The industry has undertaken to consider and comment on the current arrangements and possible ways in which those arrangements could be improved. The MSA will consider those comments fully before decisions are taken about future consultation arrangements.

  Food Nutritious
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to promote the nutritional benefits of food grown in the United Kingdom. [21617]

  Mrs. Browning
  A wide range of nutritious foods are grown in the United Kingdom and my colleagues and I are happy to promote their virtues.

  EDS Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what savings to date have been made by his Department as a result of out-sourcing arrangements made with the EDS computer system; what assessment he has made of the equivalent costs for carrying out this work in-house; and if he will make a statement. [24230]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry holds no out-sourcing contracts with EDS, so there are no savings or equivalent in-house costs to be assessed.

  Integrated Administration and Control System Forms
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in how many individual cases assistance was refused owing to mistakes by farmers 464
  in completing IACS forms, in each of the years since these came into effect; and what representations he has received on this subject since 1 January 1995. [24292]

  Mr. Baldry
  It is possible to correct mistakes in IACS forms in certain limited circumstances. The EC rules prescribe automatic penalties for all other cases of discrepancy and make no allowance for the reason for the discrepancy. More stringent penalties apply in respect of serious negligence and fraud.

  Some 3,465 and 2,807—provisional figures—IACS applications in 1994 and 1995 respectively faced some level of penalty in the UK as a result of discrepancies found in land area. Of these, the penalties applied in 553 and 367 cases respectively resulted in the loss of all area-related aid. A number of representations on this subject have been received since 1 January 1995, mainly relating to individual cases.

  Sea Empress Oil Spill
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the chemical two-butoxy Etanol was an ingredient in the dispersant used on the Sea Empress oil spill at Milford Haven. [23708]

  Mr. Baldry
  Yes. Two-butoxy ethanol is one of the family of butyl glycols, as included in the list given in my reply of 4 March 1996,Official Report, column 83.

  Driftnetting
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make available the recent report, "Cetacean bycatch in the UK tuna driftnet fishery in 1995", to the Council of Fisheries Ministers meeting in April; and if he will be making recommendations to the Ministers on driftnetting. [24841]

  Mr. Baldry
  The report has already been made available to the Council of Fisheries Ministers and I intend to urge the Council to seek further ways of reducing by-catches of cetaceans in high seas driftnet fisheries while taking account of the effect of fishermen's livelihoods.

  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he intends to review the current maximum lengths of driftnets in respect of the finding of the recent report, "Cetacean bycatch in the UK tuna driftnet fishery in 1995"; and what proposals he has to ban the use of driftnets; [24842]

  (2) what response he has made to the proposals for a ban on the use of driftnets from the European Parliament and the European Commission; and if he will make it his policy to support an EU-imposed ban on driftnetting; [24580]

  (3) what asssessment he has made of the scientific evidence for a ban on high seas driftnets. [24581]

  Mr. Baldry
  The current maximum length of driftnets permitted on UK and other Community fishing vessels is set at 2.5 km, in line with the precautionary approach and in response to United Nations resolutions. I am not aware of scientific evidence that justifies a different maximum length or a ban on the use of driftnets. I do not therefore
  465
  support the European Commission's proposal, but I do not think that means should be sought to reduce by-catches of cetaceans in high seas driftnet fisheries.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of suspected BSE were reported in each week from 1 June 1989 to 1 June 1990. [23204]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: A breakdown of the number of reported suspected BSE cases on a weekly basis from 1 June 1989 to 1 June 1990 is as follows:

  Number of BSE suspects reported

  Week ending

  Number restricted

  2 June 1989

  117

  9 June 1989

  169

  16 June 1989

  130

  23 June 1989

  130

  30 June 1989

  147

  7 July 1989

  115

  14 July 1989

  127

  21 July 1989

  140

  28 July 1989

  171

  4 August 1989

  182

  11 August 1989

  146

  18 August 1989

  190

  25 August 1989

  181

  1 September 1989

  163

  8 September 1989

  180

  15 September 1989

  166

  22 September 1989

  171

  29 September 1989

  167

  6 October 1989

  176

  13 October 1989

  193

  20 October 1989

  190

  27 October 1989

  174

  3 November 1989

  205

  10 November 1989

  221

  17 November 1989

  215

  24 November 1989

  192

  1 December 1989

  207

  8 December 1989

  185

  15 December 1989

  202

  22 December 1989

  211

  29 December 1989

  128

  5 January 1990

  244

  12 January 1990

  293

  19 January 1990

  282

  26 January 1990

  292

  2 February 1990

  309

  9 February 1990

  329

  16 February 1990

  359

  23 February 1990

  370

  2 March 1990

  421

  9 March 1990

  389

  16 March 1990

  401

  23 March 1990

  354

  30 March 1990

  336

  6 April 1990

  329

  13 April 1990

  294

  20 April 1990

  274

  27 April 1990

  302

  4 May 1990

  347

  11 May 1990

  339

  18 May 1990

  401

  25 May 1990

  366

  1 June 1990

  355

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are in place to prevent the export of beef and beef products from the United Kingdom to countries other than those in the EU. [24378]

  Mrs. Browning
  Following notification of EU decision 96/239, we have ceased to issue export health certificates for products covered by the decision. The Customs and Excise (Management) Act 1979 enables Customs to detain goods presented for export which are subject to the decision.

  Slaughterhouse Waste
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the oral statement of the Secretary of State for Health of 20 March,Official Report, columns 375–86, on the links between bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, what plans he has to commission research and what research he has commissioned into the effects of the disposal of (a) offal and (b) other cattle waste on agricultural land and the water supply. [22981]

  Mrs. Browning
  This Department, together with the Department of Environment and the Environment Agency, is funding research to provide guidance on the landspreading of industrial wastes, including abattoir waste. A prime objective of the research is to provide further technical, scientific and practical guidance on the spreading of industrial wastes on land in a manner that protects human health and the environment, as required by article 4 of the amended EC framework directive on waste. The results of the research will be published.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total estimated tonnage of abattoir waste disposed of on agricultural land over the last(a) 20 years, (b) 10 years, (c) five years, (d) two years and (e) year. [23003]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: The spreading of waste on land for the benefit of agriculture or ecological improvement, including abattoir waste consisting of blood and gut contents from animals slaughtered for human consumption, is a recovery operation for the purposes of the amended EC framework directive on waste. The spreading of waste for these purposes is controlled under part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. No central record is held of the tonnage of abattoir waste spread on land for the benefit of agriculture or ecological improvement.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which agency is responsible for regulating the spreading of abattoir waste over land; and if he plans to review current arrangements. [23217]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: The spreading of waste on land for the benefit of agriculture or ecological improvement, including abattoir waste consisting of blood and gut contents from animals slaughtered for human consumption, is a recovery operation for the purposes of the amended EC framework directive on waste. The spreading of waste for these purposes is controlled under part II of the Environmental

  467
  Protection Act 1990 and the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. On 1 April 1996, responsibility for these controls was transferred from waste regulation authorities to the Environment Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

  Spreading must be carried out without endangering animal or human health or posing a risk to the environment. The code of good agriculture practice for the protection of water issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Welsh Office Agriculture Department provides guidance to farmers and others adopting this practice. The Scottish Office has issued a code of good practice for the prevention of environmental pollution from agricultural activity which also offers guidance.

  Pet Food
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to ban the sale of cat and dog food until it is produced from ingredients free of mammalian meat and bonemeal. [23348]

  Mrs. Browning
  SEAC recommended that the use of mammalian meat and bone meal should be prohibited in feed for farm animals. The rationale for this is that it should not be used in any circumstances where there might be a risk of the material being fed to or ingested by ruminants. MBM is not considered a risk to dogs and cats.

  Animal Feed
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations were received by his Department in each year since 1976 regarding the issuing of a requirement that animal feed manufacturers should publish a precise analysis of their products; and what response was made by his Department. [24464]

  Mrs. Browning
  I am unable to provide the precise information requested. However, farmers' organisations did seek full information concerning compound feeds. EC directives introduced quantitative declarations for nutritional constituents and, in 1990, ingredient listing. This provision, requiring either a full list or categories of ingredients, was supported by the Government.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the tonnage of cattle feed exported from the United Kingdom to each EU member country in each of the last 15 years. [23318]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: Exports intended primarily for cattle feed are not separately identifiable.

  Information covering the percentage composition of raw materials in main compound feed rations used in Great Britain is published in MAFF bi-annual press notice entitled "Results of the survey into the composition of main compound feed rations as used in Great Britain". Information on trade in raw materials can be found in the CSO Business Monitor MA 20, which is published annually.

  Copies of the press notices and the business monitor can be found in the Library of the House.

  Tanning Industry
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessments he has made of the consequences for the United Kingdom tanning industry of(a) the current level of activity in abattoirs and (b) the culling of older dairy cattle; and if he will make a statement. [24619]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have received a representation from the United Kingdom Industry about the financial impact of the loss of hides from the culling of older cattle and understand that the UK tanning industry is currently experiencing difficulty in sourcing hides due to the slow-down in beef production.

  The Council of Agriculture Ministers on 1 and 2 April concluded that bovine animals over the age of 30 months should not enter the human food or animal feed chains or be used for cosmetic and pharmaceutical products. There was no reference to the destruction of hides from cull cattle; therefore, these hides could be recovered and be available to the United Kingdom tanning industry.

  Warble Fly
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when dairy farmers were first required by Government to treat their cattle with an organophosphate-based insecticide as an antidote to warble fly; and when this practice ceased. [24828]

  Mrs. Browning
  Compulsory treatment for cattle infested with warble fly was re-introduced in 1978 and is still required. Alternatives to organophosphate-based products have been available from October 1984, when the first ivermectin-based product was authorised.

  Cattle Heads
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date the Government announced that the splitting of bovine heads in slaughterhouses was to be prohibited; and when that prohibition came into force. [23203]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: Guidance was issued to local authorities on 14 June 1990 that bovine head meat must be recovered from the intact skull before the brain is removed. This guidance was subsequently enacted in the Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Amendment) Regulation 1992, which came into force on 12 March 1992, prohibiting the removal of any meat for human consumption from the head of a bovine animal after the skull has been opened or the brain has been removed from that head. The Specified Bovine Offals Order 1995, which came into force on 15 August 1995, prohibited the removal of the brain from the head of a bovine animal.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all plants in the United Kingdom licensed by the Government to debone cattle heads; and if he will make a statement. [24214]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: Cattle heads, expect for the tongue, are specified bovine material and must be disposed of intact.

  There is no statutory provision for the Government to approve or licence plants to debone cattle.

  Slaughterhouse Hygiene
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many slaughterhouses had yet to complete their work plans to meet the structural requirements of the Fresh Meat (Hygiene Inspection) Regulations 1992 at 31 December(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995. [24443]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: There were 320 licensed red meat slaughterhouses in England operating under temporary derogations at the end of 1993, 276 at the end of 1994 and 160 at the end of 1995.

  State Veterinary Service
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total number of staff in the state veterinary service in each year since 1989–90; and what is the planned number of staff for each year from 1996–97 to 1998–99. [24447]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: The total number of staff in the state veterinary service in each year since 1989–90 was as detailed in the following table, which shows the number of staff in post, to the nearest full-time equivalent, at 1 April each year. The figures include staff of all grades and include staff at the veterinary investigation centres, but exclude the central veterinary laboratory.

  Year

  Number of staff

  1989–90

  791

  1990–91

  858

  1991–92

  936

  1992–93

  11,114

  1993–94

  1,360

  1994–95

  1,383

  1995–96

  1,376

  1 The State Veterinary Service took over responsibility for administrative staff in animal health offices in England from 1 April 1992. These were not all recorded at 1 April 92, but are fully reflected in the 1993 figure.

  On 1 October 1995, the veterinary investigation service combined with the central veterinary laboratory to form to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency and 358 posts were transferred to that agency. On 1 April 1996, 31 administrative staff were transferred to the SVS from the Welsh Office. The planned number of staff for 1996–97 is 905. Plans for 1997–98 and 1998–99 have not yet been finalised.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress in establishing an office waste minimisation strategy for his Department indicating the targets set. [24499]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 3 April 1993]: The principle of waste minimisation is already an intrinsic part of the Department's "green housekeeping" policy. With regard to targets set, we are awaiting the outcome of the Department's study into the appropriateness or otherwise of an environmental management system and, to avoid duplication across Government Departments, the Department of the Environment's pilot study on waste minimisation.

  Civil Servants (Company Directors)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which serving civil servants in his Department are currently directors of companies, and if he will indicate for each(a) the name of the company concerned and (b) if the annual remuneration was (i) £1 to £5,000, (ii) £5,000 to £10,000 and (c) above £10,000. [18153]

  Mr. Boswell
  [pursuant to his reply, 5 March 1996, c. 128]: The answer should read as follows.

  A number of officials in the Department have declared their outside interests in accordance with departmental requirements. As with all employment matters, individuals' details are a confidential matter between them and their employer.

  The following staff currently hold directorships under the guide to non-executive directorships for civil servants:

  Mr. R. G. Purnell: H. R. Wallingford

  Mr. A. R. Burne: The Albert Fisher Group plc

  Mr. B. J. Harding: Cadbury Ltd.

  The individuals concerned do not receive payment.

HEALTH

  Emergency Services
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Royal College of Nursing to discuss emergency services. [23478]

  Mr. Horam
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Health met representatives of the medical and nursing professions, including the Royal College of Nursing, on 21 December 1995 to consider a range of issues relating to emergency care. In addition, officials are in regular contact with representatives of the college.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of CJD there have been in the United Kingdom over the last four years; and how many cases there have been in(a) France and (b) Germany. [23479]

  Mr. Horam
  The latest available data from the national CJD surveillance unit relates only to the years 1993 and 1994.

  In 1993, there were 41 definite and probable cases of CJD in the United Kingdom compared with 41 in France and 21 in Germany—the latter referring to July to December only.

  In 1994 the figures were: UK 54, France 47, Germany 58.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee to place in the Library all the research evidence on which the committee based its statement of 24 March. [24526]

  Mr. Horam
  The findings of the national Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease surveillance unit about a previously unrecognised form of CJD will be published
  471
  by the researchers in a scientific journal as soon as practicable. I will arrange for a copy of this to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made as to whether the provisional conclusions of the research commissioned by Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee about links between BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease were(a) illegally and (b) prematurely disclosed to the Daily Mirror. [24666]

  Mr. Horam
  We have always said that we would inform the public immediately of any change in the scientific evidence for a link between bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. It is clear that the Daily Mirror became aware that some form of public announcement was imminent some hours before the event. I have no evidence to suggest that there was an illegal disclosure of information.

  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if vaccinations over the last 10 years have used(a) calf lymph and (b) other substances susceptible to BSE contamination. [24705]

  Mr. Horam
  We are not aware of calf lymph having been used in the manufacture of any United Kingdom licensed vaccines during the past 10 years.

  All bovine materials currently used in the manufacture of UK licensed vaccines and used during the past 10 years belong to category IV in the guidelines produced by the European committee on proprietary medicinal products, "The rules governing medicinal products in the European Union", volume 3, addendum 2 "Minimising the risk of transmission of agents causing spongiform encephalopathies via medicinal products". Copies of the guidelines are available in the Library.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died in each of the last three years(a) from smoking or smoking-related illnesses, (b) from CJD, (c) from road accidents and (d) from conditions related to illegal drug use. [23660]

  Mr. Horam
  The UK figures for the latest three years available for Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, motor vehicle accidents and drug abuse are shown in the table.

  Year1

  Deaths from drug abuse2

  Death from vehicle accidents

  CJD deaths

  1992

  2,485

  4,681

  51

  1993

  2,458

  3,924

  45

  1994

  2,713

  3,833

  59

  1For England and Wales, deaths for 1992 represent the number of deaths registered in that year, while deaths from 1993 are deaths which occurred in each year. Also, new procedures for coding cause of death from 1993, and the absence of medical enquiries, mean that figures for 1993 onwards may not be exactly comparable with earlier years. For most conditions, however these effects are small. More details may be found in OPCS Series DH2 for 1993, published in October 1995; copies are available in the Library.

  2It is not possible to differentiate illegal drugs. International Classification of diseases 9th revision codes 304 (drug dependence) 305.2-305.9 (non-dependent use of drugs), 960-979 (poisoned by drugs, medicaments and biological substances).

  It is estimated that in the United Kingdom about 110,000 deaths each year are smoking related.
  472
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died in each of the last three years; and what proportion have died from(a) smoking-related conditions and (b) CJD. [23661]

  Mr. Horam
  The information for the United Kingdom for the latest three years available is shown in the table.

  Year

  Deaths1

  Proportion of deaths from smoking related illness 2 Per cent.

  Proportion of CJD deaths Per cent.

  1992

  634,238

  17

  0.008

  1993

  658,481

  17

  0.007

  1994

  627,636

  18

  0.009

  1Figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are registered deaths as are the 1992 figures for England and Wales. Later figures for England and Wales are deaths which occurred in that year.

  2 The figure is based on 110,000, which is the estimated number of smoking-related deaths.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research conducted overseas into BSE-CJD type diseases his Department has evaluated; what assessment he has made of this research; and if he will make a statement. [23480]

  Mr. Horam
  The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory committee provides the Government with expert scientific advice on BSE and CJD. This advice takes account of research in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will next be meeting the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee to discuss BSE. [23468]

  Mr. Horam
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met the chairman of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee on a number of occasions over recent weeks. He will meet the chairman again when necessary to discuss the committee's advice.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the dangers to the health of children of eating dog or cat food; [23325]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the risks to the health of humans from handling pet foods containing mammalian meats and bonemeal. [23324]

  Mr. Horam
  Specified bovine materials are banned from entering the human and animal food chains, and therefore, do not enter pet food. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee concluded that children were not at any greater risk of any possible bovine spongiform encephalopathy infection then adults.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations he has undertaken into the future provision of accident and emergency departments. [23481]

  Mr. Horam
  Following my right hon. Friend's statement to the House on 6 March,Official Report, columns 356–68, we expect widespread consultation to be held at local level about the provision of accident and emergency services.
  473
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he has received to his recent guidance to health authorities on the provision of accident and emergency services in the north-east Thames region. [23488]

  Mr. Horam
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the chief executive of the national health service, Mr. Alan Langlands, to report to him at the end of June, and again at the end of September on health authorities' plans for emergency services. Responses from individual health authorities and NHS trusts are being co-ordinated by the regional offices of the NHS executive.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will instruct the NHS executive to investigate the comparative rates of admission into the accident and emergency departments at(a) Oldchurch hospital, Romford and (b) King George hospital, Goodmayes. [24789]

  Mr. Horam
  This would be a matter for the Barking and Havering and the Redbridge and Waltham Forest health authorities.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of accident and emergency admissions at(a) Oldchurch hospital, Romford and (b) King George hospital, Goodmayes, took place within two hours of arrival, in the last year for which figures are available. [24788]

  Mr. Horam
  Information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Geoffrey Jennings OBE and Mr. Michael J. Smith, respectively, the chairmen of Havering Hospitals NHS trust and Redbridge Healthcare NHS trust for further information.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the range of accident and emergency facilities available to the public in NHS hospitals located in the outer London boroughs, subsequent to the changes planned for April 1997. [23810]

  Mr. Horam
  It is the responsibility of local health authorities, working together with local national health service trusts, to ensure that adequate facilities and services are in place to meet the accident and emergency needs of the local populace.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations he is currently undertaking about the market testing programme. [23482]

  Mr. Horam
  I am in regular contact with a wide range of people in the national health service, the commercial sector and voluntary sector about ways to improve NHS services for the benefit of patients.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors in Buckinghamshire are now fundholders, and what proportion of the population of Buckinghamshire are now served by these doctors. [23483]

  Mr. Malone
  There are currently 249 general practitioners who are fundholders in Buckinghamshire serving approximately 71 per cent. of the population.
  474
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many fundholding GPs there are in Redbridge and Waltham Forest; and what that figure represents as a percentage of GPs in the area. [23487]

  Mr. Malone
  There are currently 116 general practitioners who are fundholders in Redbridge and Waltham Forest. This represents approximately 50 per cent. of the GPs in the area.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the purchasing policies of district health authorities. [23484]

  Mr. Malone
  Regional offices of the national health service executive assess health authority purchasing plans as part of their performance management responsibilities.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on personal social services(a) in 1990–91 and (b) in the latest year for which figures are available. [23485]

  Mr. Bowls
  Local authority returns show gross expenditure on personal social services in England in 1990–91 was £4,698 million. In 1993–94, the latest year for which validated figures are available, gross expenditure was £6,278 million.

  Elderly People (Care)
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of carers to discuss the provision of care to elderly people. [23486]

  Mr. Bowis
  I meet frequently with organisations representing carers to discuss a range of matters, including care of the elderly.

  NHS Trusts
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent consultations he has had concerning the relationship between NHS trust hospitals and social services departments. [23489]

  Mr. Bowis
  There have been no specific consultations, but regular meetings are held with representatives of the national health service and local authorities. We have emphasised the importance of good procedures and effective communications between local authorities, health authorities and NHS trusts about arrangements for community care.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received from NHS trusts on proposals to expand their activities involving private finance. [23491]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) on 16 January 1996,Official Report, column 550.

  Since that reply, a further nine schemes with a capital value of more than £1 million have been approved, taking the total capital value of approved schemes to £0.5 billion.
  475
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the plans by NHS trusts to introduce private health plans. [23469]

  Mr. Dorrell
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Health recently set out the long-standing position. Trusts have wide-ranging powers to generate additional income, provided, among other things, that there is no unacceptable risk to public funds.

  I have, however, made it clear that I do not believe that private health insurance plans could in any circumstances satisfy that requirement. There are therefore no such schemes on offer from NHS trusts, nor do trusts have any plans to introduce such schemes.

  Community Care
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Helath what estimate he has made of the level of funds transferred from his Department to(a) other Government Departments and agencies and (b) local authorities for community care in 1996–97. [23490]

  Mr. Bowis
  For 1996–97, my Department transferred £647.6 million to the Department of Environment which was taken into account in the calculation of local authorities' entitlements to revenue support grant. In addition, a special transitional grant for community care services of £418 million will be paid to local authorities by my Department in 1996–97, together with a number of smaller special and specific grants.

  Dental Services
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the measures he has taken to ensure an adequate provision of NHS dentistry. [23492]

  Mr. Malone
  We are committed to an effective and accessible national health service dental service that is available to all who wish to make use of it. Our record bears this out:At 31 December 1995 there were 15,942 NHS dentists on the lists of family health services authorities in England, the highest December figure ever. This is 516 more dentists than at 30 June 1992 and 3,796 more dentists than at 30 September 1979.
  At 29 February there were 26.4 million patients registered. This is broadly in line with the position at 30 June 1992.
  In 1994–95 gross expenditure on general dental services in England was £1,279 million, an increase in real terms of 57 per cent. since 1978–79.
  In 1994–95 there were 3.7 million more adult dental examinations compared with 1979.

  In general, the former family health services authorities have not reported difficulties in achieving our aim. Where there are local problems, health authorities have a range of options, including use of salaried dentists and the community dental service to deal with these. There are 126 salaried dentists currently employed by the health authorities.

  In the short term, we are discussing with the dental profession a range of issues aimed to reform dental services. In the longer term, we aim to put in place a purchaser-provider system which will be sensitive to local needs. This needs primary legislation.
  476
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date dentists were first required to register their patients; and when his Department first received information on(a) total registrations with dentists and (b) total deregistrations by dentists from each family health service authority or equivalent body. [25132]

  Mr. Malone
  Dentists first registered patients on 1 October 1990, when the current dental contract was introduced.

  Information about total registrations of patients with general dental practitioners was first received in December 1990.

  Information about the number of deregistrations by general dental practitioners was first collected by the Department in July 1992.

  Deregistrations are not a meaningful measure of the availability of national health service dentistry. A dentist may deregister his patients in order to transfer them to another dentist working at the same practice address. These patients still have access to national health service dentistry, but are counted as deregistrations. The arrival of a new dentist to an area may resolve the availability problem in the area, but this will not be reflected in the deregistrations.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many (i) children, (ii) adults and (iii) people in total were registered with dentists in each family health service authority in(a) February 1993, (b) July 1993, (c) February 1994, (d) July 1994, (e) February 1995, (f) July 1995 and (g) February 1996. [25133]

  Mr. Malone
  This information will be placed in the Library.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the likely difficulties in recruiting health service psychiatrists, physiotherapists and occupational therapists in the next financial year. [23351]

  Mr. Malone
  The Specialist Workforce Advisory Group has recommended a significant increase in training opportunities for doctors wishing to become consultants. As a result, we are providing additional funding of £5.7 million in 1996–97 which will be targeted at specialties which have the greatest need including psychiatry, old age psychiatry and forensic psychiatry.

  In August 1995, the national health service executive issued planning guidance (EL(95)96) recommending that education commissioners should take full account of factors affecting demand for physiotherapists and occupational therapists, including non-NHS demand. As a result, training commissions are planned to rise in 1996–97 by around 12 per cent. for physiotherapists and around 5 per cent. for occupational therapists.

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority (Land Panel)
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, for each year between 1987 and 1993, the
  477
  members of the former Yorkshire regional health authority's land panel; and if he will make a statement on the role of the panel. [23683]

  Mr. Malone
  The land panel of the former Yorkshire regional health authority was set up in accordance with guidance issued by the Department of Health under the heading of Estatecode 1989. The aim embodied in the guidance was to provide advice to health authorities on general estates matters and specific transactions—particularly those involving complex or contentious issues. The land panel provided advice to the regional health authority. The panel has since been abolished. Details of individual membership of the former land panel are not available from public records.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines his Department issued on the remuneration of staff made redundant as a result of the abolition of regional health authorities. [24626]

  Mr. Malone
  Arrangements for redundancy for national health service staff employed in regional health authorities on national terms and conditions of service are set out in section 45 of the General Whitley Council handbook. Guidance on severance payments for general and senior managers on short term rolling contracts was issued in circular HSG(94)18. Copies of the documents are available in the Library.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 28 March,Official Report, columns 746–47, how many cases of multi-drug resistant TB have been identified in (a) London and (b) England and Wales in each of the last five years; and what action has been taken to monitor and control this new strain. [24774]

  Mr. Horam
  For the most recent available figures for the United Kingdom, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on 2 April columns 181–82. Regional information was not routinely collected. A new system, started in 1994, should provide more detailed regional information.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 28 March,Official Report, columns 746–47, how many TB cases have been identified; and how many TB-related deaths there have been in (i) London and (ii) England and Wales in each of the last 10 years. [24772]

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the number of notifiable cases of TB in each year since 1975. [25258]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of notifications of tuberculosis for both Greater London and England and 478
  Wales are published in table 5 of the annual reference volume "MB2 Communicable Disease Statistics". Copies are available in the Library. The latest year published is 1993. Data for 1994 and 1995 are shown in the table:

  Number of notifications of tuberculosis(excluding chemoprophylaxis)

  1994

  19951

  Greater London

  2,077

  2,042

  England and Wales

  5,590

  5,606

  1Provisional.

  The number of deaths from tuberculosis of residents of England and Wales from 1985 to 1992 can be found in "Mortality statistics: area", series DH5, volumes 12 to 19, copies of which are available in the Library. Figures for 1995 are not yet available. The figures for 1993 and 1994 are:

  1993

  1994

  Greater London

  86

  110

  England and Wales

  507

  497

  These figures include all forms of tuberculosis, including respiratory, pulmonary, and mediastinal and late effects from tuberculosis originally caught some years earlier.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 28 March,Official Report, columns 746-47, (1) what assessment he has made of the risk of persons infected with TB entering the United Kingdom; to what extent that risk has changed in the last five years; and if he will make a statement; [24771]

  (2) what measures have been taken in the last 12 months to reduce the risk of carriers of TB from entering the country. [24773]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on how many people have tuberculosis when they arrive in the United Kingdom is not available. For details about the steps that we are taking to deal with the risk, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on 2 April at columns 180-81.

  Heart Valves
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) agency and (b) department was responsible for the purchase by the national health service of Bjork Shiley heart valves between 1979 and 1986; where these valves were delivered and centrally stored when imported; what records were kept detailing serial numbers of the valves and to which hospital batches of valves were despatched; what procedures, including record keeping were followed by them on the occasions when the manufacturers or distributors recalled certain valves; and what is his policy for making this information available to next of kin or other relatives of national health service patients who received an implanted Bjork Shiley heart valve in this period and subsequently died. [24585]
  479
  Mr. Horam
  Responsibility for the purchase of medical devices, including heart valves, rested with local health authorities and hospitals. The delivery and storage of imported valves was a matter for the United Kingdom sales office of the manufacturer, Shiley Inc, and information is not available centrally. Responsibility for keeping records of valves delivered to hospitals, and for implementing appropriate recall procedures rests with the manufacturer involved. As part of Shiley's recall of Bjork-Shiley convexo-concave heart valves, they provided advice to relevant cardiothoracic surgeons and cardiologists, which included list of serial numbers for valves delivered to their hospitals. The Department provided further independent advice to health service professionals across the UK to assist them in making informed decisions about patient management. Our policy remains that clinicians are in the best place to provide advice to individual patients and their next of kin, in the light of personal circumstances.

  NHS-wide Network
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis AT and T Istel has been chosen to operate the NHS-wide network; on what basis its employees or managers will have access to personal data; and if he will make a statement [24628]

  Mr. Horam
  AT and T Istel was chosen to operate the NHS-wide clearing service—not the network—by competitive tender under the private finance initiative. Its managers and employees are contractually bound to main the confidentiality of data passing through the clearing service, and will have no access to it.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about proposed security arrangements for the NHS-wide network to avoid unauthorised access and the misuse of data from the network. [24635]

  Mr. Horam
  The arrangements to avoid unauthorised access to the NHS-wide network and prevent misuse of data are set out in the data networking security policy and codes of connection. These require any person or organisation seeking access to the network to sign a contractual undertaking to abide by proper security procedures, and to limit access to authorised users with acceptable national health service purposes. The documents were published with NHS executive letter (95) 108, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what links are proposed between the NHS-wide network and information technology elsewhere within Government; and if he will make a statement. [24630]

  Mr. Horam
  The NHS-wide network is separate from the Department of Health's network and from all other central Government networks. Access from anywhere outside the NHS, including from Government Departments, will be subject to the requirements of the 480
  security policy. Access is allowed only to those who use the network for approved NHS purposes.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now place in the Library the findings of the study by Zergo Consulting for the NHS information management group about the NHS-wide network; and if he will make a statement on his response. [24634]

  Mr. Horam
  The report on the study by Zergo Consulting entitled "The Use of Encryption and Related Services with the NHS net" was published on 11 April 1996. Copies are available in the Library.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what restrictions are proposed to the selling off of data from the NHS-wide network; and if he will make a statement. [24629]

  Mr. Horam
  There are no plans to sell any data from the NHS-wide network.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he consulted the Data Protection Registrar about arrangements for the NHS-wide network; and if he will make a statement. [24636]

  Mr. Horam
  The Data Protection Registrar has been consulted at all stages in the development of plans for the NHS-wide network and during its implementation.

  General Practitioners (Premises)
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 29 March,Official Report, column 781, what information his Department collates on the condition of general practitioners' premises in London. [24770]

  Mr. Malone
  Annual information is collected, by health authority, on premises below minimum standards.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of women over the age of 55 years are estimated by his Department to suffer from osteoporosis; what percentage of women will contract the illness on current trends during their lifetime; and if he will make a statement. [24618]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the number of women suffering from osteoporosis is not available centrally. The report of the advisory group on osteoporosis suggested that 22 per cent. of women over 50 have low bone density-osteopenia. This can lead to the development of osteoporosis. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.

  Paramedics
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified paramedics there are per head of population in(a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) England, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [24594]
  481
  Mr. Horam
  These figures are not routinely collected centrally, but an informal survey in England showed that there were 6,250 paramedics at 31 January 1996–1.28 per 10,000 population.

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

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many young people died in each of the last five years from abuse of(a) legally prescribed drugs and (b) illegal drugs. [25152]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is not possible to differentiate between legally prescribed drugs and illegal drugs. The number of deaths from drug misuse in England and Wales among those aged under 25 in the years 1990–92 are shown in the table.

  Year

  Deaths from drug misuse

  1990

  353

  1991

  362

  1992

  364

  Source:

  International Classification of Diseases 9th revision codes 304 (drug dependence), 305.2–305.9 (non-dependent abuse of drugs), 960–979 (poisoning by drugs, medicaments and biological substances).

  Deaths for 1992 and earlier years represent the number of deaths registered in each year. New procedures for coding cause of death from 1993, and the absence of medical inquiries, mean that figures for 1993 onwards may not be comparable with earlier years. The figures for 1993 and 1994 were 387 and 433 respectively. More details may be found in OPCS series DH2 for 1993, which was published in October 1995; copies are available in the Library.

  Year

  Deaths1

  1990

  2,055

  1991

  2,068

  1992

  2,299

  1993

  2,272

  1994

  2,427

  1 This comprises International Classification of Diseases 9th revision codes 304 (drug dependence), 305.2–305.9 (non-dependent abuse of drugs), 960–979 (poisoning by drugs, medicaments and biological substances).

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has evaluated into the mechanism by which Ecstasy killed each victim of the drug in each of the last five years. [24835]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department of Health has not carried out a formal evaluation of research in this area, but maintains close contact with a number of experts on Ecstasy-related deaths. We are in the process of drawing up proposals for research on Ecstasy and its effects. The 482
  Advisory Council on the misuse of drugs held a meeting to discuss Ecstasy and its effects earlier this year and will advise the Home Department of its findings shortly.

  Domestic Accidents
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of accidents in the home necessitating hospital treatment for each year for which records are available; and if he will make a statement. [24900]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by health authority area the number of accidents in the home which necessitated hospital treatment for each year for which records are available; and if he will make a statement. [24901]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on accidents by health authority area is not available. For information on the number of home accidents in general, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Competition and Consumer Affairs gave him today.

  Regional Health Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was spent on furniture, fixtures and fittings by the Yorkshire regional health authority in each year since 1986; how these assets were disposed of; and how much money was raised for the NHS from their sale. [24972]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 29 January, column 528, which included the total spending on repair, maintenance and upgrading of the headquarters premises of the former Yorkshire regional health authority by year since 1986. The figures included expenditure on fixtures, fittings and furniture. It is not possible to identify expenditure separately under these headings as the definitions of fixtures, fittings and building fabric are not distinct, and no attempt was made to differentiate between them at the time the work was carried out.

  Because of the merger and then abolition of the former regional health authorities, some furniture and equipment did become surplus to requirements in Northern and Yorkshire. Any reusable items have been passed on to national health service trusts and health authorities in the area which could make use of them. Some unusable and obsolete furniture and equipment was sold, and produced £38,000 for NHS use.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was spent on furniture, fixtures and fittings by the Northern regional health authority in each year since 1986; how these assets were disposed of; and how much money was raised for the NHS from their sale. [24967]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 12 February, columns 456–57, which included the total spending on repair, maintenance and upgrading of the headquarters premises of the former

  483
  Northern regional health authority since 1986, including expenditure on fixtures, fittings and furniture. It is not possible to identify expenditure separately under these headings.

  Because of the merger and then abolition of former regional health authorities, some furniture and equipment did become surplus to requirements in Northern and Yorkshire. All items proved suitable for reuse, and have been passed on the national health service trusts and health authorities in the area.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost of furnishing, fitting out and decorating the board room at the Yorkshire regional health authority headquarters at Park parade, Harrogate; and how much of the cost has been recouped from the sale of surplus assets. [24973]

  Mr. Malone
  Work on the board room was carried out as part of the refurbishment of the Queen building at Park parade, Harrogate. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 29 January, column 528 in respect of overall expenditure on repair, maintenance and upgrading work on the Park parade site by year. It is not possible to identify separately expenditure either on a specific area of the building or on a particular sub-category of the work.

  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave him today for information regarding the disposal process for any assets surplus to requirements following the merger and then abolition of regional health authorities. Any reusable assets have been passed to national health service trusts and health authorities in the area which could make use of them. Some obsolete and unusable items were sold,

  Removals from the waiting list—June 1992 to December 1995

  Region

  June 1992

  September 1992

  December 1992

  March 1993

  June 1993

  September 1993

  December 1993

  March 1994

  Northern

  2,418

  2,861

  3,704

  5,127

  3,635

  4,331

  4,956

  5,343

  Yorkshire

  4,877

  5,041

  8,348

  8,375

  8,725

  8,280

  8,973

  10,245

  Trent

  6,125

  5,884

  6,514

  7,599

  7,090

  7,893

  6,864

  7,473

  East Anglian

  3,975

  3,011

  4,377

  4,733

  3,280

  4,038

  4,033

  4,643

  North West Thames

  10,925

  8,489

  8,498

  8,356

  7,804

  10,206

  8,138

  10,071

  North East Thames

  9,836

  9,996

  9,506

  8,215

  9,008

  9,059

  9,725

  10,863

  South East Thames

  11,599

  12,352

  13,946

  15,461

  15,457

  13,024

  10,110

  11,723

  South West Thames

  5,802

  5,816

  5,704

  5,709

  5,124

  5,259

  5,381

  7,168

  Wessex

  3,974

  4,036

  4,555

  5,568

  4,543

  5,025

  5,432

  6,230

  Oxford

  4,681

  5,214

  5,378

  5,389

  4,389

  4,620

  4,463

  5,159

  South Western

  5,405

  5,514

  5,860

  7,046

  5,287

  6,068

  6,366

  7,895

  West Midlands

  10,525

  11,764

  10,302

  12,647

  11,609

  11,805

  14,459

  15,454

  Mersey

  4,970

  5,605

  6,360

  7,523

  6,973

  8,747

  8,280

  8,488

  North Western

  7,576

  9,146

  10,321

  10,935

  10,117

  10,568

  10,635

  11,043

  Special Health Authorities

  2,052

  2,250

  2,006

  2,518

  2,357

  2,427

  2,869

  2,329

  England

  94,740

  96,979

  105,379

  115,201

  105,398

  111,350

  110,684

  124,127

  Decisions to admit

  836,550

  858,452

  890,264

  895,002

  853,524

  869,617

  862,073

  916,501

  Region

  June 1994

  September 1994

  December 1994

  March 1995

  June 1995

  September 1995

  December 1995

  Northern and Yorkshire

  12,987

  14,014

  15,238

  19,291

  14,314

  16,138

  16.905

  Trent

  7,910

  7,969

  7,915

  10,882

  8,678

  9,653

  9,916

  Anglia and Oxford

  10,806

  12,057

  10,763

  12,663

  11,184

  12,859

  11.709

  484
  yielding a total of £38,000 for the NHS. It is not possible to identify which, if any, of these items may have had some former link with the board room at Park parade.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money(a) has been spent and (b) will be spent on furniture, fixtures and fittings for the new Northern and Yorkshire regional offices of the NHS executive at Mountjoy science park. [24971]

  Mr. Malone
  It is not possible to differentiate expenditure on fixtures and fittings from that on building fabric. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 1 February at columns 919–20 for information on the total expenditure on the Durham offices of the national health service executive, Northern and Yorkshire, including fixtures and fittings.

  Total expenditure on furniture amounts to £2,000 for some smaller filing cabinets, necessary because of the reduced provision of space in the new accommodation compared with the former offices. All other furniture will be taken from that previously in use in the former Harrogate and Newcastle offices.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 2 April, at column 190, how many people have been removed from waiting lists by region in each quarter since 1992. [25241]

  Mr. Horam
  The table shows for each region, the special health authorities and England as a whole, the number of removals from waiting lists and—for England as a whole—the total number of decisions made to add patients to waiting lists in each quarter since 1992. Patients may be removed from waiting lists because they have already been treated, because treatment is no longer needed or because they have moved.
  485

  Region

  June 1994

  September 1994

  December 1994

  March 1995

  June 1995

  September 1995

  December 1995

  North Thames

  20,132

  20,898

  20,711

  22,206

  20,899

  23,497

  24,099

  South Thames

  22,748

  20,191

  18,033

  19,520

  20,986

  22,379

  23,047

  South and West

  12,116

  12,314

  12,599

  14,183

  12,614

  13,795

  12,728

  West Midlands

  15,421

  14,972

  17,334

  21,361

  14,296

  15,126

  16,800

  North West

  19,937

  23,045

  22,960

  27,113

  21,086

  22,427

  22,131

  Special Health Authorities

  478

  207

  173

  173

  167

  140

  142

  England

  122,535

  125,667

  125,726

  147,392

  124,224

  136,014

  137,477

  Decisions to admit

  919,679

  924,721

  937,033

  983,974

  944,241

  967,048

  1,005,019

  Rev. Martin Symth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average length of the waiting lists for cardiac surgery in hospitals. [24184]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on numbers of people waiting for treatment by specialty and by national health service trust is contained in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the implications of the research by Aberdeen university in 1995 into dietary nitrate intake for the public health consequences of European Commission directives on nitrates in water supplies. [25024]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department has received an inquiry from one correspondent and two letters from hon. Members on behalf of another correspondent.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the latest research on the reasons why babies up to the age of three months are unable to be affected by infantile methaemoglobinaemia from nitrates in diet. [25239]

  Mr. Horam
  No such research appears to have been published.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 5 December,Official Report, column 177, what assessment he has made of the latest research into the effect of nitrates in diet and water (a) at, (b) below and (c) in excess of natural levels on human health. [25240]

  Mr. Horam
  Nitrate in diet and water is not known to be beneficial to health. It is a recognised contributory factor in the causation of infantile methaemoglobinaemia. The addition of nitrate to foods specially prepared for babies and young children is prohibited under the Preservatives in Food Regulations 1989. Concentrations in drinking-water are restricted under the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989. After consideration of the toxicological data, most recently in 1995, the Food and Agriculture Organisation/World Health Organisation's joint expert committee on food additives and contaminants, and the European Commission's scientific committee for food, each proposed an acceptable daily intake of up to 3.7 mg of nitrate per kg body weight. This ADI is unchanged from 1992, when it was endorsed by the departmental expert Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment.

  Adoption
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have been adopted from each foreign country in each of the last five years. [25153]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Private Security Guards
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the use of private security guards in hospitals. [24937]

  Mr. Horam
  This is a local operational matter, subject to local specification of service requirements.

  Mixed-sex Wards
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made towards the establishment of a choice between single sex and mixed-sex wards for hospital patients; and if he will make a statement. [23790]

  Mr. Horam
  A voluntary survey of hospital accommodation in two national health service regions, commissioned by the NHS executive, has recently been completed and the results will be published shortly. A new health building note which will provide advice and guidance on new buildings in the NHS and advice and examples on how to upgrade existing premises to fulfil charter standards is being prepared by NHS Estates. We will be considering whether any further action is required.

  British Medical Association
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 27 February,Official Report, column 463, if he will make a statement on the length of time his Department has taken to respond to the BMA's general medical services committee's letter dated 23 February 1994, and its reminders dated June 1984, August 1994, November 1994, December 1994, January 1995, April 1995, July 1995, September 1995 and December 1995, asking to see a redraft of his Department's guidance to health authorities on good practice in respect of the use of cash-limited funds. [24844]

  Mr. Malone
  Throughout the period covered by the general medical services committee's letters the use of cash- limited funds has been the subject of complex legal argument culminating in High Court action, Regina v. The Secretary of State for Health, ex parte Manchester Local Committee, heard on 27–28 March 1995.

  Following the judgment, advice on the proper use of cash-limited funds was given to health authorities on 16 May 1995 and reiterated in subsequent allocation

  487
  letters. We shall be considering whether further guidance would be helpful to new health authorities on this issue and, if so, we shall consult GMSC on the content.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 27 February,Official Report, column 463, when the BMA's general medical services committee can expect a reply to its letter dated November 1991 in respect of considering the financial reimbursement for general practitioners who serve on, and give advice to, NHS purchasing authorities. [24843]

  Mr. Malone
  Correspondence with the British Medical Association's general medical services committee on this issue has been on-going since November 1991.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to initiate new research into the use of cannabis or its derivatives for medicinal use. [24838]

  Mr. Bowls
  None.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long the family planning experts on the Committee on Safety of Medicines were given before the committee's meeting on 13 October 1995 to review the data on third generation oral contraceptives. [24969]

  Mr. Malone
  The family planning experts who attended the meeting were sent the papers by express courier on 11 October for receipt by 10.30 am the following morning, with the exception of one expert who was aboard at the time and who was provided with a copy of the papers at the earliest opportunity.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on discussions between his Department and the British Medical Association on alternatives to the fax cascade system for alerting health professionals to urgent public health information; what is the expected timetable; and when he expects to have a new system in place. [24949]

  Mr. Horam
  The chief medical officer met the British Medical Association and other medical organisations on 28 February 1996 to discuss arrangements for transmitting urgent communications to doctors and how these might be improved. The current arrangements use an electronic system via telephone lines to transmit urgent messages to directors of public health who then cascade the message to relevant health professionals. Alternative methods were discussed but the profession's representatives did not consider any would improve the present arrangements until the Department is fully connected to the message handling application of the NHS—wide networking system. The technology is now in place for health authorities and other NHS institutions to connect to this system and this is being actively encouraged.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions(a) his Department, (b) the Committee on Safety of Medicines and (c) the Medicines Control Agency had with the product licence holders of the third generation
  488
  oral contraceptives which were the subject of the safety warning issued in October 1995, between 4 July and October 1995; and if he will make a statement. [24970]

  Mr. Malone
  Information about discussions held with pharmaceutical companies about their products is treated in confidence under the Medicines Act 1968.

  Asylum Seekers
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent local authorities are reimbursed for costs arising from their obligations to the children of asylum seekers, under the terms of the Children Act 1989. [24975]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) on 19 March at columns 191-92.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many compliance cost assessments were produced by his Department in 1995; and if he will place copies in the Library. [25274]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department produced six compliance cost assessments in 1995. Copies are available in the Library.

  Internal Market
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish a study of(a) the additional paperwork required of general practitioners and their staffs by the introduction and operation of the internal market within the national health service and of means of simplifying and reducing their paper requirements; and if he will seek the co-operation of the principal professional organisations in this study. [25511]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department of Health has already conducted a study into paperwork in general practice and has acted upon the findings. The report of the efficiency scrutiny into bureaucracy in general practice, "Patients not Paper", published in July 1995, contains recommendations which when implemented will substantially reduce bureaucracy in general practice. About 17 million forms per year will be abolished from 1 July 1996, when some of the recommendations are implemented.

  Health Authority Contracts
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names of district health authorities which are in dispute, or have not yet agreed, with any of their principal health trust providers contracts for the year 1996–97, within each case(a) the name of the providing trust, (b) the reason for the delay and (c) arrangements made for arbitration and its likely timetable; and what assessment he has made of the consequential effects on patients of (i) GP fundholders and (ii) GP non-fundholders in each case. [25510]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on health service contracts agreed by health authorities for 1996–97 is being collected and will be placed in the Library. Information by individual providers is not available centrally.
  489
  Patients come first and they will continue to be treated on the basis of clinical need. There is no question of patients not being treated or treatment being delayed because of the contracting process. Health
  490
  authorities and fundholders are charged with ensuring that the contracting process works to the best interest of patients locally.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITFEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Defective Building Work: Householder Protection
Lord Borrie Lord Borrie asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to introduce a compulsory insurance-backed warranty scheme to protect householders against defective building work.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Government have absolutely no intention of introducing any such compulsory schemes. They would be an impractical and bureaucratic nightmare, expensive to operate, and unlikely to achieve their objectives.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his very negative Answer. However, is he aware that such a proposal as suggested in the Question arises from the respected all-party organisation of lawyers, known as Justice, and that without a compulsory scheme it is most unlikely that the significant number of householders who every year suffer from defective building work will ever be able to have an effective legal remedy?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, is currently looking at the legal side and at how court procedures can be improved. We await his report with great interest. I am, of course, aware of the Justice report and have studied it. However, we approach this from a different angle from noble Lords opposite. We believe that where possible people should take responsibility for their own lives. The party opposite believes in a stakeholder society where other people take that responsibility.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the National House-Building Council, in which I must declare an interest as an honorary vice-president, does a very effective job already in insuring new-build properties for anyone registering with it?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I can confirm that we are delighted by the progress made by the National House-Building Council in terms of looking after new properties. In the main, such properties are built by large firms and the scheme works well for them.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in his rather dismissive Answer, the noble Lord said that he had read and, indeed, studied the Justice report. But has he paid attention to the foreword of his noble friend the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, who is recognised by all in this House as being a distinguished lawyer, in which he states:
556
"Over the last quarter-century many attempts have been made by official and semi-official bodies to tackle this problem. They have not succeeded"?
What Justice is proposing in the report is not bureaucracy; it is not something to which the noble Lord objects; it is a perfectly simple way of solving a problem that has affected at least 3 million people over the past three years in connection with building works. Will the noble Lord take the suggestion a little more seriously than he has up to now?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we have taken it seriously and we have arrived at our conclusion. I do not believe that the noble Lord or, indeed, Justice has any evidence of the extent of the problem. There are no figures available and I do not believe that Justice tried to find any. It certainly produced none in its report.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord look at the foreword that I have quoted in which his noble friend the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, stated:
"an Office of Fair Trading survey estimated that every year as many as three million customers were dissatisfied with building work they had had done"?
Given that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, signed that, how can the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, say that there is no evidence?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am quite aware of what my noble friend Lord Alexander said in his introduction. However, that survey was not a statistical survey on which it is possible to rely. I know that my noble friend believes that that is sufficient evidence; we do not.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that monitoring such a scheme would mean an additional quango? As we already have sufficient quangos, would it not be much better to let private enterprise look after this sort of thing?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, if such a scheme were to work properly, it would need a whole enforcement mechanism, which would be both expensive and exceedingly onerous on builders. It would mean a great deal of extra expense for householders who would be forced to pay for it. We do not believe that that can be justified unless the person who wants the work done specifically wants such a guarantee, in which case he or she can go to one of the firms which operates a voluntary guarantee scheme where he or she may expect to receive such a guarantee and to pay more for it.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the Government's initial Answer that they totally reject an insurance-based scheme, and bearing in mind the protection that is offered to the public as a result of the education, training and qualifications of the medical and legal professions, will the Government think in terms of ensuring that building operatives who engage in work for the ordinary public are properly educated and trained to a high standard of proficiency?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is all a question of proportionality. If you are going into hospital to have

557
your heart operated on, you want to be able to rely absolutely on someone who has an expertise that you cannot begin to comprehend or criticise. However, I think that most of us expect to know a good painter or a good electrician when we see one.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many complaints relate to money paid in advance to small builders and that the proposed scheme would at least enable people to get back that money; whereas at present it is often impossible to get back one's money from small builders if one is dissatisfied with their work?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we agree that in principle there may be a potential for improving court procedures to enable people to get money back from delinquent builders rather better than they can at the moment. That is the subject of a number of paragraphs in the Justice report and another study that is currently being conducted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. As far as concerns the imposition of a compulsory insurance scheme to cover every individual builder and DIY effort in this country, to police it and to pay for it, we believe that that amounts to an elephant sitting on a toadstool. It will crush it. It is totally disproportionate to the problem.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that there is no licensing, registration or quango involved in the scheme that is presented by Justice? The scheme is self-enforcing.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it does not seem to me to be self-enforcing. It contains no mechanism which in practice would enable it to be enforced unless there is policing of it to make sure that builders offer this guarantee and it is happening. For example, I am sure that the noble Lord is aware of the additional costs imposed on householders by the effective cartels in the alarm industry, which about double the cost. In general building work there is no cartel and the costs are much lower. We do not wish to impose these extra costs on householders for very little benefit.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the NHBC scheme, referred to by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, is self-enforcing, does work and should be encouraged to spread, thus obviating the need for anything else?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I believe that the NHBC scheme covers about 95 per cent. of new build, and that it does very well.

Obesity
2.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have been approached by the World Health Organisation with requests to provide information or assistance to the new international obesity task force.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, no. We have received no request from the World Health Organisation for information or assistance regarding an international obesity task force.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Did she notice that the announcement of the task force last month described obesity as a widespread epidemic which present arrangements were incapable of arresting? Can she confirm that the proportion of the population of the United Kingdom considered to be obese increased by 7 per cent.—in round figures, of course—between 1980 and 1991?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government are tackling the issue, not in a nannying way or by telling people what to do, but by giving them the necessary information. I confirm the figures just given by my noble friend. Obesity is on the increase, although we would not describe it as an epidemic.
Lord Rea: My Lords, it is hard to follow the noble Lord's lightweight approach without seeming heavy-handed. Does the noble Baroness agree that the efforts of the Government to achieve the target under the proposals in Health of the Nation to reverse the steady increase in obesity have so far proved ineffective or, to use the vernacular, a fat lot of use? To use the analogy of the task force that captured Port Stanley, if that is not too gross a metaphor, in terms of reducing people's weight would not the Government get useful advice from the proposed WHO task force?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that we set up the nutrition task force. It has made firm recommendations which the Government are considering. The Government will reply quite shortly and will publish the findings. The noble Lord will also be aware that there is an exercise campaign. Obesity is very complex; it concerns not only nutrition but also exercise.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the noble Baroness has communication with the World Health Organisation on this problem, will she ask it to concentrate its efforts on the hundreds of millions of people in the world who are starving rather than those who, perhaps for their own enjoyment, eat more than they should?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we do not wish to tell the World Health Organisation what to do. However, the noble Lord is right. This is a condition of countries which are extremely well off; there are others where considerably more suffering occurs through starvation and lack of food.

Nuclear Materials: Illicit Trade
2.48 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will investigate reports that nuclear weapon material, including enriched uranium, from ex-Soviet countries is being sold in Afghanistan to illegal traders from India, Pakistan and Iran; and, if there is substance in the reports, whether they will initiate international action with a view to stopping such trade.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the Government are concerned about all reports of illicit trade in nuclear materials. But we have seen no authoritative corroboration of trafficking through Afghanistan; nor have any incidents been reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency. International co-operation is essential in the fight against illicit trade of this sort. The issue will be on the agenda of the Nuclear Safety Summit in Moscow this week.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer which is an example to us all. Can she give a little more detail about the meeting in Moscow? I have been given to understand that the summit will specifically examine this subject. Is that the case?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, what I have just intimated is that nuclear smuggling will be high on the agenda of the Nuclear Safety Summit to be held in Moscow on 19th April. We have been actively involved for some time in international efforts to confront the problem, but it is the first time that the issue will have been addressed at such a high level. The evidence of the seriousness that we, the G7 and our Russian partners attach to the question is clear from the real efforts everyone is making to resolve the problem.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the evidence that we have that nuclear material has been smuggled, or attempted to be smuggled, into Germany from the former Soviet Union, is it not likely that nuclear material is being smuggled into those countries named in the Question on the Order Paper? Can the House be assured that the Government are deploying what might be described as secret service or intelligence resources to detect the smuggling that common sense tells us is probably going on?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is a great deal of difference between people's perceptions of this and the facts. We have always taken the question of nuclear smuggling seriously, but we must keep it in proportion. In nearly all the reported cases, the amounts of nuclear material that have been found are absolutely tiny—only small fractions of what would be needed to make a nuclear weapon. There is no way in which we should try to pre-empt the summit outcome. We have for some time had contacts with officials and scientists in nuclear institutions in other countries, including the
560
former Soviet Union. We are using all those contacts to address the issues of accountability for and security of nuclear material. That is what the conference in Moscow will do. The noble Lord may call it evidence, but I have to say that much of it is circumstantial, and a great deal of it is unproven. Even so, we are going to some considerable lengths to ensure that all countries exercise proper control over their nuclear material.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, while I of course accept that we must keep reports of this kind in proportion, and not exaggerate them, does the Minister agree that if there is any truth in them, it would be a matter of the utmost gravity? Not only could the material be purchased by irresponsible governments, as has been claimed, but it could also get into the hands of terrorists. Will the Minister tell the House why only a tiny part of the 1 billion dollars authorised by Congress for the dismantling of Russia's nuclear weapons has so far been spent?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer in your Lordships' House for what happens in the American House of Representatives. I can answer for things for which we are responsible. When I talk of keeping this matter in proportion, the one thing I should point out to your Lordships is that it may be easier than any of us would like to smuggle some small amounts of fissile material, but it needs a great deal of knowledge and facility to turn that into the dangers of which the noble Baroness spoke. We are alive to the problem. We are working on the problem, and we shall leave no stone unturned in ensuring that nuclear smuggling is stopped.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that as the Americans are taking the lead in negotiating with the Russians about this problem, it is perfectly reasonable to ask a question in this House about expenditure on the problem that has been guaranteed by the Americans? I was rather surprised by the way in which the Minister answered my question at the outset.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand that the noble Baroness is interested in the matter. So am I. But I have no influence over Congress directly, although we try to put the British point of view to individuals in Congress through the embassy in Washington. We seek to ensure that the American Administration live up to their duties. In this matter, as in many others, there is a difference between the White House and Congress, but we shall go on working away at it.

Chechnya
2.55 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton Lord Belhaven and Stenton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they are making to the Russian Government through the Council of Europe and through diplomatic channels to cease the

561
systematic destruction of towns and villages in Chechnya and to end the imprisonment of males from 12 years old and upwards in "filtration" camps.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we and our EU partners have regular contacts with Russia on the situation in Chechnya. In particular, EU Foreign Ministers made clear on 25th March their deep concern at recent reports of unprovoked attacks on Chechen towns and at the deterioration in the human rights situation.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Can she confirm press reports that the chain of command in Russia has broken down, which would account for the fact that the recent ceasefire ordered by President Yeltsin did not take place? Can she give the House any details of the "filtration" camps I mentioned in my Question, which, according to information I have, are the same as concentration camps with torture and inhuman treatment regularly taking place? Can she confirm or deny that?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are obviously concerned about reports concerning the chain of command within the Russian forces. It is a matter of considerable discussion within the OSCE to try to ensure that the peace plan proposed some weeks ago is put into operation. But that plan requires, as my noble friend said, a chain of command to make it work. As to what my noble friend said about "filtration" camps, we are obviously deeply concerned at reports of all human rights abuses in Chechnya. We have repeatedly called on all sides to restore respect for human rights and to support the efforts of the OSCE and others who continue to investigate reports of violations. I am glad to say that the efforts of the OSCE in this work have improved considerably from a few weeks ago.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does the Minister feel that the IMF lost an important opportunity to influence Russia towards a peaceful settlement of this expensive and destructive war when it agreed to the first tranche of a further 10.5 billion dollar loan to Russia last month? Cannot further tranches be tied to the withdrawal of Russian troops and the start of talks, without preconditions, so that the loan is not spent largely on continuing the war as the previous IMF loan was?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord is right about the last IMF loan having been spent on a continuation of the war. I know, however, that conditionality is applicable only if it can be applied directly. The 10.5 billion dollar loan to Russia from the IMF is to support economic and political reform in Russia as a whole. I genuinely believe that it would be counter-productive to the many areas of Russia seeking to reform by means of macro-economic stabilisation if the IMF programmes were to be halted. We have to continue using the OSCE and the Council of Europe influence we now have with Russia to bring an end to the Chechen problem and to
562
help the people of Chechnya to build up their lives following the terrible devastation they have suffered as a result of the conflict.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, did not the Question originally raised by the Minister's noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton ask specifically what was being done through the Council of Europe? The Minister touched upon that only marginally in her last reply. In view of the fact that we are members of the Council of Europe, together with a number of our colleagues and the Soviet Union, is there any particular reason why representations should not be made through that avenue which is open to us? Does the Minister intend to use those contacts within the context mentioned by the noble Lord in his Question?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's question is yes. We must understand that Russia became a member of the Council of Europe only on 28th February last. The United Kingdom has been very active in the Council of Europe in respect of this matter. The Parliamentary Assembly and the member states' governments are to monitor the progress of Russia's compliance with her commitments. I learnt this morning that a visit is to take place to Chechnya in May. That is the next step for which we were looking but about which I was unable to respond to my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth last night. Progress is being made. We expect Russia to respect the conditions imposed by the Parliamentary Assembly, which it agreed, concerning its terms of entry to the Council of Europe.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, would it help the Minister to know that the Council of Europe has established a working group to deal with Chechnya and that next week the group is meeting the Russian delegation to the Council of Europe, one of whose members is Mr. Zyuganov?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that is most welcome news. The working group will be extremely valuable in backing up all that governments do and the OSCE mission tries to do. The situation is a good deal better than when I last answered questions on the matter in this House. There is now an assistance group which I hope will work with the Council of Europe working group so that talks may be brokered as soon as possible between all parties.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, can my noble friend comment on the recent report that General Dudayev offered to meet President Yeltsin face to face?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that I heard the same report as my noble friend. I know that President Yeltsin wanted to nominate someone to meet Dudayev. I understand that that is still a matter of hope but that a meeting has not yet taken place.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the peace plan announced by President Yeltsin earlier this month. Do the British Government support the terms of that plan? Are any representatives of the

563
international community in touch with the Chechen leadership? Is any pressure being put on them to come to the table because I believe that earlier this month the Chechen side rather than the Russian side broke the ceasefire?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right in saying that on this occasion the Chechen side broke the ceasefire. However, on other occasions the Russians have broken the apparent ceasefire. Therefore, I do not believe that one can attribute blame more to one side than the other. The conflict is a tragedy and has claimed thousands of lives. That was why we were glad to see President Yeltsin's proposals for finding a peaceful solution. However, in order to attain that peaceful solution there must be an end to the fighting, a withdrawal of troops, a complete ceasefire—no little pockets of troops suddenly stirring up trouble in the outskirts of Chechnya—and working towards elections. Only in that way will the Chechen people be able to have their say on the future of Chechnya. We urge all sides to support the efforts to find a negotiated solution. When they show that willingness, the international community will be able to help to a greater degree.

Business
3.3 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, after the debate on fish stock conservation and management, my noble friend Lord Lindsay will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the agricultural aspects of BSE.

Business of the House: Finance Bill
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Finance Bill to be taken through its remaining stages on Friday 26th April. —(viscount Cranborne.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, why do the Government wish to rush through what is in many ways the most important Bill of the Session? Is it not a fact that experience has shown that the Second Reading of the Finance Bill is a good opportunity for a full dress, high level economic debate, while the later stages of the Bill can furnish a good opportunity for raising specific points which your Lordships' House may wish to discuss and feel that another place can consider in the light of that discussion? In other words, why is the Finance Bill, which some of us regard as the most important measure of the Session, to be rushed in this way?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, my question was in connection with the Motion confining the debate on Wednesday to six hour—
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will have patience because that is the next item of
564
business which will concern your Lordships. Therefore, with the permission of the House, I shall await his intervention with some interest.
I was not wholly surprised by the nature of my noble friend's intervention. He is as aware as any of your Lordships that the Finance Bill is a supply Bill. Your Lordships may pass or reject supply Bills but they may not amend any part of them. As my noble friend knows, that is the financial privilege of another place. I believe that he will agree that that privilege is jealously guarded by another place. As a result, your Lordships' Committee stage on supply Bills is invariably negatived.
I understand that amendments have not been tabled to supply Bills in your Lordships' House during the course of this century. Therefore, as regards the precedence, while I yield to no one in my desire that your Lordships should be able to go back to the conditions which obtained in the 19th century, I wonder how practical it is at this late stage of the present century to do so. My natural conservatism must yield to considerations of practicality, and therefore I suggest that my noble friend considers the advantages of that.
I agree that the Second Reading of the Finance Bill provides an opportunity for a general debate on economic affairs and I am sure that your Lordships will welcome that. However, perhaps I may point out that recently your Lordships have had a number of opportunities for economic debates, including a Motion on the tax and benefits system tabled by our noble friend Lord Skidelsky as recently as 27th March; a Motion on the Government's economic strategy tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, on 20th March; a Motion on wealth creation tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, on 21st February; and a Motion on inward investment tabled by my noble friend Lord Oxfuird on 31st January. I hope that my noble friend will consider that we have had a fair run on economic questions during the past few weeks.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for that answer, but will he answer the point that I raised? Why is it thought right to rush through the Finance Bill in one day when it would be perfectly feasible to take the Second Reading on one day and the remaining stages on another day? What is the hurry?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I have not been in your Lordships' House nearly as long as my noble friend. However, my clear understanding is that for some decades it has been the habit of this House to pursue that device. If my noble friend wishes to change the habit of your Lordships' House, perhaps I may suggest that he submits one of his pithily argued memoranda to the Procedure Committee, which I am sure will be prepared to consider it.
I hope that I have the correct sense of the House when I say that it is your Lordships' wish that we should try to stick to what has been a well tried precedent during the course of this century.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Debate, 17th April
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Richard set down for Wednesday 17th April shall be limited to six hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, how many speakers are on the list for this debate? I believe that I counted at least 40 speakers this morning. How many minutes will that permit if the debate is confined to six hours? Why has a time limit been imposed on a Wednesday debate when there are 40 speakers?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may assist in this matter. This Motion is tabled at the request of the party which is in charge of the debate. Tomorrow's debate is a Labour Party debate. We have chosen a very topical and interesting subject. As a consequence, there are a large number of speakers. On these Benches, we traditionally hold the view that a debate on a Wednesday should be for five hours. By convention, that is the length of a normal debate. That five hours may be used to debate one subject or be divided into two—either two two-and-a-half hour debates or a three-hour debate and a two-hour debate.
When we chose this topic, we thought that there should be one debate but when we saw the number of speakers we realised that we would need to look carefully at the time for the debate. I am sure that the noble Viscount is well briefed on this issue, but when we analysed the matter, we realised that each speaker would have not less than six minutes. We thought that by the time the 36th, 37th and 38th speakers had been reached, six minutes would be as much as the House could stand.
Therefore, we took the view that it would be helpful to the House to restrict the debate to six hours. Those speaking at the end of the debate will be here until 9.30 p.m., and of course there may be a Statement. A Statement is to be repeated today and that may well also be the case tomorrow. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe will also have noticed that there is the Second Reading of a very important Bill to follow the six-hour debate tomorrow. Therefore, in all the circumstances, we tried to take into account the interests of the whole House in reaching our decision.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that some of us are extremely grateful to be protected by the six-hour limit?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, faced with such a formidable, analytical combination, I can say only that I have nothing to add.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Debates, 24th April
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with to enable the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Elibank to be taken before that in the name of the Lord Willoughby de Broke on Wednesday 24th April. —(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fish Stock Conservation and Management: Select Committee Report
3.12 p.m.
Lord Perry of Walton Lord Perry of Walton rose to move, That this House take note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee on Fish Stock Conservation and Management [Second Report, HL Paper 25].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was privileged to be chairman of the sub-committee which undertook the inquiry. I am deeply grateful to all the members of the sub-committee, to our specialist adviser, Professor John Beddington, to our Clerk and to our Scientific Assistant. Without their help, my task would have been impossible. I found it both fascinating and frightening. At the outset, I was lamentably ignorant, like most people, of the scale of the global problem and the appalling difficulties involved in solving it.
I begin in an unorthodox way by stressing what the report is not about. I do so because most of the discussion about fish that has taken place in this House over the past few years has concerned the common fisheries policy of the European Union. We were not asked to examine that policy. That policy decides every year on two groups of things. First, it determines the total allowable catches in European Union waters for all species of fish. That determines the size of the cake. Secondly, it splits those allowable catches into quotas for each member state. That determines the size of each national slice.
The sizes of those slices matter vitally to fishermen. They are the source of bitter disagreement between the member states. Ministers boast of having obtained the biggest slice of this or that fish and, in consequence, they are the stuff of all media headlines. By contrast, the size of the cake receives very little public attention. Yet if that is too large, fish stocks will be depleted. Fish stocks are depleted whether they are fished by British or Spanish fishermen. The size of the slices is of no account.
Our remit was to conduct an inquiry into the scientific aspects of fish stock control and management. In our call for evidence, we made it perfectly plain that we did

567
not mean to confine the inquiry to fisheries in European Union waters but that we recognise that the problem is world-wide.
The report of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations in 1995 entitled The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture showed that world-wide, 69 per cent. of all normally edible species of fish were either exploited fully, over-exploited, depleted or gradually recovering from depletion.
Our report has three chapters. The first reviews the evidence from the reports which existed and from other published works. The second reviews the written evidence that we received from 45 witnesses and the oral evidence that we took from 15 of them. That chapter is supplemented by three appendices which describe the visits that we made to the Scottish Office's laboratories in Aberdeen, to Bergen and to Austevoll in Norway. The third chapter, drawing on the information from both chapters 1 and 2, sets out our opinions in relation to the current situation and our recommendations.
I should like to highlight four aspects of the report. The first is the scientific basis for the exploitation of fish stocks. As a stock is harvested by fishing, the demographic response is that that stock increases its growth, its survival and reproduction. That allows a sustainable yield to be taken year after year without depleting it, provided that the harvest is not too large.
Perhaps I may take cod as an example. The harvest in relation to cod is already too large. Cod reaches maturity—the time when it begins to spawn—only when it is five to six years-old. A mature cod spawns only once a year but lays something like 2 million eggs. Those eggs drift in the currents, hatch into larvae and both eggs and larvae form part of the food chain of all sorts of other fish. They are at the mercy of predators and pollution. They depend on a supply of nutrients in order to grow and their growth depends also on the temperature and salinity of the sea water.
It is not surprising that the proportion which survives and becomes young fish is both small and extremely variable from year to year. Our scientific knowledge of the effect of each of those factors is incomplete, but what can be measured with some certainty is the number of young fish added each year to the stock. That is known as the annual recruitment. As I said, that fluctuates widely and is the main factor on which total allowable catches are calculated each year.
The problem is that the relationship between that annual recruitment and the number of spawning cod is unknown. In a year where the variable factors favour the maturation of young fish, a relatively small spawning stock may produce a very large recruitment. That, in turn, leads to a large total allowable catch and consequently a further fall in the spawning stock which may eventually lead to a collapse altogether of the stock. That is what happened on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland and off the east coast of the United States. That is what threatens North Sea and North Atlantic cod, where the estimates on spawning stock have been gradually declining over the years.
The second aspect of the report that I should like to highlight is the method currently used to control stocks by the common fisheries policy—namely, the total allowable catches. Clearly that method just does not work because overfishing was identified by almost every one of our witnesses as the biggest problem of all. In our report we have identified many reasons why TACs are inadequate—mostly because they are set too high, because the minimum landing sizes are too small or because the nets are inadequate and call for discarding fish. Many of our recommendations consist of suggestions about improving each of those causes. There is, indeed, agreement everywhere that those things need to be done; but intense competition between nations for bigger shares in the total catch make it extremely difficult for them to agree to do them.
The first cause of inadequacy is that, in setting TACs, fisheries scientists, who are well aware of all the uncertainties in our scientific knowledge, have felt themselves unable to give clear and precise advice to managers; managers who, in turn, are all too well aware of the social and economic implications of setting total allowable catches low and who have, therefore, tended to use the imprecision of the scientific advice as an excuse for setting TACs higher than the scientists have suggested. A witness from MAFF put it very well to us, saying that,
"unquestionably if scientists were in a position to give crisp hard advice as to exactly what was and what was not desirable in terms of levels of fishing it would put Ministers in a much stronger position to say to fishermen that it was necessary to take this or that tough decision. The clearer and sharper the advice the better".
We therefore make recommendations about improving the communication between fisheries scientists, fishermen, managers and politicians. We call for governments to adopt a precautionary approach to fisheries management in the belief that that could lead to definitions of total allowable catches that set upper limits which could not safely be exceeded.
The second inadequacy of the total allowable catch system of control is that the minimum landing sizes set for different species of fish are frequently set far below the size of a mature spawning fish. Considering cod once again, the minimum landing size is 35 cms, but even when cod reach 60 cms long only half of them have matured. Few cod would reach spawning size at all if another biological response did not lead to some maturing younger and earlier than normal.
The third related factor is that the nets that are used are permitted to have mesh sizes that are too small to allow young fish to escape. That is especially true in mixed fisheries where the target species is smaller than the young of larger species; for example, when fishing for haddock and catching cod. In such circumstances the cod may be discarded either because they are below the minimum landing size or because the fisherman has already caught his full quota of cod. Almost all discarded fish are dead, having been killed by the catching process. The Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. of the world's total catch of fish is discarded—that is, some 27 million tonnes every year, and an almost unimaginable waste of food.
We make a lot of recommendations to try to counter those inadequacies. We recommend the consideration of introducing legislation to require the use of various technical measures to improve the selectivity of nets, but I shall not go into that detail. We considered the question of following the example of Norway where discarding fish is illegal. However, we recognised that there are many more difficulties in the European Union in imposing a ban, compared to Norway which controls its own waters. Therefore, we ask that, first, a sampling scheme for discards be started; and, secondly, that the implications of a ban be examined as a priority. Further, we recommend that areas where juvenile fish are found to be congregating should immediately be temporarily closed to fishing. That is already done by Norway but, again, it would require European Union action to be effective in our waters.
The third aspect that I should like to highlight is that of finding an alternative method of controlling overfishing rather than continuing to rely upon total allowable catches. There was general agreement from all our witnesses that fishing overcapacity had the greatest effect on overfishing. Again, the Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates overcapacity worldwide at 30 per cent. The organisation also estimates that the world's fishing industries make a loss every year of 50 billion dollars, and that this is paid for by national subsidies and grants.
The best way of stopping overfishing is by reducing the fishing effort; in other words, reducing the number and efficiency of fishing fleets. The only feasible way of reducing that is by progressively decommissioning existing fishing boats. That was accepted as a policy under the CFP as early as 1987 when the Multi Annual Guidance Programme was introduced. It provides subsidies to fishermen willing to decommission their boats.
In 1993, however, the European Court of Auditors concluded that between 1987 and 1991 the subsidies and measures aimed at reducing fishing capacity had in fact actually led to a net increase in capacity. That was because any reduction in the number of boats was more than compensated by the increase in the efficiency of the new ones. Further, the decommissioned vessels were frequently not scrapped but sold at very low prices to fishermen in developing countries so that, on a worldwide basis, the decommissioning scheme was stultified.
We therefore recommend that the Multi Annual Guidance Programme should be supported wholeheartedly by European Union member states, with more radical decommissioning targets and with financial aid for fishermen who decide to retire from the industry. We also recommend that there should be agreed guidelines for the disposal of decommissioned vessels in order to protect subsistence fishermen in developing countries from the competition of commercial fishing boats. The fact is that those developing countries are also being tempted to sell their own fishing rights in their territorial waters in order to get some badly needed overseas currency. That is a terrible danger to subsistence fishing; and, indeed, millions of people could be put in danger of starvation.
We recognise that for the European Union to abandon control by total allowable catches and to move to total reliance upon effort control is a step that can be taken only after a full examination of its implications, which are likely to be complex in the extreme. Nevertheless, we recommend that such a full examination be undertaken as a matter of urgency.
The fourth aspect of the report that I want to highlight is the growing importance of aquaculture as an alternative to capture fishing. In 1993, the worldwide total of fish harvested reached over 101 million tonnes, of which 16 million came from aquaculture. The question has naturally been raised as to whether capture fisheries, like the hunting of animals, could give place to farming. However, there is general agreement that that is unlikely. There are only a limited number of sites that are suitable for fish farming.
All seawater fish currently feed on animal protein which is obtained from industrial fishing that produces fish meal. Each kilogramme of salmon produced by farming requires three to five kilogrammes of fish meal which is not a very efficient method. Furthermore, there are problems in preventing the spread of disease among farmed fish and problems of environmental damage from using drugs, including antibiotics, in their control.
Our principal recommendation about aquaculture is that the Government support research into the possibility of devising a diet for cultured salt water fish that does not depend on fish meal.
We make one general recommendation; namely, the establishment of an intergovernmental panel on the oceans, as suggested in the first report of the UK Government's Panel on Sustainable Development. The very existence of such a panel would serve, we believe, to push global concerns about the oceans up the political agenda. They desperately need such attention.
I believe that I have said enough to explain why I found our investigation both fascinating and frightening. I quote the final two sentences of the report,
"In their heart of hearts, scientists, fishermen, managers and politicians must all know that action must be taken now to prevent a repeat of the Grand Banks fiasco nearer to home. The question is, will they take it?"
The Government's reply to our report reached me last week and has not yet been considered by the Select Committee. My personal reaction to it does not, I fear, give me much hope that the answer to that last question in our report is likely to be yes. While I welcome the Government's general approval of our ideas I find their overall attitude complacent and wholly lacking in the sense of urgency that affected every single member of the sub-committee throughout our inquiry.
I shall mention one point to illustrate what I mean. We asked the Government to press for an urgent examination by the European Union of how to achieve a 30 per cent. reduction in fishing effort through decommissioning. In their response they point out that decommissioning alone does not target stocks of individual species of fish so that it could not guarantee that fishermen could continue with their accustomed fishing patterns. They conclude that to replace total

571
allowable catches wholly by effort control would be inappropriate. They stated in addition that the Multi Annual Guidance Programme was their contribution to reduction in the size of the fishing fleet.
All of that is absolutely true and we were aware of it. However, the response makes no reference to the need to achieve a 30 per cent. reduction in fishing effort which all the measures currently in force have—as we have shown—signally failed to do. As we have emphasised, the Government can do little by acting alone, but we seem to have failed to persuade them that the situation is so critical that they should be ringing alarm bells loudly in Brussels and at the FAO in a desperate attempt to get international action. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee on Fish Stock Conservation and Management [Second Report, HL Paper 25].—(Lord Perry of Walton).
3.33 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I start by heartily congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, on the way in which he introduced the Motion and chaired the sub-committee on which I was pleased to serve. Noble Lords will have gathered from his clear speech that this matter constitutes an almost intractable problem. I think that everyone agrees that there is a problem and that scientists have been drawing attention to the problem for 90 years. It is 90 years or more since the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) was formed in 1902 with the one objective of drawing attention to the danger of overfishing, and yet we appear to get ever further from resolving the problem of how regulations and policies on the management of fisheries can be put in place based on the scientific advice which is available.
The question which the Science and Technology Committee had to address was whether the scientific advice was defective and whether that was one of the reasons that regulations have failed to be informed by science. Alternatively, is the advice sidelined because it is inconvenient, inexpedient or too dangerous politically? What is needed by policy makers and by the fishing industry to make the scientific advice more effective? It is probably only in the latter half of this century that the problem has come to the attention of the public at large. Although, as I said, ICES was drawing attention to this problem at the beginning of the century, there was a perception that fishing catches around the world were limited by the fishing resource; that is, the amount of fishing effort. Now the perception is quite different. Now the situation is the opposite in that the catch is limited by the size of the natural resource. Between 1950 and 1989 the global catch rose but by 1989 it peaked at about 86 million tonnes. Since then it has stagnated and, as the noble Lord, Lord Perry, has explained, a number of fisheries have declined or collapsed.
The amount of fish available for human consumption has been maintained through aquaculture. If we are to see the amount of protein for the world's population that is derived from fish being maintained, clearly an awful
572
lot will be asked of aquaculture. It does not need a deep inquiry to demonstrate that already aquaculture in many parts of the world has caused problems of pollution. Sometimes it has reached the limit of its exploitation. After all, it requires a great deal of protein in order to produce protein. It seems totally unrealistic to believe that we shall be able to make good the projected deficits from the catch from the wild resource. Depending on what population scale one wishes to use in one's calculations, by the next decade and well into the next century there will be an alarming deficit in protein derived from fish.
We must remember that only two-thirds of the catch is used for human consumption; the other third is used for animal feeds. That is partly because of the nature of the catch but it is also the result, quite frankly, of an extremely inefficient use of at least part of the catch. One may ask why this matters to the developed world as there will be other sources of protein. We shall obtain protein from plants and we may be able to obtain protein from other farming systems. Of course the problem is much more immediate in parts of the third world. In many parts of Africa and Asia, as we set out in the report, between 40 and 60 per cent. of the protein that is derived from animal sources comes from fish. In the third world there are few alternative sources of protein. The matter we are discussing will give major cause for concern as regards many developing nations where the per capita consumption of protein is already dangerously low.
There is agreement that an international attempt needs to be made to balance the take from the natural resource with the availability of the resource. The noble Lord, Lord Perry, has already pointed out that this obvious strategy is already being thwarted by massive subsidies which are given, in their wisdom, by member governments. It is not fair to blame the scientists for this problem but it is nevertheless a fact that improved technology, improved engineering and improved techniques increase effort. However, above all, it is the failure, time and again, to put in place international measures to share this resource in an equitable fashion that has led to the problem. If one discusses the failure of the fisheries policy as regards our home waters, the debate is invariably polarised to the matter of the Spanish and the British quota hopping and other such matters. Such debate is a scapegoat for the failure of the overall framework to be adequately set, as the noble Lord, Lord Perry, pointed out. There needs to be a major initiative to draw to the attention of world leaders that sustainable development is perhaps as important as any issue.
Nevertheless, it would be fair to recognise that in the past 12 months one modest measure of an international nature has been taken: that is the United Nations agreement on straddling and migratory species. That is welcome. It is a modest proposal. In so far as it is a start, it must be a precedent.

573
I must declare that I am a member of the UK Government Panel on Sustainable Development. As your Lordships have heard, we suggested, and the Select Committee report repeats, the recommendation that there should be an intergovernment panel on the oceans. I congratulate the Government on having set up in November the London Oceans Workshop, which I was able to attend, at which that concept was discussed. It did not find approval from the delegates, although, surprisingly, the underlying need for such a panel was emphasised. The workshop agreed that there was indeed a need to improve co-ordination of the world fisheries. There was agreement that there was a need to achieve consensus. There was agreement that there was a need to improve the effectiveness of scientific advice. But the representatives were representing their own organisations. The last thing they wanted was the setting up of another organisation.
My conclusion is that many of those organisations, including those for which one has a great respect such as ICES, have failed lamentably over the past 20, 30 or 40 years to make an impact on international governments, including our own, and the European Union. Unless this concept is moved up the political agenda and given the force required, we shall continue to make little progress. I remain unrepentant. Despite the conclusion of the workshop, which I accept—it discarded the idea of a new panel—I believe that if we are to break the mould something of this nature needs to be undertaken urgently.
The workshop will report to the Commission on Sustainable Development. The Commission on Sustainable Development may lead with the force and vigour required. I think that we shall all pray that it will succeed in doing so.
When people get together to analyse what is going wrong, it does not take long to agree that in each fishery and subsection of those fisheries around the world there has to be a management agreement on what constitutes sustainable fishing. It will differ according to the species, the latitude, the type of fishing, and so on. None the less, someone has to put in an agreed policy on sustainable fishing. One has to put in policies to reduce the by-catch and, above all, to discourage discards and losses in storage and distribution. One has to find equitable ways of reducing the fishing to sustainable levels. One also needs to put in place policies which protect the marine resource from pollution and degradation. Therefore, it is not a matter just for fisheries. It is extremely important, for example, in this country to bring in the Department of the Environment as well as the Ministry of Agriculture. One of our recommendations—I hope that it is not seen as a criticism so much as an urge for better things—was that the Department of the Environment and the fisheries department should work more closely together.
I commend a recent initiative. It is led by both Unilever and WWF. They have established an independent marine stewardship council which will create market led economic incentives for sustainable fishing. This will
574
establish broad sets of principles for sustainable fishing and set standards for individual fisheries. Only fisheries meeting those standards will be eligible for certification.
Those are precisely the initiatives required. There needs to be a framework in which all fisheries put together policies which are then defended to the hilt by the national governments involved. I am sure that our own fisheries Ministers and other national governments would welcome a much stronger steer not just from scientists but from the other components of the industry. It is no good denying that there are enormous socio and economic pressures. It is no good denying that if one is a Minister having to make a difficult decision it must sometimes be a relief that there is an element of doubt. If one has rival claims from competing fishermen, one is bound to support one's own.
We were impressed that the Norwegians had brought together the different components of the fishing industry in a way that we have been unable to achieve. I refer to an advisory council on which scientists, fishermen, consumers, environmentalists and policy makers are all represented. It is a very powerful committee. I recognise that in the European Union the issue is not so simple. It would be unrealistic if we thought that Spanish fishermen and Cornish fishermen, for example, would sit on a committee together and collaborate happily to determine an equitable solution. But even if we have to do it on a UK scale to begin with, it has to be done. It seemed to us surprising that there were so few examples of interdisciplinary panels on which all people come together, share the problem and ultimately own the problem. At the end of the day, that is the firmest advice that we can give.
At present scientists are not getting the message across. They are blamed by policy makers for being imprecise. They are blamed by fishermen for getting their science wrong. But as regards the other side of the equation, one finds that there is a great deal of misunderstanding and sometimes misinformation. Communications are appallingly bad. Even between the south west and the north east of the United Kingdom communications seem to be poor. If ever one needs to bring together interested parties, this is the sector where it should occur.
We need to develop robust management strategies throughout the world. We have to start at home; and we need to put in place some mechanism which we sorely lack at present.
3.46 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I am delighted to have served on the sub-committee. I begin by paying my regards and respects to our chairman. He made a marvellous opening speech. I honestly believe that we should seek some way of nominating him for an award on conservation. From the moment he took on the leadership of the sub-committee he played an active role in the conservation of fish. I am well aware that not many housewives seem concerned. Until fish and chip shops start to close, which would put people back into the kitchen producing their own evening meals, the seriousness of the situation may not be properly underlined in the public mind.

575
We were also lucky to have a specialist adviser of the quality of Professor Beddington. I am not sure whether it is improper in this House to say so, but in Philippa Tudor we had an excellent clerk. She was able to deal with large quantities of information; that she and the chairman were able to deliver a report as slender as it is is a tribute to their mastery of the facts and the language.
I wondered, in preparing for today's debate, how I could make a strong impression. I believe the situation to be urgent. What happened off the fishing banks in the North Atlantic is an important lesson which does not seem to have gained the public mind or the world political mind as much as it should. I read the recently released government response to our report. I am delighted that the Government distributed it to other governments through the European Union. However, I am a little sad that the urgency of the situation did not seem to be reflected as strongly as I would have wished in those government remarks. It is still open to the Government to take strong action and to make as many powerful remarks as they can about an awful situation.
Funnily enough, in the reading associated with the sub-committee's papers, which were voluminous, two documents made a big impression on me. They highlighted certain aspects of the problem of climbing up the agenda. The meteorologists have climbed the international agenda to the heights through the whole question of global warming. I find it fascinating that people are becoming concerned about the pollution of the seas by noise. It may be due to the power of ships' engines. Some new ferry boats produce an incredible amount of noise which is distressing to sea mammals, whales and dolphins. It is also probably having a serious impact on the way fish communicate with each other.
Taking matters a step further, I say to myself: "Isn't it interesting that there has been so much discussion in America about the possibility of detecting global warming by firing charges off California and picking up the sound on the other side of the Pacific Ocean?". If the Pacific Ocean is warming, the message is that the sounds will get through faster to the New Zealand and Tokyo listening points. There was considerable discussion but I was pleased to hear that the Americans had decided to go ahead. Global warming is a big problem. However, it was decided to restrict the number of charges fired to two or three a week rather than every hour which would have been a terrible noise for the poor whales. It was agreed to consider the situation at the end of the year and perhaps call the experiment off if it was causing too much trouble to the fish. That is the most marvellous example of scientists realising the importance of problems of fish and fish pollution. I apologise for the digression, but to me it is an interesting situation.
No one sitting on the sub-committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Perry, can have any doubts that there are grave difficulties of communication. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, referred to them beautifully in his presentation. It is worrying when fishermen say, "We don't believe the scientists." It is worrying to hear members of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food imply that their job would be much easier if those damned scientists did not
576
come forward with worrying information. In a democracy, where those wanting authority have to rely upon votes, it is difficult when the information you are given means that you must bring unhappy and unpleasant tidings to some of your constituents. Nevertheless, if the fishing effort worldwide has to be reduced by 30 per cent. to ensure that our children and grandchildren have fish of reasonable quality and different species to eat, we must somehow make that leap in communication.
The Scottish Office, which is concerned with fisheries, suggests more education. The Government, in their response, rightly said that they would look into the matter but thought that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals or a similar organisation could bear the burden and carry things forward. My feeling is that headway will only be made if so much noise is created in the magazines that ladies read at hairdressers about the need to protect fish that fishermen's wives and daughters will say to fishermen, "You'd better go to this course and learn about the science and problems that fisheries will face in the future". That may sound a puerile approach but until the public at the level of fishermen and their families become more interested in recognising what the science problems are and what has been learnt by organisations like ICES and FAO, the communication problem will be insurmountable. It must be surmounted.
Like my chairman, I wish to repeat the closing part of the report, which summarises where we stand. I hope that when the Minister replies she will be able to say that there is growing interest in the urgency of meeting the problems that we find. I am an ordinary doctor but I came out of the discussions convinced that the fisheries scientists, the fishermen and fishing managers who are trying to control fisheries and preserve them need more support. It was, I am sure, our chairman who wrote on page 54 of the report that,
"the lesson to be learned from the collapse of the Grand Banks fishery is that ignoring the warning signs year after year can end in the loss of thousands rather than hundreds of jobs. In their heart of hearts, scientists, fishermen, managers and politicians must all know that action must be taken now to prevent a repeat of the Grand Banks fiasco nearer to home".
I would add, more generally, on the high seas.
If I were asked to compress the message that I am trying to convey in support of my chairman, I would say that we must take the whole question on board as a matter of great urgency.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I also would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Perry, for the clear way in which he introduced the report and the debate. I also thank the members of the sub-committee. All three speakers so far have been members and the two who are to follow me were also members. The report is clearly the result of a searching inquiry and it is thorough and frank. The key sentence, in my view, in the conclusions is:
"Immediate steps must be taken by all developed nations to reduce their commercial fishing effort very significantly".

577
That is a short, clear sentence. The noble Lord, Lord Perry, and other speakers have fully explained what the sub-committee found in the course of its inquiry and the reasons for those conclusions. The report confirms the impression which I and, I am sure, some others had formed about the extent of over-fishing. I shall not repeat or expand on material in the report. My contribution, which I hope will be fairly brief, will be to consider the immediate practical questions: how the need to reduce fishing effort can become acceptable among those involved in sea fisheries and how this reduction can best be carried out, particularly in the United Kingdom. Neither will be easy, although all British fishermen's organisations know that conservation measures are essential. They ask for such measures to be fair, sensible and properly monitored and policed.
On the question of acceptability, I shall quote from a statement made less than two weeks ago, on 3rd April, by the Scottish Fish Merchants' Federation, which represents an important part of the industry but not the fishermen. The statement said:
"The present management of the quota system has failed miserably. We urgently need a complete overhaul of the system for the future well-being of both catchers and processors".
I believe that we are all in general agreement on that, or at least we appeared to be in our debate on the common fisheries policy on 14th February. The statement continued:
"Quotas should be set at a realistic level and should not be solely based on scientific evidence, which can be inaccurate".
That is a recent example of scepticism about the findings and opinions of scientists which exists within the industry. The federation was advocating even larger quotas than those adopted recently in the European Union. We must recognise that, while conservation of stocks as a principle is widely supported, there are parts of the sea fisheries industry that will not agree with the suggestion in the report that quotas should be lower than they are, especially if apparently based only on scientific advice.
I, however, accept the Select Committee's conclusions, and I want to concentrate on the second question: how the necessary reduction in fishing effort can best be carried out in this country. The principal method must be decommissioning schemes. I shall not dilate on that, as I described what happened in our debate on 14th February. Most of the other fishing nations in the European Union had already adopted decommissioning schemes; so, given our scheme, British fishermen can now feel in a similar situation and need no longer be confined to harbour for weeks on end as they were under the previous British "limited days at sea" system.
The decommissioning scheme is voluntary. It is questionable whether enough money has been made available and whether the inducements are enough to produce the scale of reduction that is needed. I am worried, in addition, that new fishing boats coming into service may almost equalise the vessels that are being retired. Knowing that today's debate was in the offing,
578
I asked a Starred Question less than a month ago (on 19th March) in the hope of obtaining the latest information. I was not disappointed. In the exchanges my noble friend Lord Lucas gave the House some very relevant facts. If I understood him correctly, he stated that licences for British boats to fish are being issued only if a new boat has a lower tonnage and less engine power than the boat it is replacing. I do not know whether or not it has to be much lower. I presume that no licence is issued unless a new boat is a replacement. That is a sensible policy, but it could take a long time before existing boats are replaced; and if the reductions in tonnage are small, they will not add up to very much.
The British decommissioning scheme is separate and unconnected with licensing. Because it is voluntary its impact depends on the public money available and the number of applications being made. If my noble friend has time when she replies to the debate I hope she may be able to give the House the latest information on the rate of decommissioning in this country.
While most, if not all, speakers in this debate will no doubt agree with the Select Committee's conclusion that a significant reduction of effort is necessary, we must consider the effects on the fishing communities. They are mostly now in small concentrations on the coast, many in our less populated areas where there is little alternative employment. I would support carefully crafted schemes for alternative employment designed to offset the required reduction in fishing boats operating from those areas. That would be part of a deliberate national strategy to conserve fish stocks.
The fact must be faced that in future there will be fewer fishermen working in their occupation at sea—not only in this country but also in other developed countries. One reason, as in other industries, is that less manpower is needed owing to modern technology. The other is the deliberate reduction of effort that is now necessary.
As regards advances in technology and in efficient catching power and equipment, they follow previous patterns and are not new in the fishing communities. For example, in Scotland it is reckoned that the amount of fish expected to be caught 60 years ago by 100 men during four weeks, with their contemporary types of boat, methods and gear, can be caught by 10 men in four days now. The vital question is whether the fish will be there to be caught in a few years' time.
For most of my life my home in northern Scotland has been close to fishing communities, some of which were in my constituency when I was in the other place. In the past, it was a day for celebration, which we all joined in, when a new up-to-date fishing boat first came into service. Now, modern, sophisticated additions to the fleet are possible only under the restrictive licensing that I mentioned. Fishermen whose fathers and grandfathers were fishermen cannot be certain that their sons will be able to follow on that path.
Another factor affecting these close-knit communities is that most of the boats nowadays are owned by groups of individuals, often within families. They are share fishermen, not employees of companies. The large British trawlers which habitually went on fishing

579
voyages to Iceland and similarly distant fishing grounds have almost disappeared following the general adoption of 200-mile limits in 1976 and 1977. Most of them were based in Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwood. They were owned by companies and the fishermen were their employees, many of them members of the seamen's trade union. The companies were able to see the warning signs and carry out a contraction over a period before the 200-mile limit was generally adopted, painful though that contraction was.
The large majority of British boats now are of medium size, normally at sea for less than a week at a time, and the emphasis has moved to Scotland, where operations are spread over many ports and harbours.
Moving out of fishing altogether can pose problems for the boat owners, who are individuals and families, apart from the loss of a traditional occupation and business. For example, a large tax bill may be presented—an accumulation which has been postponed, or rolled over, with the building and purchase of new boats in the past.
The boatbuilders upon whom the fishing industry relies, and will continue to rely in future, must also be borne in mind. They are likely to have fewer orders in future. But it would be a tragedy if they were all forced or encouraged to go out of business.
I could say a great deal more, but I hope that I have said enough to draw attention to the human, social and demographic problems which can arise from the necessary reduction that must take place. Every effort should be made to explain the cogent reasons for the reduction to all sections of the fishing industry and their families. The dreadful warning and lesson of the Canadian Grand Banks fishery and similar disasters should be pointed out, together with a reminder of the crisis nearer home when the herring fishery in the North Sea had to be closed for several years. It will be necessary to demonstrate that other fishing nations are deliberately reducing their fishing effort to a comparable extent. Unless action on these lines is taken there is bound to be dismay and discontent. I hope that most of our fishing industry will be convinced, through the good communications recommended by the Select Committee, and will co-operate fully in a long-term strategy.
I end on a lighter note. Although we are a maritime nation, the media are careless with descriptions and terms of a nautical nature. Fishing boats are described as "trawlers" in cases where clearly they are not. Even when a newspaper report describing an incident or dispute indicates that the operation in question is lifting creels by a shellfish boat, the boat is called a trawler. The same applies with seine-net boats and others. All fishermen are "trawlermen", though most of them have never been in a trawler in their lives. I say this because I believe there is a gulf between the fishing and maritime communities and the rest of the country. Even when a dispute about methods being used is reported, vessels using drift nets, which are quite different from trawls, and others using long lines are again all called trawlers. How can the fishermen involved and their families respect what they read in the press when they see the
580
most elementary mis-descriptions? It is difficult for the public to understand the issues and appreciate the livelihoods of our coastal communities in those circumstances.
Of course, on the other side, there are technical terms which may confuse: a cod-end is not a codpiece. Jargon in international circles also makes comprehension very difficult. Noble Lords will know the term "straddling stocks" and understand what it means. But it is not so easy for our landlocked citizens to know what it means, especially when they do know that very few fish have legs.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, it was a privilege for me to be invited to become a co-opted member of the sub-committee conducting such an interesting and important inquiry. I very much enjoyed working under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, with the expert advice of Professor Beddington, and we were all greatly helped by our extremely capable clerk, Dr. Tudor.
The report has been very timely. It coincided with an upsurge of public concern and interest in this problem, reflected in the fact that, although many reports of your Lordships, into which a great deal of work and care has gone, do not attract any public attention, this report certainly did. It had a great deal of publicity, which was very useful.
Previous speakers indicated the fundamental problem: the enormous reduction, year on year, of the stocks of fish all around the world. Occasionally, that can be due to natural and manmade hazards. Apart from pollution and oil spills, holes in the ozone layer may, for example, be reducing the numbers of photosynthetic plankton—the microscopic plants on which the planktonic animals, the zooplankton, which include krill, feed, so affecting sea life higher up the food chain. Also, of course, fish eat each other; we know that the whiting is a particularly voracious fish. The other day, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, gave us some startling figures about the estimated consumption of fish by seals around our shores.
A particularly serious problem is when natural hazards are joined to man-made hazards. A notable example is the collapse of fisheries by 90 per cent. in six years in the Black Sea, reported on in New Scientist late last year. That is one example of collapse of a fishery which is not due to over-fishing but to the fact that the deeper waters of the Black Sea are filled with rotting vegetation brought down by the many rivers. Therefore, they become anoxic and virtually a desert which supports no life. A comb jellyfish imported in ballast tanks from the United States has multiplied fantastically and eats all the eggs and larvae of the fish. Combined with the terrible pollution from Russia and eastern Europe, that has effectively wiped out that fishery.
But in most parts of the world the collapse of stocks is due simply to overfishing. The Food and Agriculture Organisation records that the world's commercial marine catches rose from about 20 million tonnes in

581
1950 to 86 million tonnes in 1989, an increase of well over 300 per cent. in less than 40 years. It calculates that 25 per cent. of fish stocks are overfished, depleted or recovering; that 44 per cent. are either heavily or fully fished and at risk of overfishing; and that since 1970 there has been a 62 per cent. decrease in the global index of fish resources abundance and a 73 per cent. decrease in the abundance of high value species. As a result of that overfishing, a number of major fisheries have collapsed or may soon do so.
Reference has already been made to the Grand Banks Fishery, which is perhaps the single greatest and most famous fishery in the world, about which Kipling wrote in Captains Courageous. It has been virtually wiped out and I believe that so far there is no sign of any recovery. In the Whitsun Recess last year I was in New England and met a Mr. Charles Collins who had produced a report on the Georges Bank and Gulf of Maine Fishery off New England. He very kindly gave me a copy of that report, which I circulated to my colleagues on the sub-committee. It was striking that the problems there were almost exactly the problems that we faced in the North Sea.
But we ourselves cannot do anything about the problems in distant parts of the world. The only area in which we have a limited influence is European waters. So far as we are concerned those are controlled by the common fisheries policy. I noticed when we were making our inquiry that we covered quite a lot of the same ground as an earlier report in 1992 by a sub-committee of the European Communities Committee had covered, specifically on the common fisheries policy. That inquiry was chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and both the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and I were also members. I noted that when we discussed such matters as the over-fishing of cod and haddock, discards and black fish, decommissioning, square mesh panels and TACs, we were treading familiar ground.
But, in fact, the problem is so important, as the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, and succeeding speakers said, that it does no harm to have it revisited. The more we can do to bring the seriousness and urgency of the problem to the attention of the public the better. The essence of the problem, as others have said, is over-fishing. The passage that struck me most in all the evidence given to our committee was made by a leading authority, Professor McIntyre, who said:
"We know what the solution to the problem is, and that is simply to reduce fishing effort. If we doubted that at all we had the excellent examples of the two world wars where for four years fishing effort was practically stopped. Before each of these world wars the stocks were in a poor state. Four years later they were in a first class state".
That is a clear example of the kind of direction in which we should be moving.
The common fisheries policy is in a state of some crisis. As I have mentioned before in this House and most recently in the debate last night on the IGC, the Factortame judgment, which legalised quota hopping, torpedoed the whole basis of the policy which was based on national quotas and the principle described as "relative stability". In fact, one quarter of our entire
582
quota is fished by foreign boats—150 of them. The Government say that they propose to pursue that in the IGC but the prospects of achieving anything where unanimity is required seem pretty thin.
Last year we had the North Sea Conference. That was primarily a conference of environment Ministers, but a leading expert—Dr. Mark Tasker, of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee—said then that North Sea cod would become commercially extinct within the next five years. It was likely to vanish in commercially harvestable numbers because EU states would not make the 50 per cent. cut in fishing that was necessary to save it. A move was made to include in the conclusions of the conference a statement about the absence of political will exhibited by North Sea fisheries Ministers. But that was deleted. It was felt that environment Ministers could not criticise fishery Ministers. All the conference decided was that there should be another conference this year in Norway to talk about fishing.
We know that there are great problems with TACs. In fact, the system of total allowable catch and single species quotas used in the common fisheries policy to control exploitation does not work. The quotas set by politicians are often much too high; also, as English Nature pointed out, they are based only on the landed fish rather than the actual catch at sea. In the words of English Nature therefore, "the system fails". With mixed stocks the system leads to massive discards—the throwing over the side of unwanted fish because they are the wrong species or too small. Those fish die. The FAO estimates that the world annual level of discards may be 27 million tonnes, described by our adviser, Professor Beddington, as,
"a staggering figure in the context of a total world catch of less than 100 million tonnes".
At this point I draw attention to a fish that is seldom mentioned in your Lordships' House; that is, the basking shark. It is a fish that visits our waters in summer. It is a huge fish—the second largest in the world—and a harmless plankton eater which enjoys no protection. It is hunted by one single fisherman who has killed 440 since 1983. The Government say there is as yet insufficient evidence to support protection. However, it seems wrong that that great and harmless fish should not be conserved. If we care about conservation the Government should put in place some measures to protect it.
I want to say something on industrial fishing, which is covered in our report. Industrial fishing means fishing by fine-mesh nets for smaller species of fish like sprats, sandeels, capelin and Norway pout. Inevitably the nets catch many juveniles of food species, all of which are turned into fishmeal or used in the manufacture of oils and fats. It is a method practised by the Danes and, to some extent, by the Norwegians.
Industrial fishing accounts for no less than half of all the fish removed every year from the North Sea. I am glad that our recommendation to promote a TAC for sandeels has been accepted by the Government. I understand that at the next meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers in Luxembourg on 22nd April the

583
Minister of State responsible for fisheries—Mr. Tony Baldry—will propose the introduction of that precautionary TAC.
An important point made by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is the localised impact of industrial fishing. It points out that in 1993 the Danish fleet took the staggering figure of 100,000 tonnes of sandeels off the Wee Bankie, on the Fife coast of Scotland. MAFF undertake no research on sandeels and we have no knowledge therefore of the impact of such enormous catches on local human consumption fisheries and other wildlife such as sea birds and marine mammals. Apart from the need for a precautionary TAC for sandeels generally, the RSPB believes it important that quotas are set for individual sandeel fishing grounds such as the Wee Bankie. That is extremely important and I support what the society has suggested.
The Salmon and Trout Association, which is concerned about migratory salmon and sea trout, agrees with the suggestion and recommends that there should be a full multi-species assessment of the effect of industrial fishing in the North Sea and that, in the meantime, we should protect the position with a precautionary TAC. I shall be interested to know whether or not the Government will consider recommending such a full multi-species assessment. That too is important.
I should like to mention one further matter raised in the report; that is, the question of drift nets. As your Lordships will know, at the moment there is a restriction of 2.5 kilometres on the length of drift nets. That has proved almost impossible to enforce. Initially, I understand that Ministers felt there was not enough scientific evidence to justify a total EU ban on the use of high seas drift nets. But our committee recommended such a ban on the basis of the precautionary principle.
At the end of last year MAFF published its latest research on by-catch in the UK tuna fleet. It indicated that somewhere in the region of 1,500 dolphins were being killed annually in the North East Atlantic tuna fisheries. There is therefore a problem. MAFF may be thinking of trying dolphin doors; that is, areas in the netting which are open to allow dolphins to escape. As far as I know, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that dolphin doors may be effective in reducing a dolphin by-catch. In any case, the nets may catch other species such as turtles and sharks in large numbers. There is therefore a strong case for a ban, as we propose.
The question of research was of great concern to our committee. Professor McIntyre, to whom I referred earlier, emphasised the need for more medium and long-term research such as looking at both the physical and biological interactions in the sea and the behaviour of fish in relation to fishing gear. He also recommended that in aquaculture a priority should be research into fish diseases, which is of obvious importance.
The RSPB is concerned about the possibility that the Directorate of Fisheries Research may be given agency status. If that is done, it may encourage a shift to expedient, short-term research, thus weakening the United Kingdom's fisheries science base. That would be a great pity because the directorate has done admirable
584
work. I went with some of your Lordships recently to a presentation arranged by Mr. Tony Baldry at which we were able to talk to a number of the MAFF scientists. I was very impressed by what I learnt on that occasion, and I should be very sorry if there were any weakening of our fisheries research, especially at this time.
One aspect we considered was the question of beam trawling. That is covered in the Ministry's response where it plays down the damage done by the trawling. I have always understood that carrying a heavy tickler chain along the seabed is an extremely destructive practice to all kinds of species, particularly as many areas are raked by these beam trawls seven or eight times a year. However, the response from the department tends to discount that. I wonder whether that is justified.
My final point concerns our recommendation about scientific advice, referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. In paragraph 3.17 of our report we say—I am sure this is right—that scientific advice must be presented clearly and concisely. At the end of the paragraph we say:
"But scientific professionalism is currently providing an excuse for political compromise".
I hope that that will not be taken as a criticism of scientists or as a suggestion that they may be pulling their punches in making their recommendations. I do not think they are. I have had a careful look at the advice given by ICES to the Commission on cod, haddock, whiting and saithe stocks in the North Sea over the period of years from 1989. Again and again it has set out in extremely clear terms the dangers of taking no action. Perhaps I may give your Lordships one or two examples. In 1989 it said:
"The stock of cod has been fished down to a very low level and survival is so low that recruitment is insufficient to maintain the stock in most years".
It goes on to say:
"The immediate prospects for the North Sea haddock stock are very disturbing".
Year after year it has said that fishing should be limited to 70 per cent. of the 1989 fishing effort. In 1992 it said:
"Seen in isolation, fishing effort on cod should be reduced to zero".
It seems abundantly clear that where we have gone wrong is in not taking any notice of what the scientists have said. The fault lies with the politicians rather than with the scientists. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Perry, that the government response is disappointing, but I welcome Mr. Tony Baldry's decision to bring together the scientists and the fishermen. That has been extremely useful; it is an initiative we can warmly welcome.
4.34 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I am grateful to have sat under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Perry, and I found the whole experience, although extremely alarming, one of considerable interest. If I were a manager I think I would have found plenty of ways of wheedling my way into the various arguments that have been put forward and finding an excuse to

585
procrastinate and delay for yet a little longer. So I thought I might speak as though I were painting with a very broad brush and emphasise the point which I think is the most important of all. It will not surprise my noble friend on the Front Bench that that is to cut fishing effort by decommissioning.
Noble Lords may remember that some time back, when a report of Sub-Committee D was mixed up with a fisheries Bill, I managed to win an amendment to that effect by no fewer than 53 votes—my personal best. The fact is that if only this 30 per cent. decommissioning could take place all these other problems would be solved almost at a stroke. It would cost an enormous amount of money. So far this country, lagging a little behind our partners in Europe, has managed to cough up £54 million. In point of fact the fishing effort has hardly gone down at all because, as other speakers have said, there have been improvements in tackle, engine power and so on.
We are talking about decommissioning world wide and that means involving the great fishing nations. Obviously one has to leave out artisanal fisheries, where someone sits in a canoe with a throw net or something of that kind, but it strikes me that if the International Monetary Fund can come to the rescue of bankrupt nations, why should it not come to the rescue of bankrupt oceans? We are dealing with an extremely serious matter, the fishing out of all the oceans—something that could have been the subject of an H.G. Wells book years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Perry, said that 69 per cent. of the oceans are in a depleted or unsatisfactory state of one kind or another. That is saying quite something, especially if one flies across the Pacific from Sydney to Hawaii and one then goes on to Vancouver, but I can well believe that it is true.
An international body will have to be formed if anything is to happen and the sooner nations get together and do just that the better. They should then approach the source of money which I mentioned, no doubt putting in some themselves. This is not just a theoretical business—the Georges Bank and the Newfoundland Bank have serious problems and the pollack fishery off Alaska is in an even worse state. In the United States the other day I met the young skipper of a deep sea trawler. His partner was on the vessel in the Caribbean. The skipper said that they were under this TAC system and that instead of throwing back nets full of cod he had been told on the radio that they had to throw back a blue-finned tuna weighing about 1,000 pounds because, unfortunately, they were over quota.
Perhaps I should continue the story in case any of your Lordships doubt the efficiency with which those vessels can fish. I said to that same man, "Your base is Boston. If you have to go all the way back there to sell your fish, that will cut you down to size". As the report shows, that is what happens to the Norwegians; they have to return to only a very few ports. Indeed, our vessels have to come back to port. However, that man said, "Oh no, our vessel is big enough to carry the right sort of cartons in which to
586
pack the fish. We can dock anywhere reasonably close to a sensible airport. Our agent in Boston is radioed. He sells the fish, which goes as frozen cargo on a plane to the appropriate place". Like the American seventh fleet, that man's vessel seldom has to go home except for a refit.
I should like to refer to another point on which I have a question for my noble friend. The report refers to "ownership" and to a sense of ownership in relation to fisheries. It refers particularly to the European fisheries and the individual transferable quota. I am a great believer in the idea that ownership means a lot. By that token, the common fisheries policy is bad for fish. I am not making a political point, but in relation to fish conservation, a common fishery tends to be worse than if nations looked after the stocks within their own 200-mile limit.
My question is: is there technically any way out of the common fisheries policy, which, with respect, is such a disaster? I believe that 20 years after its start the whole matter is to be reviewed. Does my noble friend think that it would be right for us to try to extricate ourselves from a situation which Brussels now admits is pretty disastrous? This country has been complimented. It has been said that we do not cheat—of course, euphemisms were used—quite as much as other countries.
The common fisheries policy has caused endless trouble. It has caused dislike between nations. It has caused deceit, cheating and black fish. Like the cheating, the whole system of discards undermines the data which the scientists use to set the next lot of total allowable catches. So, the whole thing goes round in a mad circle. That is why I ask that question.
I should like to raise two small further matters. First, although I have not been to Norway recently—I went there quite a long time ago to look at its fish farming and fish markets—I believe that notice should be taken of how that country operates its fishing. I refer particularly to the fact that Norway involves its fishermen in its deliberations whereas we do not. My noble friend may say, "Yes, we do", and may point to certain areas, but we certainly do not do it enough. That in turn has created its own troubles and antagonisms.
Finally, I must say something about fish farming. Unfortunately in the first five minutes of our first meeting we discovered that my fish ate more fish than they produced fish flesh themselves. In point of fact, the whole thing was a total disaster and the return was absolutely nil. On the other hand, developing countries are interested in fish farming—but one must be careful about what one classes as a "developing" country. At home we had the pleasure of entertaining President Wasmosy of Paraguay and the whole of his Cabinet for lunch. He wanted to see the fish farm. We took him round it and I sent him masses of information from Stirling University. Perhaps he is now getting going on that. I am sure that in the Middle East, South America and Africa there is a huge amount of scope to develop fish farming with

587
tilapias and carp. They are not my favourite dish, but they might keep someone alive who might otherwise die.
4.44 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, not only the whole House but the whole Community owes an enormous debt to the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, and his committee for its report and for the noble Lord's illuminating description and exposition of it. It is, indeed, a devastating report for the whole Community, for our fishing community and for our colleagues in Europe. All who read the report must regard it as a salutary warning which will be ignored at their peril. It is not that the report refers specifically and only to European waters; it also covers the broader perspective of the world-wide problem in great detail. As has been mentioned, there is a problem in Alaska, in the north-west Pacific and, indeed, throughout the world.
Members of the committee have clearly pointed out all the elements of the report and its conclusions, so I shall not dwell on them too heavily. However, I must mention that in previous debates on this many speakers have called for the reform of the common fisheries policy. I note that it is a universal request that it be reformed. I have pleaded that the policy should be debated at the IGC. It is perhaps the consternation over quota-hopping and not this report which has induced the reference of the policy to the IGC. That is excellent, if ironic, news. I trust that the opportunity will be taken at the IGC to have a thorough-going review of the policy in all its aspects, especially in the light of this report. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Moran, in his reservations about the usefulness of that. Nevertheless, decommissioning is required and it is only through the CFP that we shall achieve the full amount of decommissioning that is required—that is, at least 30 per cent.
I have no panacea to reinforce the committee's call for urgent action, but it would perhaps be useful to promote one activity immediately. The Ministry's Directorate of Fisheries Research gave evidence, highlighted in the report, on the modification of trawl gear to allow small fish to escape through the introduction of separator panels and square mesh inserts. The matter of the square mesh inserts is well advanced, but I hope that the line of research on separator panels will be vigorously pursued and that a proposal based on the research will be promoted throughout the common fisheries policy. I believe that that would do much to relieve the besetting and ugly problem of discards.
All noble Lords have spoken of Norway. On reading the report, I noticed particularly how Norway has benefited from being outside the common fisheries policy and how well it is doing. What an example to us. I note that my noble friend Lord Radnor asked my noble friend on the Front Bench whether we can get out of the CFP. I feel that that is doubtful. We seem to be irretrievably locked into that policy, which is particularly harmful to the UK and its fishermen. A fish rearing project has been promoted by the Norwegians and it is to be hoped that the Norwegians will develop a policy that eliminates the use of organophosphates and
588
other dangerous chemicals in promoting fish farming on a wider scale. I do not know whether that is possible, but I think that such a proposal should be pursued. We should co-operate with the Norwegians in every possible way because they seem to be extremely successful in the light of our failures.
Lastly, I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, that his report should be translated into all necessary languages and distributed throughout the European Union. I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether at least the conclusions in Chapter 3 of the report can be translated into the necessary languages and sent to all Heads of State and certainly to all directors general of the European Union. The authority of your Lordships' Select Committee will undoubtedly give them pause for very grave and deep thought.
4.50 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, although I am not a member of the distinguished committee which produced this report, my home is at Fraserburgh which is one of the leading fishing ports in the country. Its prosperity was founded on fish, and its prosperity still depends upon it. The practice of discarding fish in order not to exceed the quota or the total allowable catch, or because the fish are under sized must be abhorrent to all sensible people, not only because of the waste involved—since almost all discards die—but because pollution of the water from large quantities of dead or dying fish cannot be conducive to a healthy environment for the fish which remain in the sea and are left to breed.
I urge the Government to press for a combination of escape panels in fishing nets, as described in Chapter 3, paragraph 3.23, of the report of the Select Committee, and an increase in the money available, as mentioned in particular by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, for decommissioning. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Moran, indicated that the total allowable catch and quota system was responsible for much of the discarding. I believe that it should be phased out and that other methods of control should be introduced.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate in which many points have been covered. When I heard that there was to be another report on fishing by a committee other than the European committee I wondered why, since the European Committee had just produced an excellent report. However, my noble friend extended the scope in a way that the European committee could not and started off by quoting the devastating fact that some 69 per cent. of the stocks in the world were over-exploited, were on the way out or were becoming so. This is a world-wide problem.
In particular, I was interested to note that the report went much wider than the great troubles occasioned by the enormous advance in technology, the greatest of which was the advance in navigation to enable a fisherman who could work his machinery to go to a spot in the sea within 100 yards of where he knew the fish were. This has led to an enormous advance in the

589
number of fish that a competent skipper can catch. The report also focuses on the problems of the Bangladesh estuary and the under-developed world where a lot of people are getting a much smaller headage of protein from fish than before. The problem is highlighted by the report. The European situation does not give the full extent of the disaster that faces the fishing community and the human race who eat fish.
One of the matters that has been highlighted by a number of speakers, the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, for one, is that we should learn from the examples which work. There is no question but that the Norwegians are making a much better job than anybody else of conserving the fish in their area. They are patrolling the area. Their fishermen are consulted. Fishermen are not allowed to discard; they bring home the fish. They are doing all of the things that we in Europe should be doing.
I disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, on one matter. It is essential that we have a common fisheries policy. We can all agree that the present policy is all wrong, but that we have to have a common fisheries policy there is no doubt at all.
I also disagree slightly with the noble Earl and say that total allowable catches are absolutely essential. They should be based not on political considerations but on a combination of what fishermen know and what scientists say. What is wrong is the way in which we have applied the restrictions on catches, because they do not have the confidence of fishermen.
A number of speakers have said—it sticks out a mile—that decommissioning is the answer. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said, it is no good replacing a boat with one that is slightly smaller but has a much higher level of catching ability. One has to work out a decommissioning policy in which enough money is applied to reduce the total number of people who catch fish and to find alternative employment for them.
The transferable quota system is easy to work but it lands us in the situation where a fisherman's quota is worth more than his boat. One creates an intolerable situation in which no young man can come into fishing, even if he gets a licence, without paying an enormous sum for a quota which is artificially created. I see no reason why we cannot work out a licensing system that prevents a grave situation in which an artificial obstacle is created to stop young men coming in.
We talk about the necessity of a common fisheries policy but we must be willing to pay for it. There must be a common inspection service, a quango—call it what you will. While the fish landed in northern ports in Britain and elsewhere are logged fairly accurately, if one considers the inspectors in Spain and other Mediterranean countries, their figures are totally wrong. There is no possibility of those figures being right until there is a European body to control the matter.
Perhaps the Minister will tell me how many fishery patrol vessels and helicopters we have in Britain. What size of force or unit is devoted to fishery control and what is its cost? What is the position in the rest of Europe? The answer will be that we spend far more and
590
that in the rest of Europe the amount spent is totally and completely inadequate. If fishermen are to have a decent policy, they must be subject to control. After all, a whisky producer in Scotland or elsewhere is not allowed to keep the key to his own still so that the Government can collect the revenue. In this case, it would be worth putting up with a good deal of control to ensure that there were fish left to catch.
The report is wide ranging on a serious problem. The FAO needs to be the leader in controlling the catching and preservation of fish world-wide. It appears to be the natural body to do so. It exists, and it has a great deal of knowledge. The report did a great service in pointing out that we must have a substitute for fish meal if we are to carry on fish farming. The enterprise of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, may still pay well if it takes 5 lbs. of cheap fish to convert into 1 lb. of expensive fish. But the lesson we are learning is that we must find a protein fish will eat if fish farming is to play the part that it needs to play in feeding the world in future. It is a good report.
5 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, and his colleagues for producing an excellent report which gives a good analysis of a problem of world-wide dimensions. If one reads between the lines of the report, one has the feeling of a combination of pusillanimous governments, scientists hobbled by budgetary constraints, fishermen who are adept at massaging and managing whatever controls are applied and a general reluctance to accept that drastic measures are required if an acceptable solution is to be found.
A number of the most important and relevant points have been covered in the debate. I should like to touch upon just a few of them and then consider a problem which is mentioned in the report but which, for understandable reasons, is not addressed in any great depth; that is, the effect on developing countries of the fishing effort of the countries of the EU and others being diverted to the coasts of Africa and Asia, with a particular example from the Gambia, which graphically illustrates the problem.
I think that we can all agree that the biggest scandal in all fisheries management is the problem of discards. The report sets that out extremely well. There is a famous aphorism in paragraph 1.5, with which we are all familiar:
"If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach him how to fish, you feed him for life".
The temptation is to paraphrase that and to suggest that teaching a man to fish now requires him to be taught how to discard 27 million tonnes per annum world-wide, while the developing countries are crying out for protein. It is a curious harvest indeed when 25 per cent. of the total catch is wasted.
The report grapples exceedingly well with the problem of relating TACs to the discard problem, but one is driven to the conclusion, which is implied in the report, that it will be impossible to solve the discard problem while TACs are the main chosen method of controlling the fishing effort.

591
The subject of fisheries research is well analysed in the report. Paragraph 2.36 points out that total government spending on fisheries research is £19 million per annum for an industry worth £500 million in terms of fish landed annually. Paragraph 2.29 of the report and paragraph 54 on page 177 of the written evidence say all that needs to be said about our research effort. I quote the ministry's evidence:
"The difficult area in decision making is the work which although valuable may seem unlikely to produce usable results within a reasonable timescale. Where there are pressures on research budgets this is the kind of work which will be given lower priority".
When are there not pressures on research budgets? What is a reasonable timescale in this context when we are dealing with a problem of, as I said, world-wide dimensions? It is also to be hoped that fisheries research will not be bedeviled by the artificial construct of "near market" and "public good" research which has so affected agricultural research in recent years.
I was struck, as were a number of noble Lords, by the evident approval in the report for the Norwegian management of its fisheries. On a lighter note, I am sure that noble Lords must be relieved that my noble friends Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Bruce of Donington and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, are not here to point out the evident advantages of not being members of the common fisheries policy.
Paragraph 2.79 of the report has a quotation from Dr. Garcia of the FAO who pointed out the different objectives and lifestyles of fishermen, scientists, governments and politicians, and when I read it I thought how relevant it was. In the committee's conclusions I thought that there were overtones of the BSE crisis when it pointed out that,
"scientific professionalism is currently providing an excuse for political compromise".
Curiously, there are other overtones of the BSE crisis in the report, particularly when it refers to the feeding of fish to fish in paragraph 2.115. I agree that we must find alternative sources of protein. The effect of the BSE crisis will be a substantial increase in the price of fish meal.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord does not mind me interrupting for a moment. Does he recognise that fish normally eat fish?
Lord Carter: My Lords, yes. I was actually thinking of the economic case made by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and pointing out that the result of the BSE crisis will be a substantial increase in the price of fish meal because of the ending of the supply of meat and bonemeal.
With all the current problems of bovine manure and offal disposal in mind, it was something of a shock to read in paragraph 2.118 about,
"the most intensive large scale animal production units in the world",
and to realise that that description now applies to aquaculture. Obviously there are substantial pollution problems which must be considered. When I read on pages 341 and 342 of the evidence that organochloride pesticide is being used to control sea lice with a
592
compound that has adverse effects, I began to contemplate a whole new field of interest for the noble Countess, Lady Mar. To be more serious, an alternative to the organochlorides must be found.
The committee gives a guarded welcome to the idea of individual transferable quotas. Unless I have missed it, the question of quota hopping is not fully addressed. With the Factortame judgment in mind and the recent decision by the ECJ, I wonder whether the committee was able to give sufficient thought to those factors when cautiously recommending ITQs. We are all aware of the problem of the transfer of quotas across national boundaries.
I do not think that I need say more about the Government's response to the report. That was put extremely well by the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, when he opened the debate. If the Government have not kicked the problem of fisheries into touch, they have certainly kicked it very firmly into the IGC.
I referred earlier to developing countries and fisheries policy. The report touches upon that subject in a number of places, in particular in paragraphs 2.42 and 2.43 where it is pointed out that third country agreements account for 36 per cent. of the 774 million ecu allocated to the 1994 fisheries budgets.
As it happens, only last week I attended a meeting of the Marlborough Brandt Group—an organisation set up in Wiltshire some 16 years ago as a result of the Brandt Report. It does much excellent work in bringing home the problems of overseas development. It has established a particular and longstanding relationship with the village of Gonjur which is the principal fishing village in the Gambia. With today's debate in mind, I asked the group to provide me with a brief to illustrate this aspect of what is a world-wide problem. The brief makes dispiriting reading.
The Gambia is estimated to be the tenth poorest country in the world. The staple diet of the Gambian people is rice and fish. The internal economy of the Gambia is dependent upon fish. The livelihoods of most of the women are dependent upon the smoking, drying and marketing of fish. Fishing off the coast of Gambia is done mainly by Senegalese fishermen who bring their catch to several of the Gambian fishing villages, of which Gonjur is the principal one. The fish caught are entirely pelagic or surface fish.
Since the EU has run into problems with the depletion of fish stocks in European waters due to unsustainable fishing policies and the abuse of those policies, it has reached agreements individually with six countries of West Africa to enable the EU to fish in West African waters. Those agreements were reached in 1985. Owing to the widespread abuse of the agreements, the West African countries concerned have formed a sub-regional fisheries commission with its HQ in Dakar in Senegal. Even with the weight of that commission there is still widespread abuse.
The Gambia, which is a desperately poor country with no fleet, has no control over the trawlers which fish off its coast. As a result, the trawlers—they are principally Spanish and French but the pirate trawlers, which have no agreements, come from Korea, Thailand and

593
Russia—are fishing not only the deep water fish but the surface fish which they reject and throw back dead into the sea.
There is evidence that agreements on the mesh size of the trawlers' nets are abused so that more fish are caught than is sustainable. There is evidence of abuse in terms of fishing within agreed limits off the coast. Each trawler has a Gambian observer on board but many of those people do not have the training or influence to have any real impact on abuses. Any reports of abuses are sent to the Fisheries Department, but legal action is slow and it rarely results in compensation. The nets of the local fishermen are either lost or badly damaged by the trawlers and the fishermen receive no compensation.
There is evidence that fish stocks are already being depleted from West African waters. It now takes fishermen 12 hours to fill their boats. Five years ago it took them five hours and they could make two trips a day to sea. The cost of a bowl of fish to women on the beach has risen from the equivalent of 30p. to £1.20 in five years. Unless action is taken to police the agreements made by the EU with the West African countries and prevent piracy by other nations, there will be a further fall in fish stocks which will have a devastating impact on the nutritional status of children and adults in Gambia in the next few years. In addition, the impact on the internal economy and livelihoods of people throughout Gambia will be catastrophic.
I have given that rather lengthy description of the problem because when reading about Gunjur I found an extraordinary resonance of its problems with those described in the committee's report. That truly shows that the problem is world-wide.
The report makes an encouraging statement in paragraph 2.2. that:
"the downward spiral … is not yet irreversible".
We must all hope that that statement is correct. If the downward spiral is to be reversed, the committee's report will certainly provide a first-class basis for the necessary action to be taken.
5.12 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have studied the report that we have discussed today. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, and the members of his committee on their valuable work in identifying the most important issues facing the fishing industry world-wide.
Perhaps I may reply immediately to two noble Lords. Disappointingly, I must write to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, because I do not have to hand the figure for which he asked. However, the news is better for my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam. I am happy to confirm that the Government will send the report to the governments of other countries in the European Union, if that is the wish of the committee.
Much has been said today about the common fisheries policy. My noble friend Lord Radnor asked about withdrawal from the CFP. I do not believe that withdrawal is a realistic option. We need a common European fisheries policy. The CFP provides a more effective forum
594
than existed previously for international co-operation on the conservation and management of fish stocks. Such co-operation is essential given the over-capacity of fishing fleets and the fact that fish stocks do not respect national boundaries.
There are other important benefits. However, what we are focusing on today is the scope for improvement. The CFP is far from perfect. Critically, it has not succeeded in providing the stability of fishing opportunities that was hoped for. It has not sufficiently responded to rapid changes in fishing technology and has failed to prevent the over-exploitation of stocks so that many have not been able to recover naturally.
The scientists tell us that almost 60 per cent. of the main stocks in the waters we fish have now been reduced to a level where there is a risk of biological collapse. That is not a prediction that they will collapse. But it is a warning that, if the present level of fishing continues, there is a risk that the reproductive potential of the stocks will collapse. What is at stake is the future of the European fishing industry.
The Government therefore fully agree with the key message of the Select Committee's report; that all over the world stocks of fish are being severely depleted by overfishing and that action needs to be taken to reduce the pressure on stocks.
The Government have sent to the committee a detailed memorandum responding to each of its recommendations. I do not have time to go through all those this afternoon so I will concentrate on the main themes identified by the committee: the scientific basis of fisheries policy, the need for a precautionary approach to fishery management, the need for improved communication between scientists, fishermen and others, and the importance of fish stock conservation.
Perhaps I may outline the Government's policy on each of those issues and the way in which it is working to achieve improvements to the CFP and fisheries management in the world at large. I hope that at the same time I can answer points raised by your Lordships. First, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that the Government attach great weight to the work done by fisheries scientists.
This is reflected in the large budget they commit to fisheries science each year as the foundation for European management policies. The UK is a major contributor to the fisheries work of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and government fisheries scientists are held in high regard internationally. The Government will continue to base their policies on sound fisheries science and certainly support the committee's recommendation that scientific advice should be presented clearly and concisely.
To those who say that the science is routinely ignored under the CFP, I would draw their attention to the fact that, based on the scientific advice, the December 1995 Fisheries Council cut total allowable catches (TACs) for some 28 different stocks of fish in order to reduce the pressure on those stocks.
Secondly, the precautionary approach is fundamental to sustainable management of fish stocks. The Government therefore fully supported two major

595
international initiatives last year: the adoption of the UN Agreement on Straddling and High Migratory Fish Stocks and the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Those both apply the precautionary approach to conservation, management and exploitation of fish stocks within coastal zones and in international waters.
Within the CFP the Select Committee's report rightly stresses the need for fishing effort to be reduced. Conservation policy requires a combination of measures to limit exploitation rates, including output limitations in the form of total allowable catches and input limitations such as the reduction of fleet size.
I have already referred to the need to be ready to adjust TACs in the light of scientific advice. Reducing the capacity of fishing fleets must also remain a top priority since our fishermen cannot have a viable long-term future unless the fleet is properly structured in relation to the available fishing opportunities.
In that context, I noted what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Perry, and other noble Lords about the Government's response to the committee's report. I can assure your Lordships that we are far from complacent about the matter. Early last year we more than doubled the amount of money for our decommissioning programme, bringing the total to £53 million in the period 1997–98. But the problems of excess capacity and effort have to be tackled on a common basis by all who fish the same stocks. That is why decisions in the next series of multi-annual guidance programmes, on which the Commission will be making an initial presentation at next week's fisheries council, have such a critical importance.
In the weeks ahead member states will have the benefit of new scientific assessments of what needs to be done together with a report on a consultation exercise involving 35 separate meetings with the industry around Europe, including seven in the UK. Therefore, we shall address those problems with all the seriousness and urgency that they merit in the negotiations which are about to start.
It would clearly not make sense to try to anticipate the outcome at this stage other than to reiterate our commitment to securing a deal in the best long-term interest of all who depend on sustainable and economically viable fish stocks. In response to a question by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, I can tell him that the three decommissioning schemes so far will have removed 6.6 per cent. of fleet capacity.
The noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, referred to the disposal of decommissioned vessels to developing countries where there is a need to protect traditional subsistence fisheries from commercial fisheries. The Government recognise that concern and they require British decommissioned vessels to be made unseaworthy so that our surplus fishing capacity is not exported to developing countries or anywhere else.
That brings me to the Select Committee's third theme: the need for improved communication. That is an important point and, apart from the meetings to which I have just referred, the Government have a number of initiatives in hand.
At the domestic level, the Government have initiated a series of regular contacts between industry representatives and fisheries scientists in order to increase
596
fishermen's understanding of the work done by the scientists and to give the industry the opportunity to question the scientists and contribute their own expertise. This will be followed up by meetings between the industry and our scientists in advance of formulating our annual input into the international scientific advice on the state of different fish stocks. Those contacts are intended to result in better-informed decisions and a better understanding of how decisions on fisheries management are reached.
At the Community level, my honourable friend the Fisheries Minister will use the opportunity of next week's Fisheries Council to propose the introduction of regional consultative committees to bring together fishermen and officials from the member states active in a particular fishery to discuss issues relevant to that fishery; for example, the most suitable conservation measures and the state of the stocks.
At the global level, the Government held an international workshop at the end of last year to discuss ways of improving co-ordination among international agencies concerned with management of the oceans. The Government are taking the workshop conclusions forward through the Commission on Sustainable Development and this is a good example of the close co-operation that exists between the fisheries departments and the Department of the Environment.
The Select Committee's fourth theme was fish stock conservation. Much of what I have already said is clearly relevant to this theme. But I would like briefly to outline further initiatives which the Government are pursuing.
The committee drew attention to the need for urgent consideration of the scope for further technical measures which can help conserve stocks and reduce discards. In fact, the Government set up a fisheries conservation group earlier this year to do just that. The group is made up of members of the fishing industry, scientists and other government experts. It has looked at the points raised by the committee in its report and we plan to carry out consultations on the basis of the group's conclusions in the near future.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Perry, that the Government attach particular priority to reducing discards, which are wasteful of fisheries resources. Progress in reducing fishing effort will make a major contribution. We maintain a wide-ranging research programme on the selectivity of fishing gear and future improvements in selectivity will also cut the level of discarding. In addition the Government will be examining with the industry the possibility of closing areas to fishing when juvenile fish predominate in the catch. We are participating in discussions with Norway and other countries to look at all the options for reducing discards.
The committee also drew attention to industrial fisheries. We need to increase our understanding of the impact of these fisheries on other stocks and on the wider marine ecosystem. I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that at next week's Fisheries Council my honourable friend the Fisheries Minister will therefore be calling for a collaborative research effort on the multi-species aspect of industrial fisheries. He will also be calling for the introduction of a precautionary TAC for

597
the huge sand eel fishery. I have one last "goodie" for the noble Lord, Lord Moran. He mentioned the basking shark. I understand that the single vessel of the fishermen to whom he referred has been decommissioned. Therefore, the sharks seem to be able to swim in peace.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for confirming that matter. I had tabled Questions on that subject and that was the information which I had received. Your Lordships may remember the Question because I pointed out that the shark is absolutely harmless and its bask is worse than its bite!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in conclusion I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, that of course we are aware of the dangers which surround the future of fish and fisheries. The Government's policy is to promote more efficient and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources to benefit both the UK industry and the marine environment.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Perry, and to the other noble Lords who have spoken in this afternoon's debate. Their contributions, together with the Select Committee's report, will, I am sure, help all those involved in the fishing industry and in managing fish resources to focus more effectively on what is required of them before it is too late, so that we are able to prevent a collapse of stocks near to home, such as happened in the case of the Grand Banks cod stock.
Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, I too am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this afternoon's debate. I should like to make two brief points. First, I do not withdraw my criticism of the Government's written report that it is both complacent and lacking any sense of urgency. I am delighted to hear the Minister assure me that the Government are not complacent and that they do have a sense of urgency. I shall look for evidence of that fact in the next few months.
Secondly, I suspect that the impact of the risk to the fish stocks of the world will last longer and be of vastly greater importance than the current apparent risk to beef supplies which the House will discuss next. The degree of public awareness of the problems in relation to fish stocks seems to be tiny compared with public awareness of the risks to beef stocks.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BSE (Agriculture)
5.29 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should now like to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement reads as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on BSE.
598
"In my previous Statement of 3rd April I stated that there were signs that confidence was returning. I am very pleased to tell the House that matters have continued to improve. The latest reports I have are that consumption is at roughly 85 per cent. of pre-crisis levels and that cattle throughput in markets is nearing 60 per cent. of previous levels. That is encouraging as it is only by restoring confidence in beef that the industry's future will be secured for the long term. The measures that I am about to announce are geared to the achievement of that aim.
"I have consistently made it clear that the Government are determined to ensure a viable future of the essential sectors in the beef chain; that is, farmers, the slaughterhouse sector, manufacturers and renderers.
"I take farmers first. I announced on 28th March that the EU calf premium scheme would be opened in the UK. The scheme will open next week and will be run by the Intervention Board. Slightly over £100 will be paid for each qualifying calf.
"The House is aware that animals slaughtered at 30 months of age or more are now excluded from the food chain and of the expectation that farmers would be compensated by the EC scheme. I can announce today that this will now come into effect in the week beginning 29th April and will also be run by the Intervention Board. Depending on the weight of their animals, farmers could receive nearly £500 per animal, effectively the cull cow price. The Government will bear the costs of slaughter and destruction of the animals.
"I recognise that some producers of steers and heifers plan to bring their animals to market at over 30 months and will not have had time to adjust their production systems. Such animals would typically fetch significantly more than cull cows. I am pleased to announce today that the Government will pay a nationally-funded supplement to the basic premium in respect of such steers and heifers, at a rate which reflects the historic differences between cow prices and those for steers and heifers. This supplement will be payable for six months which will allow producers time to adapt their marketing programmes to the new circumstances. The cost is likely to be up to £80 million. In general, the total return for animals over 30 months should not be greater than the market price of animals below 30 months going for consumption. The market is, however, turbulent at present. It would be helpful for producers to be clear about the position when the scheme comes into operation. Accordingly, the "top up" will be set at no less than 25 pence per kilogram for the first four weeks that the scheme is in operation.
"In the longer run we need arrangements to allow back on the market meat from those breeds—for example, specialist breeds—which often do not mature until after 30 months. Many are in herds with no history of BSE. The case for exempting animals such as these from the 30-month rule is very strong. My officials are urgently working up the technical elements of a scheme which would allow clearly defined exemptions to be made.

599
"I reported on 3rd April extensions in the coverage of beef intervention. On 12th April a further widening of the categories of intervention applicable in the UK and the removal of weight limits were agreed. For the first time, intervention on young bulls will be possible in the United Kingdom.
"More generally, I am also pursuing with food retailers and manufacturers ideas for quality assurance schemes to help restore confidence in British beef. As a result, I am able to announce that we are urgently proceeding with arrangements to improve animal identification and traceability. I hope to be in a position to introduce a system of mandatory animal passports for this purpose with effect from 1st June. That will make a valuable contribution to the development of marketing strategies by retailers and manufacturers to persuade consumers that our beef is of the highest quality.
"I believe that these measures taken together, in addition to those we have already announced, will provide the essential support that our beef farming sector needs.
"So far as manufacturers are concerned, on 12th April I amended the Emergency Control Order to allow imports of beef from animals over 30 months of age produced in certain third countries traditionally supplying the UK in which there is no history of BSE. That was necessary to prevent closures in parts of the meat manufacturing industry that for technical reasons are heavily dependent on imports of older beef. I should emphasise that my decision to lift the ban on imports does not apply to imports from EU countries.
"I turn now to the slaughtering sector. In my recent Statements, I have informed the House of the additional resources that we are giving to the Meat Hygiene Service to ensure rigorous enforcements of the rules on hygiene in slaughterhouses, in particular on SBOs. We have now received a report from Coopers & Lybrand who were appointed on 4th April to quantify the economic difficulties facing the slaughterhouse sector. I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of their report, with minor excisions for reasons of commercial confidentiality. Coopers & Lybrand have concluded that there is a substantial "blockage" of unsold meat in the slaughtering sector, valued at some £132 million at pre-crisis price levels, which is undermining the financial viability of many companies to the extent that, in the absence of action, widespread company failures are likely soon. Against this background, I believe that exceptional assistance is justified.
"I can announce today that I propose to introduce an aid scheme which will inject some £110 million into the slaughtering sector. This will consist of two elements. The first is that all slaughterhouses which continue to slaughter bovines will receive payment based on their throughput of cattle in 1995–96. This payment will be made in two stages, 80 per cent. to be paid immediately and the remaining 20 per cent. in two months' time. This assistance will replace the
600
proposal to relieve slaughterhouses from Meat Hygiene Service red meat inspection charges to which I referred on 3rd April. Assistance will be paid at the rate of around £8.75 for every bovine slaughtered during 1995–96, giving a total of £30 million to he paid under this head.
"The second is that the Government will introduce arrangements for purchasing and disposal of the blockage, which has already been identified and audited under the supervision of Coopers & Lybrand. The Intervention Board will purchase these stocks at a valuation of 65 per cent. of the pre-crisis market price and will take responsibility for their secure disposal. The board will enter into urgent discussions with the trade associations on the detailed mechanisms.
"We estimate that the total cost of this second aid will be some £80 million, making £110 million in aid overall.
"Pending parliamentary approval, which will be sought by way of Supplementary Estimates, necessary expenditure for this and the top-up payment to producers of animals over 30 months old, to which I referred a few moments ago, will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.
"The slaughtering sector was recognised, before the latest crisis, to have substantial over-capacity and Coopers & Lybrand have confirmed that view. Rationalisation is therefore necessary. The substantial package of support that I have announced should, however, provide a breathing space during which companies can adjust to the new market circumstances and make rational decisions about their future operations. Without this support, we risked the disorderly collapse of a sector upon which a secure and efficient beef supply chain crucially depends.
"I am, of course, aware that there may be other sectors which also have stocks which they cannot bring to market. The support that I have announced today is, however, based on the particular circumstances and the role of the slaughtering sector. The Government do not therefore consider that equivalent assistance should be paid to other sectors. In the interests of public health and market confidence I am, however, asking the Intervention Board to accept responsibility for disposal of unsaleable stocks currently held in the United Kingdom at Government expense, if requested to do so.
"The waste material, offals and carcass meat resulting from the actions that I am announcing today will be treated primarily by rendering, with the resultant material to be disposed of by the best practicable environmental option. The ways and means of this are being discussed urgently with the industries concerned.
"This indicates the importance of the rendering industry to the beef chain. I announced previously a temporary subsidy for renderers and first payments will be made this week.

601
"Madam Speaker, the announcements I have made provide a comprehensive system of support for the essential links in the beef chain. They should enable the industries to plan ahead for the future with confidence.
"However, there are two other aspects on which the House will wish to know the Government's position. I refer to the EC ban on UK exports and the possibility of selective culling to accelerate the decline in incidence of BSE.
"So far as the ban is concerned, the Government will make every effort to secure its speedy elimination by whatever means are most likely to prove effective, including a legal challenge in the European Court of Justice shortly.
"So far as selective culling is concerned, my experts are looking carefully at whether a cost effective scheme could be devised. This remains to be seen. However, I should say at once that the picture that some have painted of a mass slaughtering policy involving millions of cattle and a large proportion of the British herd is wholly unreal. The Government have no intention of adopting any such measure which would be altogether unacceptable on many grounds. The models we are looking at involve limited numbers of individual animals—in the low tens of thousands, and not hundreds of thousands, far less the millions which are sometimes described—and do not provide for the slaughter of whole herds.
"If an acceptable scheme can be devised—that is, one which is likely to reduce the incidence of BSE significantly at acceptable cost—then the Government will consult on the details with all those interested before taking matters forward. So far as implementation is concerned, we would only go ahead if we were satisfied that to do so was to the clear benefit of the UK beef industry; for example, if there was a direct understanding about the lifting of the EC ban.
"The past few weeks have been a period of great concern for all those who work in the beef industry. As a Member of this House representing a rural constituency, I share the very real anxiety felt by all those who farm and whose livelihoods depend on the beef industry. The extensive package of measures I have announced today should go a long way to reassuring farmers and other essential sectors of the beef industry that they can rely on the full support of the Government in this their hour of need".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement that was made in another place by his right honourable friend. As always, I declare an interest in that the farming company with which I am involved has dairy cattle and we shall be involved in the cull cow scheme and possibly a selective slaughter scheme if one is produced.
I quote from the Statement,
"cattle throughput in markets is nearing 60 per cent. of previous levels".
602
However, I am sure the Minister is aware that this still represents a substantial problem. We have had a late, cold spring and forage stocks are running out fast. Until the cattle throughput has returned to something like its normal level, there will still be a substantial financial burden on farmers. We are pleased that the calf premium scheme is to start next week. It is slightly ironic that the Government refused to introduce the scheme to stop the export of live calves when that was proposed some time ago but a large number of those exported live calves have now been slaughtered in Holland and in France.
The nationally funded supplement to the basic premium in respect of steers and heifers is obviously welcome. However, I wonder how practical it is to say that this supplement will be payable for six months, and that that will allow producers time to adapt their marketing programmes to the new circumstances. The production of beef is not like an industrial production line. It will take a lot longer than six months for the beef producers to adjust their systems. As I understand the Statement, the top-up will be set at no less than 25p per kilogram—that is, about £125 for a 500 kilogram animal—for the first four weeks that the scheme is in operation. Is the Minister able to give us any idea what will happen after the four weeks? What do the Government think should happen then?
My next point is extremely important. Can the Government explain which Act of Parliament gives them the legal power to introduce the slaughter scheme at all? Is it introduced on grounds of animal health or on grounds of public health? We welcome the exemptions for the specialist breeds as we are all aware of the problem in that regard. It is interesting that the Government are now pursuing the idea of a quality assurance scheme. That was proposed by the Labour Party after the first Statement was made on 20th March. Your Lordships will remember that the idea was comprehensively rubbished by the Prime Minister in the other place. We are glad to see that that idea is now being accepted.
The matter of traceability is extremely important. We are pleased to note that there will be a system of mandatory animal passports. The decision to lift the ban on imports does not apply to imports from the other member states of the European Union. Are the Government confident that they can control the trade of animals which are exported from other member states and are then reimported here from third countries? As regards the slaughtering sector, the Coopers & Lybrand report states that the stocks are valued at some £132 million at pre-crisis price levels and the Government are proposing aid of £110 million. As I understand it, that means that the slaughtering sector is being asked to pick up the tab of £22 million in a short period of time. I wonder whether that will be sufficient to prevent the widespread company failures to which the Government referred.
As regards the Intervention Board arrangements to purchase the stocks which are a part of the blockage, as it were, the Government state that the Intervention Board will purchase these stocks at a valuation of 65 per cent. of the pre-crisis market price and will take responsibility for their secure disposal. Will the Minister

603
tell us exactly what that means? What is meant by secure disposal? What is the method that is intended to be used to dispose of these stocks? Are they able to enter the food chain or do they have to be destroyed?
As regards the disposal of the unsaleable stocks which are currently held in the United Kingdom, the Government state that these will be cleared, but have they any idea of the compensation levels that will be paid for the unsaleable stocks? Have the Government any idea of what this will cost? There is also the overwhelming problem of the disposal of the offal from the rendering industry. The Government are considering the best practical environmental options for this. As we all know, the meat and bonemeal industry has been a massive exercise in waste disposal. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us just what environmental options the Government are considering.
On the question of the legal challenge in the European Court of Justice, we heard this morning that the NFU is proposing to sue the Government and Customs and Excise as a party of the first part, as the lawyers say. Will the Government explain how that action will march with the one which they are proposing in the European Court of Justice? Will they bring the Commission or the Council of Ministers in as a third party or will it be a separate action? How will the two actions march together? On the subject of the ban, the Government have been asked before to give the precise Community authority, by article of treaty, by regulation number or by directive, which gives the European Commission the power to impose the ban. I believe that question has been asked before but I am not sure that it has been answered.
We welcome the fact that whole herds or large numbers of animals will not be slaughtered. As the Statement correctly stated, some have painted a picture of a mass slaughter involving a large proportion of the British herd and that is unreal. I remind the House that that was a remark made by the Minister, Mr. Douglas Hogg, on a television programme on the Sunday after the first Statement was made. It is important that if there is to be a selective slaughter system we should know about it as quickly as possible as the situation is creating uncertainty.
As regards the selective slaughter scheme and the European ban, the Statement states that so far as implementation is concerned, the Government would only go ahead in the context of a clear understanding about the lifting of the EC ban. But which comes first? If your Lordships will excuse the pun, this could be an expensive game of chicken. Can the Minister now give the final cost of this measure to the UK taxpayer after deducting the European contribution from our rebate next year? It is not easy to work that out from the Statement. What will be the final cost to the UK taxpayer when all the various complicated transfers have taken place between this country and Europe? Can he give us any idea of the global figure?
This is four weeks of the worst crisis that any of us can remember in our farming lifetimes. We shall wish to call the Government to account in the debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Richard on the Order
604
Paper tomorrow. But at least with this Statement the Government are starting to recognise the magnitude of the problem and are beginning at last to deal with it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is an encouragement. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, it has been four weeks, and during that time a number of people have suffered immense distress and financial loss. Can the Minister tell me whether the Government mean to do anything about those people who have had to sell their animals at a great loss? I see no way under this scheme that they will be compensated. Those are the people who have already suffered greatly.
I was pleased to see that the qualifications for intervention are to be widened. I always thought that the intervention scheme took in the best animals, good meat, and put out poor meat some months later. If the system is extended to take much wider categories of meat off the market, and if that is done immediately, it will help to restore normality.
The six-month period in which to alter a system of marketing older beef is too short. You cannot change a farming system in six months. The Minister may well know that it takes nine months for a calf to be born. I understand that this is an interval that you cannot speed up.
I have already said that the intervention is welcome. It is totally necessary. It must begin and must be extensive immediately.
I do not wish to go into the Statement to a great extent because we have the debate tomorrow. That will be an opportunity for everyone to study the Statement and to add that to the experience that we already have of BSE.
As regards the slaughtering section, the assistance is welcome. I hope that it will be applied quickly because the sector is in dire straits financially. This assistance will give those people some hope that the bankers may support them until they can get out of their trouble.
I welcome the fact that the Statement says that,
"the waste material, offals and carcase meat … will be treated primarily by rendering".
I hope that when it is rendered into bonemeal—it makes the most marvellous phosphatic fertiliser—the Government will ensure that mistakes in the rendering industry which precipitated this crisis are not repeated and that the system is absolutely safe.
We must all work to reverse the ban on exports. It appears to everyone quite ludicrous that Mr. Fischler should say that he will eat beef and that it is perfectly safe, while the export of beef is banned. The sooner that companies such as McDonald's which use beef go back to using British beef which is guaranteed safe, the better.
I echo my relief that the nonsense about killing every animal in Britain if necessary has now been laid to rest. This I must say. I cannot excuse the Government because the first person I heard that from was the Minister of Agriculture himself.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome which the noble Lord, Lord Carter,

605
and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, have given to today's package. Indeed, I am also grateful for the specific parts of that package to which they referred.
The criticism—I believe that it is totally unjustified—that they both decided to echo was that the Government are only now finally getting round to doing something. I remind noble Lords that this is, I believe, the fourth Statement by an agriculture Minister on this issue. In the first 20 days of this BSE saga we announced 20 measures. In the first 20 days we secured funding for rescue packages of somewhere between £500 million and £1,000 million. That is between £0.5 billion and £1 billion worth of rescue measures. We are now at about the 27th or 28th day and the number of measures is up by an equivalent figure, and so is the funding. From day 1 we were bringing forward measures and securing funds. We have acted positively and urgently throughout.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, quite rightly pointed out that at 60 per cent. throughput our slaughtering sector is still well down on the activity that it requires. That is why such a large proportion of the measures that we have in place are aimed specifically at market activity. When the calf scheme, the residual beef scheme, intervention measures and all the other measures are accelerating that throughput, that 60 per cent., we hope, will rise significantly. It will also help many other related trades such as the haulage industry.
The top-up is based on a time limited six-month period. Both noble Lords queried that. We have taken advice both in England and Scotland from agricultural advisers as to the amount of time that it takes to change the feeding regime of an animal in order to bring it up to market weight prior to 30 months. We have been advised that if an animal at present is over 24 months and on a slow fattening regime, it is unlikely, whatever one does to that animal, that it could be marketed at under 30 months. However, if an animal is under 24 months today, it is possible to change the feeding regime and bring it up to a marketable weight under the age of 30 months. I remind noble Lords that we are urgently working on exemption schemes which will be specifically aimed at those breeds which are naturally slow fattening.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked whether the minimum 25p per kilogram which has been announced for the first month is not too little; and said that we had not announced what will occur in the second month. The important point is that we wish to be able to exercise some judgment after the first month to see how things are going and whether any adjustments should be made.
The legislation that introduces this scheme is principally based on the Commission regulation which was adopted on 12th April by the Beef Management Committee. But the ban that we brought in more rapidly—it was an early and substantial measure announced by government in the early days in response to a consensus voiced from the farming community through to the retail community—on the sale of meat over 30 months old to consumers was under the emergency powers in the Food Safety Act.
606
The quality assurance scheme, which we regard as important, is principally as regards traceability. However, the Government have a long history of involvement. Despite the derogatory comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, about my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, throughout the agricultural departments we have a legacy of seeking to promote and stimulate quality assurance within the industry. I can speak specifically for Scotland. Along with Northern Ireland, we have the two longest and best proven track records of encouraging, through pump-priming, industry based quality assurance schemes. We recognise that while the Government may well have a principal role in traceability, the industries, which know the products and consumers best, should be the principal arbiters of what quality assurance schemes should and should not include.
As I have announced, the slaughter sector will benefit from the injection of about £110 million. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is quite right, the Coopers & Lybrand audit value of the stocks stuck in cold stores and chill rooms is approximately £132 million. Coopers & Lybrand have been the impartial experts and were helped by the Meat and Livestock Commission. Their report is in the Library and it states that the book value of stocks in a chill room or cold store usually achieves between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the maximum value in a normal market situation. Therefore, Coopers & Lybrand recommended 85 per cent. as being a realistic rate of return; that is the rate of return that they would normally expect. Therefore, the £110 million is a combination of the £30 million immediate injection which relates to cattle throughput plus the £80 million buying in the stock. It comes to a figure which is exactly 85 per cent. of the £132 million.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the secure disposal of some of the waste arisings of the residual beef scheme. We are confident that the existing arrangements and capacity, in the rendering industry are sufficient to deal with the new arisings. However, we are aware that, given a change in pattern and quantity, the best practical environmental option must be the option which is chosen to dispose of the arisings of the residual beef programme. We are urgently discussing those options with the experts in terms of SEAC, the regulators in terms of the environment agencies, the waste industry and the renderers themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about compensation on the unsaleable stocks in other parts of the food chain which as a government we are prepared to dispose of at our cost. He asked whether there would be some partial compensation offered for them. The important point is that the funds that we are able to bring to bear on the situation must be targeted principally at consumer confidence, market activity and ensuring that assistance is given to that part of the market which is most closely linked with activity and consumer confidence. Therefore, we have concentrated the targeting of resources at the farmers, the slaughterhouses, the cutting plants, renderers and in a sense at the consumer through the 30-month programme. We want the resources involved to be aimed at activity and confidence. What we cannot do is

607
to spread the resources too thinly throughout the whole diverse industry and therefore lose the effect that concentration would have at the centre of the industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is right. Both national farming unions of England and Scotland have threatened legal action; we shall take legal action. The extent to which there is co-ordination between the different parties taking legal action is an issue on which it is premature to comment.
The statutory basis for the EC ban on UK exports (Commission decision 96/239) is as follows. It was adopted by the Standing Veterinary Committee acting under Council Directives 90/425 and 89/662 concerning veterinary and zoo technical checks on intra-Community trade in animals, animal products and meat. If the noble Lord wishes to pursue the statutory basis further, we could do so possibly in correspondence or perhaps in the debate which the House will have tomorrow.
The final cost to the UK taxpayer will no doubt be substantial. However, the industry is absolutely essential to UK agriculture. It is especially large around the fringes of the UK. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, knows, in Scotland the cattle livestock industry comprises 30 per cent. of our entire agricultural product. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of jobs depend on the beef industry. Therefore, although the final cost will become apparent when more .judgments can be made and more decisions taken, at the moment it is too soon to say, but we are confident that the money involved, if well targeted, will be well spent.
The last point is on the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that McDonalds and similar chains should buy British beef once again. We have always said that and continue to say it. If the commissioner himself—and I believe that President Santer is of the same opinion—says that UK beef is safe to eat, then we cannot understand why certain large multiple buyers are not following that advice. In the light of those comments, it makes an irrational and disproportionate ban look totally ludicrous.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us are grateful to him for repeating the Statement? Speaking for myself, I found it extremely reassuring and it seems to me that, faced with an enormously difficult situation, the Government have got a grip on it. I am greatly cheered by the manner in which my noble friend dealt with the issue and with his indication of the way in which the Government are handling an extremely difficult issue.
I have one question for the Minister. It relates to the ban by the Europeans on the export of British beef which is absolutely intolerable. Will my noble friend make it clear that, unless the ban is lifted speedily, we shall retaliate against other European financial activities, many of which are vulnerable to British retaliation?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the reassurance that he sees in today's Statement and the measures which we have announced today. I genuinely agree with him that we have got a
608
grip on a difficult situation. I repeat that over the past 28 days we have introduced a series of measures, some of which span consumer confidence, some of which cover market activity; others cover the farmers, renderers or slaughterhouse industry. Some specifically cover animal or human health. With the measures brought forward numbering between 20 and 30, we have sought urgently and positively to get a grip of the situation.
The ban is intolerable. We will not accept the status quo. We will seek to negotiate a rapid and fair removal of the ban. We will also seek legal action to remove it; at the end of the day there is no scientific basis for it. That fact has now been admitted by the agriculture commissioner himself.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I find myself puzzled by the Statement and wonder whether the Minister can help me. I ask this in all innocence as I know nothing about farming; I only understand human medicine somewhat imperfectly. It is extremely welcome to hear the Minister say that the intention is probably only to cull relatively few cattle, perhaps tens of thousands. Will the Minister explain to us how the cull is chosen? I do not understand how the diagnosis is made and on what basis the cull will be carried out. To what extent will the animals be examined to ascertain whether they are free of the disease? What risk is there of culling animals which are perfectly innocent of the infection? Forgive me for asking a naive question, but I do not understand the basis for the cull and I should be grateful for clarification.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the noble Lord asks an extremely good question. He was unnecessarily modest about his knowledge of human medicine which, as the House knows, is considerable. We have not committed ourselves to any selective cull. Although our colleagues among other European agriculture ministers would like us to produce a programme by 30th April, we will only produce such a programme if it makes sense. We are currently examining the possibility of a very tightly targeted culling of those animals that are most at risk of incubating BSE. If such a programme could deliver a very much accelerated decrease in the incidence of BSE—of course, it is already decreasing at a significant rate—taking us closer and closer to eradication, it may well be worth it. There will be a cost to the industry from any such programme. We want to make sure that that cost is also taken into account when one is seeking to measure the benefits.
At the centre of the noble Lord's contribution is the inescapable question which seems beyond the comprehension of some of our European colleagues; namely, the scientists have said there is no justification in pursuing such a policy. Therefore, we shall have to convince ourselves before we pursue it that there will be benefits not yet identified by veterinary advisers.
I stress to the House that a second, absolutely critical benefit without which we will not institute any such cull is the lifting of the ban.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can my noble friend help me? I declare an interest as a farmer. I do not have

609
any beef cattle, even though my farm has 350 fat cattle waiting to go to slaughter. What other hypotheses are the Government looking for in relation to the possible connection between BSE and CJD? So far as I am aware—and perhaps my noble friend will confirm this—there is absolutely no evidence whatever of species jump, except orally from scrapie-fed mice to mice.
Will the Government please look at other hypotheses? This is very important, considering the very small number of CJD cases that there have been. Furthermore, what evidence do they have that the 10 new cases of CJD in young people are CJD and not another encephalopathy disease? Considering that Creutzfeldt-Jakob's first discovery of CJD was, I believe, in a 28 year-old, it is possibly nothing new that it happens to young people.
Secondly, can my noble friend be of greater assistance on the legal basis for the ban on the selling of cattle over 30 months? He accepts, by the fact that some cattle over 30 months can be eaten, that it is not dangerous to eat cattle over 30 months. Therefore there can be no threat to human health. Presumably, therefore, the Food Safety Act does not apply.
If it is accepted that there is no danger to human health from BSE, what right at all had the European Community to introduce Decision 96/239? If it had no right, why do we not simply ignore it, in the same way as we are ignoring feeding Emtryl to pheasants? If the Community is doing something that is obviously and palpably extra-legal, why pay a blind bit of notice to it in the first place?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. No threat to human health has been identified by the scientists from eating beef that has come from animals over 30 months old where they have been processed in such a way that slaughterhouse rules have been followed and where, according to the first SEAC recommendation, they are deboned. The Government want to return to that position as quickly as possible. Therefore, as I stressed both today and on other occasions, we see the European ban on our exports as unjust, ludicrous and irrational, and as one that should be the target not only of negotiation but indeed of legal action by ourselves in the European Court of Justice.
I return with some trepidation to the scientific inquiries of my noble friend. As many in this House with a scientific background will be aware, scientists are slow to come forward with categoric assurances of 100 per cent. safety. I can tell my noble friend that SEAC has examined all the angles. An in-depth review of each of the cases of the new CJD variant and consideration of other possible causes—such as cases being identified merely because of increased awareness of the disease on the part of doctors—has failed to give an adequate explanation for the new form of CJD. On current data, and in the absence of any credible alternative, the most likely explanation is that cases are limited to BSE before the introduction of the SBO ban in 1989.
The Government accept what the scientists have told us; namely, that their conclusions are based on only a likelihood. There remains no direct evidence of a link between BSE and CJD—neither the initial CJD
610
symptoms nor the new symptoms. In that sense, the risk is still theoretical. However, on the subject of BSE the Government have always undertaken to protect the public from any theoretical risk as well as any that is subsequently proven. Therefore we are happy to be guided by SEAC, which represents the greatest concentration of expertise on this subject. We are not happy, however, to be guided by some of the over-reactions that we have seen from our European colleagues, or indeed from some commentators in the media.
Lord Blease: My Lords, there is a question that I want to put to the Minister about the Intervention Board. However, first, may I say that I welcome the statement that the measures will apply to the United Kingdom as a whole. Those who know anything about farming will know the pronounced and very distinctive regional differences in farming practice in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Those practices throw up many problems in administration and in forms of legislation.
The fact that the Intervention Board is central to the present situation will not cure everything in connection with the present crisis. Will the Minister explain whether the Intervention Board will be governed by the Ministry of Agriculture and be subject to parliamentary control in all its aspects? That is important in respect of any equity, sense of justice or meeting demands in respect of regional difficulties as they appear today in this crisis.
The Earl of Lindsay: I can reassure the noble Lord, in that the Intervention Board is managed by the four agriculture departments: those of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Therefore the judgments they make and the management systems they devise to cope with the new programmes will reflect the circumstances so far as is possible in the different territories.
I am grateful that the noble Lord intervened. As I suggested earlier, the beef industry in Northern Ireland is of absolute importance to the economy there. It is therefore important that, so far as possible, the rescue packages we introduce for the farming community and the slaughter and processing community are applicable to the beneficiaries there.
There is always a balance to be struck between a system which is very complex and sophisticated in order to recognise every individual circumstance of every farmyard, versus a system that can be quickly implemented and seen through in terms of getting payments to beneficiaries and which involves some generalisations having to be made.
Everyone in the House will acknowledge the urgency of delivering aid as quickly as possible to those who are under pressure. Therefore, some generalisations and presumptions will have to be made about the width of circumstances to be found in different territories. But they will be aimed at the average recipient.
Lord Prior: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that in his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, he

611
did not rule out the fact that cull cows will be slaughtered and disposed of; and that that is the main disposal that takes place under the scheme? Will he accept that I welcome the scheme and agree with him that, under the arrangements for fattening those cattle that are now over two and a half years-old, it should be possible for the system to be changed within the time limit he has laid down? In this horrendous business, which I suspect will not be the last, given what goes on in the food world at the moment and the scares that go around, it is absolutely vital that we think through what else may happen and how to communicate. Perhaps on top of all that politicians and others in the media should take a grip on themselves and realise the damage that can be done to people's living and confidence and that this is a much bigger issue than the terrible business we are in at the moment, which must be dealt with on a long-term basis.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, my noble friend makes a most telling point when he emphasises the fact that such talk can cost lives and livelihoods. The unguarded accusations and allegations made within the political system and the media, but in many other places as well, are totally uncalled for. If only those who sought to comment or suggest that they had expert comment to make had confined themselves to the conclusions reached by the experts on SEAC, I do not believe the scare would have been so damaging.
The wider question raised by my noble friend is how generally we seek to deal with such food scares, given that there probably will be other similar—not, it is to be hoped, of similar proportions—situations which cast doubt over something which we all otherwise trust. The Government will certainly be looking at that and would welcome advice and suggestions from other parties.
I can confirm to my noble friends that the cull cow programme or the residual beef programme, which simply seeks to keep out of the human food chain the meat arising from carcasses of animals that are over 30 months old, is the main disposal programme. Therefore, the selective cull about which the noble Lord, Lord Winston, spoke is simply an option which we are looking at and we are not committed to it in any way at all. I welcome my noble friend's reassurance that the six-month rule on top-up should be sufficient. There will possibly be some specific cases in which people will feel unjustly treated by that, but we have taken advice from the Scottish agricultural colleges, ADAS and others in order to ensure that it is principally a fair system.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, from this side of the House I congratulate the Minister on the expertise and courtesy that he has shown in dealing with questions on this very difficult subject. In doing so, perhaps I may revert to a question that has already been asked by my noble friend in regard to the nature of the proceedings which are contemplated.
Does the Minister agree that an action which may take a couple of years to be heard is scarcely likely to relieve the present problem? Are his legal advisers,
612
who, I am sure, are extremely competent, considering the question of a speedy application of what corresponds to our injunction restraining the European Community from the ban?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for the initial comments made by the noble Lord. We realise that in the normal course of events the European Court of Justice action could take up to two years. We would seek an interim judgment before that time. However, I suspect that never have so many government lawyers and legal advisers applied their minds to one single subject so much as they are to the European ban that is so unjustified. Therefore, any other avenues which promise a speedier conclusion will indeed be pursued.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I speak for many in this House when I thank my noble friend the Minister for the considered Statement. At long last, there is an injection of science into the situation. My profession has been monitoring the situation very carefully and is very glad of the Statement on BSE and what is proposed, having heard the Minister in the other place.
However, there are one or two issues to raise, without pre-empting the debate tomorrow. We are glad that compensation is to be paid for the culling of more ancient animals. But it seems to be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut to slaughter something in the order of 15,000 animals per week when in fact the number of cases of BSE will now be about 200 and in two year's time about 60 per week. We particularly welcome the logical approach to the beef herd, where breeds of various kinds are not the appropriate breeds to have a 30 month cut-off point. I am sure that the quality assurance scheme will be most welcome to many beef breeders, as will the animal passport scheme. We welcome the Statement, and hope that we shall have further information later.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I appreciate my noble friend's considerable expertise in the veterinary field and trust that he will make a contribution to the debate tomorrow so that we can hear more of his wisdom. He welcomed the injection of science. The whole saga started off on the basis of science and was blown off course by some rather idle comment. Rather than welcoming the injection of science, I hope that he welcomes the return to a more scientific foundation.
Let me say to my noble friend and to the British Veterinary Association—that they lament the fact that we have to slaughter 15,000 cattle a week but that they are muddled. With the residual beef programme or the cull cow programme we are taking those cattle which anyway are coming to market to be slaughtered in the normal course of their working life and excluding them from the food chain. So, no animal under the cull cow programme will be slaughtered before that point in time at which it would have been slaughtered in normal farming practices.

Farm Waste Grant (Nitrate Vulnerable Zones) (England and Wales) Scheme 1996
6.27 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 25th March be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Nitrate Directive requires us to identify those areas where agriculture has produced a nitrate problem and to introduce controls on practices undertaken by farmers within them. In this country, unlike some of our European neighbours, we have taken a targeted approach in identifying such areas. The resulting nitrate vulnerable zones occupy only about 5 per cent. of the land in England and Wales.
Manures which are applied in excessive quantities, or at certain times of the year, will contribute to the pollution of our water resources. That, in a nutshell, is why the Nitrate Directive requires the introduction of controls on the spreading of organic manures within nitrate vulnerable zones.
These controls will restrict the amount of manure which farmers may apply to land within the nitrate vulnerable zones and in some cases will set closed periods during which some manures may not be spread at all. In order to comply with these restrictions, livestock farmers, particularly those with slurry-based systems, will normally have to store their farm waste and those with insufficient land of their own may have to find additional land on which to spread their waste. But it is important to keep the scale of the effect in perspective. Of the 8,000 or so farmers in the nitrate vulnerable zones, about a quarter have livestock; and, of those, I estimate that fewer than 700 will be faced with additional storage-related costs of one sort or another. But the actual impact will vary considerably depending upon the nature and circumstances of each business. For example, some farmers may have to expand their existing storage facilities, while others, such as those with slurry-based dairy or pig units on light soils with little or no storage capacity, will have to instal new facilities. On the other hand, a farmer with a beef herd relying on grass silage or hay for feed, and having to spread farmyard manure from its winter housing, is unlikely to be faced with any additional costs as a result of these measures.
Some livestock farmers in the nitrate vulnerable zones will be faced with the need to make capital investments in order to meet their obligations under the Nitrate Directive. In recognition of that need, the scheme will focus assistance on a range of storage facilities for slurry and other manures. Fixed handling and disposal facilities, which form an essential part of farm waste systems, are also to be eligible for grant.
Under previous grant schemes, facilities which separate clean and dirty water, or, in other words, rainwater from fouled water, have not been eligible for grant. However, by diverting rainwater and preventing it mixing with the farmyard effluent, items such as guttering and drainage systems can be highly effective in reducing the amount of storage that would otherwise be needed; and if the amount of slurry stored is reduced,
614
so too is the amount of slurry that subsequently needs to be spread on the land. I am therefore pleased to be able to tell you that those items will now be eligible for grant aid.
Those noble Lords who have had the pleasure of falling into a slurry lagoon will be familiar with its potency. We will of course provide grant aid for ancillary safety features such as fencing around slurry lagoons. However, farmers themselves will be responsible for ensuring that their investments abide by the control of pollution regulations and have the prior consent of the Environment Agency in addition to meeting the necessary health and safety legislation. I can assure the House that investments which do not meet those standards will not be eligible for grant.
In respect of the main features of the scheme, our aim has been to ensure that it is as simple as possible to administer for both farmers and the Government and that grants are available to all who need them. For that reason the scheme is similar in many ways to its predecessor, the farm and conservation grant scheme, notably in the rate of grant which remains at 25 per cent. and the expenditure limit of £85,000 per business. While many will no doubt complain that that is not enough, it is the most that can be afforded given the current constraints on public expenditure and will be welcome help to those who need it. I would add that smaller farmers will benefit from the expenditure ceiling, as there will no longer be a separate, lower expenditure limit determined by the amount of labour on the farm.
The scheme will be open to all farmers with at least some agricultural land in a zone providing the investment is necessary to help them comply with the directive's measures. As with the previous grant scheme, there will be no need for farmers to obtain prior approval from the Ministry or from the Welsh Office. In order to help farmers decide what is most appropriate for their circumstances we are also making available free ADAS technical advice on the implications of the proposed measures and on the waste facilities needed to comply with them. I hope that farmers will wish to take advantage of that advice, and of the assistance offered by this scheme, and plan their investments well in advance of the introduction of the measures.
I hope that this House will agree that the scheme represents real assistance to farmers in nitrate vulnerable zones and that it demonstrates the Government's commitment to balancing the needs of an efficient agricultural industry with the need to protect water resources. I beg to move.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 25th March be approved.—(Lord Lucas.)
6.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the scheme. I must say that with the fisheries, BSE, and now this scheme, we cannot complain about a lack of variety in the agricultural brief. The scheme relates to nitrate vulnerable zones. If the Minister has fallen into a slurry lagoon, he is lucky to be here at all. I understand that it is almost universally fatal to do so.

615
Clearly, any grant aid in this area is welcome. But the Minister will be aware that, for example, the NFU is not impressed by either the percentage of aid-25 per cent.—or the maximum expenditure limit of £85,000. I had intended to ask the Minister to indicate the rationale behind the 25 per cent. and £85,000. I am sure that it was carefully worked out. However, he gave the answer when he said that it is all that can be afforded within the constraints on public expenditure. It would be helpful to know whether there are any other reasons for the figures other than pressure from the Treasury.
Perhaps the Minister can say also why the grant aid does not extend to farm vehicles which are needed for transport of the slurry. The Minister mentioned that but, as I understand it, grant aid does not apply to farm vehicles.
If I understand correctly, the annual budget of £800,000 for the scheme implies gross expenditure by farmers of £3.2 million at a 25 per cent. grant rate. I believe the Minister said that the department estimates that 700 farmers are likely to benefit. If that is correct, it would seem a substantial expenditure. Perhaps the Minister can explain the position and what the average amount of grant is likely to be. It looks as though it will be in the order of £10,000 per farm, if my mental arithmetic is correct.
We should not forget that the Government removed grants for improving or installing farm-waste facilities from the farm and conservation grant scheme. Obviously the scheme before us today only restores grant aid to the 7,500 farmers in the nitrate vulnerable zones, of whom the Minister says only around 700 are likely to benefit. How many farmers therefore are outside the scope of the scheme? In other words, what is the potential pollution problem that the scheme does not address outside the nitrate vulnerable zones?
On the question of free ADAS advice, I should declare an interest as president of the British Institute of Agricultural Consultants. There have been long discussions with the department over the business of free ADAS advice and certainly individual consultants who are able to provide the advice feel unfairly treated when ADAS is offering it free. They feel it is unfair competition. I thought the Minister would like to know that.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the necessity for the scheme is completely and utterly unscientifically based. The reason for it is because the EC decided that a 50 mg. limit of methaeglobinaemia—shortened to MGA—if it is not established, will produce stomach cancer in humans and the possibility of blue babies. There has been one instance of blue babies in this country since 1972 and it is extremely easy to cure with one injection. Research at Aberdeen University completely and utterly exploded the connection between nitrates and stomach cancer.
The European Community therefore, in its wisdom, introduced a directive for which there is absolutely no scientific reasoning. I showed the Minister the article in the chartered surveyors' magazine and also the article by Christopher Booker in the Daily Mail. I felt it only fair to give him some warning of what I intended to say.
616
Of course, we cannot ask that the scheme be stopped. But it is extraordinary that we are putting into legislation something which will cost the farming industry and the taxpayer a lot of money for no conceivable health benefit whatever. One farmer, Mr. Horvath, has to change his whole farming process because of the possible danger of nitrate run-off from his farm into the local river. Upstream of him the local sewage works is putting into the river far higher levels of nitrates and yet is not affected at all.
Will the Government please, please, occasionally get a grip on some of the directives which come out of Brussels for which there is no conceivable scientific or logical basis? I am laying aside for the moment, only temporarily, anything to do with BSE which has also shown that to be the case.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I shall not hold up the proceedings for long. It is a little illogical that 1.5 million acres have been designated as NVZs, large parts of which have no nitrate problem at all. For some extraordinary reason—to suit the water companies or some other government creations—they are being designated as nitrate vulnerable zones. That is entirely wrong.
Considering that one may be forced to alter one's farming system and pay out up to £85,000, the grant is not very generous, particularly if one is in an area of low nitrates. I cannot believe that this is a logical scheme. It certainly does not appear logical to those farmers with low nitrate exposure who are being put to such expense with what is a lower rate of subsidy.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, unfortunately I did not arrive in time to hear the beginning of my noble friend's remarks and he may already have answered this question. Can he say whether all other member states are as far ahead in implementing the directive as we are?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am not certain of the answer to the last question. My understanding is that some are well ahead of us. Indeed, some other countries decided to designate their entire land surface as nitrate vulnerable zones whereas we have taken the attitude, which I hope will please my noble friend Lord Onslow and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, of being as selective as possible.
In some areas the nitrate problem was patchy—one borehole would have it and the next would not. Rather than designate an area like a patchwork quilt, with a few hectares at a time, some in a zone and some not, we took the decision to designate the entire geological structure. That will include some individual boreholes and areas where there is no nitrate problem inside the nitrate vulnerable zone. But that was done for reasons of convenience and operability of the scheme and has nothing whatever to do with the effects on any water companies. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, of that.
With regard to the other comments made by my noble friend Lord Onslow, I discussed these before when we addressed the question of the directive. The limit of 50 milligrammes per litre has been set by the World

617
Health Organisation and is widely regarded by it and by the European Community as the right level. I do not think it is the level we would necessarily choose for ourselves—we might well go for a higher level—but it is a level which has become established and for which there is reasonable evidence. Nitrate is a pollutant. It is not a good idea to let it go on rising to high levels in water supplies. If it rose beyond 50 milligrammes per litre we would expect to see an increase in blue baby syndrome. We do not have it at the moment because there is little water with dangerous levels of nitrate. Having a lot of nitrate going into the river system affects the ecology of the rivers and the estuaries. That is something on which we wish to keep a reasonable control, so to an extent we are addressing the problem before it has occurred as a preventive measure rather than waiting for the problem to occur and then having to pick up some environmental or human health catastrophe. Given the previous business today, that is something the House should welcome, even if it requires some small costs for a small number of farmers at present.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, is right to say that the levels of grant have been determined by the amount of money available. However, I am sure he recognises that both his party and mine accept the polluter pays principle. I am sure he would recognise that in most industries the Government make no contribution whatever to the amount of money needed to introduce pollution control measures. I am sure he would recognise that a shed full of pigs producing large quantities of slurry on an intensive system is a polluter and that it should not be regarded as being in quite the same category as an extensive farming enterprise, which we are confident will not be affected at all by the restraints in this measure. If you are keeping a totally extensive farming system with livestock, you will not be exceeding the limits set down under the directive.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is a herd of 100 dairy cows an intensive farming system?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the problem with dairy cows comes because the farmer will tend to keep them inside during the winter and the system will be intensive for that period. If you are running a farmyard manure-based system, you will probably be totally unaffected by the directive. If you are running a slurry-based system and are in the habit of spreading the slurry on the land every other week during the course of the winter, you will be affected by it. Farmyard manure does not leach over the winter; slurry does. So it is a question of controlling the amount of pollution you are producing. You do not necessarily have to look at building a slurry lagoon if you can transfer to a manure-based system.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked why the scheme does not apply to vehicles. In any livestock system vehicles will be required and will be in existence anyway for spreading. To the extent that they are not specialist spreading vehicles, they will be vehicles with many other purposes. We are looking at focusing the grants on the particular requirements of putting in manure and slurry storage facilities.
618
The noble Lord calculated the grant at £10,000 per farmer on average. If the scheme lasts for its full term, that might be about the right figure. We shall see what level of demand there is and we shall see how long it lasts. But we certainly envisage seeing it through until the end of the century.
The noble Lord bewailed the fact that those who know that where there is muck there is brass had been deprived of their additional income. I take note of that fact. I shall talk to my colleagues and hope that we will not repeat that mistake in the future.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I should like him to clarify what the World Health Organisation said. I have information before me saying that the World Health Organisation published a book which dealt with the 50 milligramme per litre limit on nitrates in drinking water and said that the cancer risk of higher levels of nitrate is not scientifically proven. The sole reason for the 50 milligrammes per litre limit was the extraordinarily long word which I cannot even attempt to pronounce the second time around. This again is the blue baby syndrome. My noble friend has not answered my central point. Why are we accepting directives from the European Community for which there is absolutely no scientific need? He has not answered that point and it is a very important one.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is not a case of there being no scientific need. It is clear that there is a disease called blue baby syndrome or methaeglobinaemia. That is an awful compound word which is extremely difficult to get out even if one can spell it, which I am not sure I can. There is such a disease. It occurs in babies where there are high nitrate levels in water. There are no other known dangers of nitrate to human consumption. It is clearly something which is not part of the natural human diet and we should try to avoid stuffing large quantities of it into human drinking water and then find out in 20 years' time that there is a nasty consequence of having lots of it around. It is reasonable to take precautions against polluting when we do not know what the consequences will be. The costs of it to us, applying, as we are, the directive in the most careful possible way, are extremely small.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Kyrgyz Republic) Order 1996
6.46 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey Baroness Chalker of Wallasey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I believe it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I speak to the draft Orders in Council concerning partnership and

619
co-operation agreements between the European Communities and their member states on the one hand, and the four countries of Belarus, Moldova, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan on the other, together so as not to keep repeating essentially similar facts.
These orders specify the agreements as Community treaties under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972. They are mixed agreements. In other words, some of their provisions fall within Community competence and others fall within the competence of the member states. They require ratification by all member states, by the European Communities and by the relevant third country before they can enter into force. The draft orders need to be approved by both Houses so that Community obligations under the agreements may be implemented by the United Kingdom. These orders are of a standard nature but are of great interest because they are the first agreements that Europe has had with any of these countries.
The break up of the Soviet Union in 1991 presented us in the West with a unique opportunity to help the new sovereign independent states to find their place in the international order. The Baltics were of course a case apart. We were able to correct the mistakes of history and welcome these countries back into the European fold with the promise of eventual membership of the European Union. But for the 12 countries emerging out of the monolithic Soviet Union, the European Union needed to construct a new, individually tailored relationship with each of them. Membership of the European Union is not on the agenda so a different but nonetheless constructive framework was required. We needed to develop a relationship based on partnership and practical co-operation to help these countries through the difficult process of establishing genuine political and economic reform.
The partnership and co-operation agreements, which are explicitly based on respect for democratic principles, provide the flexibility to take account of the differences between, for instance, Russia and Kyrgyzstan. Generally, the agreements provide for regular political contacts, increased trading opportunities and wide-ranging economic co-operation.
The first such agreements were signed with Russia and Ukraine in 1994, and ratified by the UK in 1995. Negotiations with Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan have just been concluded. The European Union intends to negotiate partnership and co-operation agreements with the remaining countries of the former Soviet Union as soon as these countries are in a position to fulfil the political and economic obligations contained in such agreements.
It will take some time before the partnership and co-operation agreements come into force because of the need for ratification by all the parties. To bridge this gap, the European Community has negotiated interim agreements with each country. These agreements, which bring into early effect the trade provisions of the wider-ranging PCAs, can be suspended if one of the countries fails to fulfil its obligations, such as respect for democratic principles.
It is in all our interests that the process of reform in the former Soviet Union should succeed. The success of that process does not lie entirely in our hands. But I believe that the European Union can help that process along by providing practical support, just as we do bilaterally on our own programmes. The agreements provide a framework to achieve that objective of providing practical support. I commend the orders to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not wish to oppose the orders in any of their aspects. Indeed, we on this side of the House very much welcome them. As the Minister is fully aware, the Labour Party supports the enlargement of the European Union. Of course, the partnership and co-operation agreements do not amount to anything like full-scale membership, but they are a first step in closer relations between the countries of central and eastern Europe and the countries which were once part of the Soviet Union. I agree with everything that the Minister said about the extent to which agreements of this kind help to bind those countries to the West and to support them in their legitimate wish to have sustained democracies and to achieve economic prosperity through market economies. They also provide new opportunities for British business both to trade and invest in those countries. I hope that British firms will take up those opportunities.
I have one or two questions for the Minister. Can she say a little more about the similar agreements that are being prepared for other republics in the former Soviet Union? Which ones are now in preparation? What is the likely timetable? Can she give a little more indication as to the main criteria being used in deciding which of the other former republics will be next in line? There is probably quite a long queue, and many of those countries now want to strengthen their links with the European Union.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister one or two slightly more specific questions. I was somewhat puzzled by the meaning of the unilateral declaration by the French Government in all four cases, which is at the end of the partnership and co-operation agreements. I do not quite follow what that refers to.
Can the Minister say why, in the case of Moldova, Austria Finland and Sweden do not appear at be associated in the final Act whereas they are in the case of the other three? The Minister said earlier that ratification by all member states is required.
Next, I wonder whether the Minister can explain why there are articles about monetary policy stipulating the gradual adjustments of their policies to the European monetary system in the case of Moldova and Belarus, but not in the case of Kyrgyz or Kazakhstan.
Finally, can the Minister elaborate a little on the reasons behind the varying provisions with respect to the applicability of GATT to the four former republics? I recognise that these are complex—indeed, arcane—matters, but perhaps the Minister can confirm that the provisions vary and say why.

621
In conclusion, I particularly welcome the articles in the agreements on education and training. It is vitally important that all those countries improve their educational systems and develop their training systems if they are to succeed economically. I very much hope that particular attention will be given to those articles in the agreements.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, I very much welcome the content of the agreements and would not in any way oppose the Motions that are before the House. However, I should like briefly to draw attention to my anxiety about the process by which we undertake this scrutiny, if that is not too ambitious a word for it. It illustrates as well as anything the need for more information to be provided in advance to the House before one undertakes such scrutiny.
The starting point for the parliamentarian is the notice that we receive on the Order Paper of the Motions to be moved. Because, happily, the European Communities Act 1972 requires an order to be laid in draft before Parliament, we then receive the order itself. The explanatory note which is attached to the order does no more than provide a contents page for extremely detailed treaties, which in the case of the one that I am looking at now runs to some 99 primary articles which deal with an extremely important range of rights and interests, including most favoured nation treatment, the rights to be accorded to foreign nationals in employment in this country, the right to establish economic enterprises, and so on.
The bewildered parliamentarian who then wants to know what on earth we are doing has to obtain a copy of the agreement itself, which is referred to in what is described as the schedule to the order. There is then no explanatory memorandum to explain (even to someone who is relatively legally qualified like myself) exactly the scope and likely impact of the partnership and co-operation agreements. That does not seem to me to be a very satisfactory process. It is only by a happy accident that we are privileged to be here to approve the orders by affirmative resolution, but that does not arise with most treaties.
I therefore repeat the very modest suggestion that I have made in connection with my little Bill, which is that there should be an explanatory memorandum to enable us in advance to know exactly what we are here to do. There should also be some form of treaties scrutiny committee so that the "arcane" points, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, so described them, which always seem to be important and difficult matters, can be explored in advance by a specialist committee which can then in a practical way advise the House.
I am encouraged by the fact that in the new Liberal Government in Australia, the new Foreign Affairs Minister, Mr. Alexander Downer, MP, is likely to respond positively to the proposals in this area from the Australian Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee, so I am informed today by its chairman. I hope that in a practical way we can
622
improve the information that we receive in this House about the likely impact of a treaty, as well as having special scrutiny machinery. This is a good working example of a gap in our system and I very much hope that it can be remedied.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I should like to say something about the order dealing with Moldova. I had the privilege of being the Council of Europe's Rapporteur when we considered the full membership of Moldova. I had long conversations with Moldovan parliamentarians and made a lengthy visit to Moldova. I shall be going back to assess the progress they have made. One of the reasons why they have been able to have this agreement is that they have received the seal of good housekeeping of the Council of Europe, without which the European Union is not prepared to do very much for any new member state that wishes to have some kind of association agreement. This covers the field of parliamentary democracy, multi-party parliament, which exists in Moldova, human rights, which are now guaranteed under Moldovan legislation, and many other matters. Great progress has been made in Moldova under President Snegur.
However, there are certain difficulties. Perhaps my noble friend will say something about how she believes the agreements will operate inside Moldova where there is the so-called breakaway Republic of Transdniestia. Incidentally, if any noble Lord goes to Tiraspol, the capital of Transdniestia, and is blind-folded, he will believe that he is in the Soviet Union of the 1950s. Probably the last remaining statue of Lenin is at the steps of their headquarters. When I went there to discuss with non-governmental organisations the problems that they had, the matter was rehearsed. All of us had seen it in the past. We were told how wonderful the government was and that there were no problems of any kind. All I need say is that there is gross abuse of human rights in that part of Moldova and virulent anti-Semitism.
The OCSE has been doing a very good job in trying to find a way to make the writ of the freely elected Government of Moldova run throughout the country. It has been aided by both Russia and the Ukraine; that is to be welcomed. In contrast to the somewhat unpleasant things I have said about Tiraspol, I can tell noble Lords that Moldovan wine is very drinkable. I hope to see it on the list in your Lordships' House.
How do we ensure that any benefits that accrue from these proposals will be given to ordinary citizens who are ruled by the so-called government of Tiraspol without interfering with the sovereign rights of the freely elected parliament and government of the Republic of Moldova as a whole?
7.3 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about these agreements which we support. It is almost exactly 12 months since the Minister introduced the partnership agreements with the Russian Federation and the Ukraine. The present series takes that a stage further. When the Minister spoke a year ago she emphasised how different the new member

623
states of the former Soviet Union were and the need for individually tailored relationships. The present group illustrates vividly that the Minister was absolutely right. Belarus and Moldova lie between the Russian Federation and east and central Europe and the European Union. Belarus has, I believe, a high degree of monetary integration with the Russian Federation. They are both undoubtedly European states. On the other hand, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan are undoubtedly Asian states. The latter is a huge country. Kyrgyzstan is a tiny republic on the Chinese frontier. When one looks at an atlas one discovers that both are more than three times further away from Moscow than we are in London. I was fascinated to read that Kyrgyzstan had a reputation for being the most democratic country in central Asia with a go-ahead president. There is a certain amount of disillusion setting in. One of the Chatham House journals reported that in the elections last year there was a sense of shock when it was discovered that 30 per cent. of the new deputies were being investigated by the state prosecutor's office for illegal financial dealings.
It is against that background that the task of the partnership and co-operation agreements in promoting a plural democracy and a liberal market system must be seen. The noble Lord who has just spoken is absolutely right to draw attention to some of the difficulties in ensuring that the assistance we give is used in the wisest and best ways. I believe that it must be a long term, patient process of well directed assistance and sustained dialogue at many different levels.
The European Union funds of TACIS and PHARE are of great importance, as are Britain's bilateral know-how funds. Recently, I asked the Minister a series of Written Questions about the scale of them. I am grateful for the answers that she gave on 20th March. There are very substantial sums of European Union money involved. It is disturbing to discover how much worrying evidence there is. The Brussels administration is excessively bureaucratic in dealing with them. I draw the attention of the Minister to the Court of Auditors' criticism. It called on the European Commission to discharge its responsibilities in relation to the present state of deadlock and uncertainty.
The Minister may be pleased if I go on to say that my impression is that the United Kingdom's bilateral know-how fund operates more flexibly, effectively and efficiently than Brussels. I make a declaration of interest as the trustee of a charity that receives grants from the know-how fund to try to train journalists in the former Soviet Union in the virtues of a free press. Under our own bilateral know-how funds we spent £228 million to the end of March 1995. In one of her Answers the Minister told me that in the current year we expected to spend £80 million. The contrast between the European Union's efforts and those of our know-how funds is instructive, even allowing for the vast differences in scale. I believe that the know-how funds greatly benefit from the experience of our Civil Service here in being well versed in administering aid programmes. They are much more flexible and less bureaucratic than PHARE and TACIS seem to be. Inevitably, they had to overcome a number of early difficulties with outside
624
consultants who were eager to work for the know-how funds—perhaps we provided some of them—but who knew little about the target countries. I believe that those difficulties are being overcome.
The figures I have given for the British know-how funds do not include the charity know-how fund. A special word of praise is called for in that respect. The charitable voluntary sector in this country—and, I am sure, in other western countries—is a jewel in our crown. However, in the countries of the former Soviet Union the voluntary sector, if it ever existed, was stifled during 70 years of communist totalitarian rule. The charity know-how fund normally does good in terms of the intrinsic value of the projects with which it is associated, but it may be doing even more good by educating others in the virtues of voluntary activity and doing things for oneself.
To create from scratch a tradition of voluntary service in partnership with the state is a further example of the fact that changing a political and economic culture is a long, slow business. It requires infinite patience and tolerance and a capacity to face setbacks and not to be thrown off course by media sensationalism. I believe that it is that long term view, including rigorous scrutiny of the way in which resources are used, that is the important starting point in the years that lie ahead under these partnership and co-operation agreements.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I shall do my best to answer the questions posed, starting with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. Having welcomed the orders, she first asked me whether there were similar agreements for other republics and what was the timetable. Perhaps we may just look at the signing of the partnership and co-operation agreements. They have been signed for Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan. For Uzbekistan, the EU opened talks last month; for Turkmenistan, the possibility of talks is being examined; for Tajikistan, at present there is little chance of a partnership and co-operation agreement, but let us hope that it will put its house in better order, and one such chance may come. We expect signature for Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan to take place this month. So that is the state of similar agreements.
The noble Baroness then asked me about the main criteria for the agreements. The main features are obviously that there should be political dialogue at ministerial, parliamentary and official levels; that there should be closer trading links, in particular, through the mutual abolition of quotas on most goods; most favoured nation treatment on tariffs; the abolition of discriminatory internal taxes. The Belarus and Moldova agreements allow for talks in 1998 about eventual free trade areas.
The third feature relates to the provisions on parties doing business in one another's territories, including the terms upon which companies may set up, the regulatory framework for investment and helping to bring the Belarusan, Moldovan, Kazakh and Kyrgyz practice into line with the EU, for example, on competition and intellectual property.

625
The fourth main area is that there should be continued economic co-operation under the TACIS programme, to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, has just referred. I shall return to that issue in a few moments.
There are slight differences in the four agreements, but on the whole they are largely similar. The differences that exist are textual ones reflecting the different negotiating priorities of the four countries. For instance, each country had its own list of goods to be exempted from the requirement to grant most favoured nation treatment. In areas where the MFN treatment applies, the EU and the other party give each other the same trading advantages that they accord to all other countries to which they grant MFN treatment.
On substance, the Belarus and Moldova agreements contain an evolution clause, offering a review in 1998 of the possibility of a free trade area. There are no social security provisions in the Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan agreements. All EC goods imported into Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan will be free of quotas and equivalent measures. For EC imports into Belarus and Moldova, exemptions for such restrictions will apply to goods other than textiles and coal and steel products.
There are some differences between these four PCAs and the Russian and Ukrainian PCAs. Russia and Ukraine are similar to Belarus and Moldova for the obvious reasons that they have had a similar situation, but only Russia and Ukraine PCAs provide for a dialogue at the highest level; that is to say, at presidential level. The Russian agreement, which is not before us tonight, contains some transition periods which take account of its special relationship with the rest of the CIS.
On the further questions asked by the noble Baroness, let me explain that the reason there is a French declaration at the end is that there is no need for the French overseas territories (the DOM/TOMs) to be bound by the PCAs. That is all that is meant by that.
The noble Baroness then asked why Austria, Finland and Sweden do not appear to have signed the Moldova PCA. That was because the Moldova PCA was signed on 28th November 1994, before those three countries acceded to the EU. I can assure the noble Baroness that Austria, Finland and Sweden agreed on their accession to take on the obligations that apply under the PCAs.
The noble Baroness asked me about monetary policy articles on Belarus and Moldova, but not on Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. I wish to look into that a little more than I have been able to while listening to other noble Lords. I shall write to the noble Baroness and others who have spoken with a full explanation. I can assure the noble Baroness that there is nothing sinister about it.
The last question that the noble Baroness asked me was about the reasons for the GATT differentiation. I believe that she is aware that all agreements contain references to the GATT, including the further development on accession. There are no real differences. I can read her a long explanation of the whole of the WTO arrangements. Obviously the PCAs can be amended to take into account accession to the WTO. There are different situations for
626
each of them. The UK, however, welcomes the prospect of all these countries eventually becoming members of the WTO on the basis that they apply and that they then respect the WTO's rules.
As far as I know, the progress being made is normal for each of the countries. If the noble Baroness would like a note of that, I suggest that I put it in my letter to her rather than detain your Lordships now.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, returned to a common interest that he and I now definitely share about getting better explanations to your Lordships in advance of debate. May I assure him that explanatory memoranda are submitted on all PCAs. That is part of the normal scrutiny procedure. I must apologise if he did not know that for these four agreements the committee scrutinised the explanatory memoranda in 1995. I cannot tell him exactly when in 1995 that was, but they have been through the process. He knows full well that he and I believe in this process and that it is already working well for PCAs.
My noble friend Lord Finsberg asked me about Moldova, in which he has taken such an important interest as the leader of the group on the Council of Europe. I understand that he is puzzled about what can be done over Transdniestia. We obviously hope that there will be an early negotiated settlement to the dispute which takes account of the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Moldova. We have warmly supported Moldova's efforts since independence to introduce and sustain reform. We have no reason to doubt Moldova's commitment to fulfilling her obligations under this new agreement, but, as my noble friend made clear, there is plenty of action going on through the OSCE at present to try to resolve the Transdniestia dispute. I believe that that is the way in which to proceed with the matter. It does not invalidate putting the PCA forward to your Lordships tonight.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, told us about the importance of auditing what goes on and we will accept that. He went on to talk about the TACIS and PHARE programmes. The TACIS programme relates to these particular orders. His kind comments about the know-how funds and the officials running them are very much appreciated. In 1989, when we introduced the funds, the procedures were experimental. However, as he realised, we had the benefit of many years of experience of technical co-operation in other parts of the world which we put together with new experience of the former Soviet Union countries and the central and eastern European countries. We now see that the British know-how funds are almost a role model for others. We cannot impose our procedures on others but I believe that increasingly the programmes run by the European Union are taking a lesson out of a good housekeeping book. Certainly the PHARE programme has improved considerably and adopts a number of techniques that we have used during the past six years. I hope that the TACIS programme will become a great deal more flexible because my experience is exactly that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth.

627
Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord's comments about the charity know-how funds. During my somewhat limited travels in the former Soviet Union I have found that the idea of helping oneself by charitable or non-governmental efforts is catching on fast. Therefore, anything that the charity know-how funds can do to aid that process reinforces the efforts which are being made initially in small ways in many different areas. That process is many light years away from the experience of the former Soviet Union.
I have sought to explain the matters which were a little less clear. I shall write to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and copy my letter with extra detail to other noble Lords who have spoken today. It is necessary to move each order individually. I believe that the PCAs will offer substantial encouragement to the process of reform in the four countries. That is in the interests not only of the countries themselves but of the United Kingdom and the European Union as a whole. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Moldova) Order 1996
7.24 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey Baroness Chalker of Wallasey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Kazakhstan) Order 1996
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey Baroness Chalker of Wallasey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Belarus) Order 1996
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey Baroness Chalker of Wallasey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th February be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Defamation Bill [H.L.]
7.25 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Offer to make amends]:
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No.1:
Page 2, line 43, leave out ("publish or join in the publication of") and insert ("come forward and join in the making of a public statement in open court which is").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I raised the issue of judicial control over the published prominence of apologies and I wish briefly to raise it again. Much of the debate appeared to involve some confusion between two distinct situations. The first is where an apology is made as part of a voluntary offer of amends under Clause 2. The second is where an apology is ordered by the court by way of summary relief under Clause 9.
As a result, the operation of the new defence of offer of amends was not fully discussed. In order to avoid any confusion on this occasion, I shall speak only to Amendments Nos. 1 and 17, which relate to the offer of amends, and shall not move Amendments Nos. 6 and 8, which relate to summary procedure.
I turn to Amendment No. 1. As I mentioned in Committee, as Clause 3(3) is currently drafted where the parties do not otherwise agree, the courts will be given a new coercive power to specify the terms and timing of any correction and apology offered by a defendant by way of amends for the publication of a defamatory statement. The media—that is every newspaper and television company with which I have been in contact—fear that misuse of this quite exceptional new judicial power will bring them into direct conflict with the courts. The net effect will be that a newspaper editor or broadcaster faced with the ultimate prospect of being compelled to publish an apology or correction with a prominence which he considers was not merited would be most unlikely to be willing to make an offer of this kind. Enabling the court to dictate a form of apology which might not be wholeheartedly meant by a defendant would, as your Lordships agreed in Committee, be pointless and threaten editorial integrity and independence and unduly fetter the freedom of the press.
In Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that, in introducing the machinery of the defence of offer of amends, the Government are seeking:
"to provide a way in which parties will be brought together to reach a sensible conclusion which will be for the benefit of both plaintiffs and defendants".—[Official Report, 2/4/96; co1.230.]
I wholeheartedly endorse the aim of an early conclusion to proceedings which achieves a fair balance between the competing interests of defendant and plaintiff. However, I am bound to say that I do not believe that that will be accomplished in practice by Clause 2 as it currently stands.
I most respectfully ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether the matter might be given further consideration. As a result of the reform of the existing defence of innocent dissemination in Section 4 of the Defamation Act 1952, greater numbers of defendants will find themselves legally able to make an offer of amends. Whether they will then be willing to do so is another question entirely and one to which almost every media organisation in the UK would currently answer no if it resulted in the effective transfer of editorial control to the High Court. I suggest that what matters is not whether one agrees or disagrees with the media, but that the media regard it as fundamental to their free expression. I suggest that we should take note of that if we want the procedure to be used in practice, as we all do.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 17. In Committee I listened to the concerns of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on this issue. I drafted the amendment in an attempt to meet them. As the Bill currently stands, it is possible that a publisher may find himself legally bound to publish a correction or apology in fulfilment of an offer to make amends. As a result of terms required by the plaintiff or dictated by the court, it may prove impossible for the defendant to frame an apology or correction without thereby actually or potentially libelling a third party.
I take a real example. In the recent case of Mr. Nigel Watts, the defendants—Times Newspapers—apparently mistakenly published a photograph of Nigel Watts, the property developer, to accompany an article defamatory of Nigel Watts, the author. Nigel Watts, the property developer, complained to the defendant which offered to publish an apology. The plaintiff's solicitors subsequently pressed for the inclusion in the apology of words which resulted in the defamation of Nigel Watts, the author. The defendant newspaper, in order to achieve an early settlement, published in good faith an apology in the terms desired by the plaintiff and then found itself exposed to a libel action by a third party—Nigel Watts, the author.
It may be true that the outcome of an offer to make amends will not often involve a fresh defamation of a person who had not been involved in the original dispute. But there is a gap in the law, as the Watts case illustrates.
There is also the Tracy v. Kemsley Newspapers type of situation where the newspaper's apology to the plaintiff left it exposed to a libel action by the author
630
of the article—a journalist who was so outraged by the apology which he said was defamatory of himself and his craft and skill that he sued for libel as a result of the apology. I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that we should take this opportunity to fill the gap, however small it may be.
In Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor expressed the concern that parties to an offer of amends might collude in order to gain a licence, under the umbrella of privilege, to defame a third party. But my amendment would confer only qualified privilege on corrections and apologies made in good faith. It would always be open to a third party to prove that a correction or apology was perpetuated by malice or was a result of a conspiracy.
At present, the code of practice of the Press Complaints Commission places newspapers under a duty to correct and to apologise for inaccuracies. Apologies and corrections resulting from a social and moral duty under the voluntary code should be protected. The amendment is merely an attempt to confer qualified privilege on corrections and apologies published in good faith by defendants keen to achieve a swift and sensible settlement. If it is envisaged under the present Bill that proceedings will be disposed of increasingly by way of an apology and correction, then we should take the opportunity to ensure that editors do not find themselves out of one libel frying pan into the fire of another. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I support the purpose which underlies the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has spoken. Again, I am not entirely happy in my own mind that the form of his amendment in respect of Clause 2 really meets the mischief which he wishes to avoid. It may be better to have:
"Publish or join in the publication of",
as an alternative to:
"come forward and join in the making of a public statement in open court".
However, it does not seem to me that that necessarily deals with the legitimate concern of newspapers arising under Clause 3(3).
I support the noble Lord when he says that it is not reasonable for a court to be able to direct an apology to be printed in terms and in a position with which the editor does not concur.
I am in a position to wholeheartedly support the noble Lord in relation to Amendment No. 17. I must declare an interest in that I was acting for the newspaper at one stage, as the noble Lord may have been at another, in respect of the two men named Nigel Watts. The only benefit was to lawyers and that is not a small benefit, of course. But nobody had behaved badly. It was found, at first instance and also in the Court of Appeal that there was not any qualified privilege in such circumstances. It seems to me, in a Bill which is only tinkering at the

631
edges of reform, to be a useful amendment. I support wholeheartedly both the motive and the wording of Amendment No. 17.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, as I understand the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in introducing Amendment No. 1, he spoke of the misuse of this new judicial power. If I have misunderstood, then obviously I shall be corrected.
It is important that that power should be in the hands of the judiciary. I would expect, as would most of us, that that would be used appropriately. If one has been defamed in large letters on the front page of a newspaper which has a large circulation, to receive a correction and apology in diminutive print just above the details of the publisher would be regarded by many as slightly unsatisfactory, to put it mildly.
The Times editorial published on the last day on which this Bill was considered used a dramatic example of the "News at Ten" being introduced by an apology followed by a statement of considerable general political importance in the country. That was because it was thought the judge would have ordered that to take place. It is almost possible to imagine that but I do not believe that it is a realistic scenario.
I am anxious that the problem which I mentioned at the outset is dealt with adequately. But I am also anxious of course that this procedure should be used. Therefore, I wish to reach the best possible solution to the problem. I have initiated discussions with various representatives of the media to see whether we can find an accommodation. There would be difficulty in adopting the words proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for, among other reasons, that given by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
We must try to see whether there is a solution which allows not only for a public recognition of the defamation in the case to which this applies but also a publicised recognition of it. I am anxious to see that the power to require publication is hedged round sufficiently to make it impossible to have the sort of scenario which The Times article suggested, which I do not think would be justified even on the basis of the present Bill. But if I can improve it in that respect, I shall be happy to do so.
My stance in relation to Amendment No. 1 is that I see the problem which the noble Lord puts forward. There are also other problems associated with it. I am anxious to try to secure a solution. I hope that by the time we reach the next stage of the Bill I may have managed to do that to the satisfaction of the noble Lord and the media while at the same time maintaining the interests of those who may have been defamed.
On Amendment No. 17, I notice a coincidence of desire between the noble Lords, Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lord Williams of Mostyn. What I find difficult about the amendment is that in order to gain a solution to the problem of one person—the party defamed—a privilege is to be given to defame somebody else. I do not see why that should happen. I cannot for the life of me see a justification in an apology to the one Nigel Watts to defame the other. It is possible that there are
632
reasons for it; indeed, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that there was a small but not unimportant benefit to the lawyers. Well, no doubt that was so, but I would not, perhaps, wish to encourage that particular type of benefit.
On the other hand, I do not see why it is that the defamation so far as directed against the other Mr. Watts should be protected. Similarly, if a newspaper wants to defend itself and apologise by blaming the journalist who supplied the material, I do not believe that that kind of activity ought to be protected by qualified privilege. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said, common law does not apply that doctrine of qualified privilege to such a situation. On that point, I believe that the common law has developed in a way that is satisfactory.
The common law qualified privilege applies, in my submission, in a wholly different context from that which is the subject of the amendment. There is a qualified privilege for statements made in pursuance of a legal, social or moral duty to a person who has a corresponding duty or interest to receive them. But, in those cases, the person claiming to have acted under such a duty will be the defendant, who will have to prove his own good motive if the defence is to succeed. Moreover, even if that privilege is upheld, it would not protect repetition beyond the situation in which the duty and corresponding interest applied. In other words, while the defence of qualified privilege applies between the two people, it does not apply outside of that situation if the information is used beyond the area to which the duty applies.
The particular type of qualified privilege that the amendment would introduce into our law, I believe for the first time, would presumably cover the publication to whomsoever and over whatsoever period. Therefore, while I see a certain problem, I do not see why trying to remedy it for one person should be a reason in effect for depriving another person of protection which, apart from that, he would have had in the ordinary law of defamation. Therefore, I fear that I do not envisage any clear way forward in relation to Amendment No. 17, although I do believe it is possible to find a way forward in relation to Amendment No. 1.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to both speakers. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for his strong support and I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for being so alive to the problems that have been raised and so open-minded about possible solutions.
I shall deal first with Amendment No.1. I should like to clarify the fact that I do not believe I said that I was concerned about the misuse of judicial power; indeed, I am concerned that the power itself, properly used, would be regarded as coercive and that it would result in the media not making sufficient use of the procedure because they would see, rightly or wrongly, the court's function as usurping their role. However, I am most encouraged by the response of the noble and learned Lord as regards the need, if possible, to find a solution

633
which strikes a fair balance. I am certainly not wedded to the particular form of words set out in the amendment.
I turn now to Amendment No. 17. I should point out that I have no direct professional interest to declare, unfortunately, because I have not acted for a newspaper or for either man known as Mr. Watts. I listened to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and he has persuaded me, subject to any afterthoughts, that it would be very difficult to accept my amendment without creating the further problem that he described. I refer, for example, to the problem that, in such a situation, a journalist would then be aggrieved but would have no remedy against the newspaper which had cast the blame upon him. Of the two amendments, the first one is far more important because it goes to the very heart of the procedure. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I shall return to the issue at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 12, leave out ("not").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are several amendments tabled in my name this evening. If I may, I propose to adopt the same approach to all of them and simply raise the questions fairly briefly, because many of them were fully traversed on the last occasion. Moreover, it is not my intention to press any of my amendments to secure the feeling of the House.
Amendment No.2 relates to Clause 2(5) which says:
"An offer to make amends under this section may not be made",
after the service of,
"a defence in defamation proceedings".
The present mechanism for making an offer to make amends is almost wholly unused. As I understand it, the principle behind the improved mechanism is that those who wish to compromise—that is, defendants who are defamers—should be encouraged to do so. Therefore, it seems to me to be inconsistent and wrong that the mere service of a defence in defamation proceedings debars a defendant defamer who sees the light, who makes further investigations and who realises that what he has done is wrong, from using the mechanism of the offer to make amends. It may or may not be appropriate in every circumstance; indeed, it might be reasonably refused. Nevertheless, the opportunity ought to be there and I respectfully beg to move the amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. I do not believe that it is necessary for me to declare any particular professional interest. However, as someone who has acted for newspapers which find that they have made mistakes, I can only say that the ones who find a way out (which will vindicate the plaintiff without the expense and agony for both sides of a trial) are at present driven, many times against their will, either to pay wildly excessive damages—in other words, to throw money at the problem unnecessarily and unjustly—or to go to trial with all that that implies. Anything that could be done
634
to extend the procedure beyond the very early stages of the process seems to me to be extremely desirable. Indeed, the more that we can make the procedure work properly the better. As I said, I strongly support the amendment. I very much hope that there can be flexibility in the area so as to make the procedure somewhat attractive, not just in the very short space of time when the proceedings are originally launched.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is certainly quite desirable to have a degree of flexibility. But, on the other hand, the procedure is designed to deal with the matter expeditiously at the start of the proceedings. Indeed, one of my advisers has described it as a quick "hands up" way of curtailing the proceedings. It is not designed for later stages and, therefore, I find it difficult to accept the view that we should allow it to be used at any time, as would be the effect of removing the word "not" from the subsection. As I understand it, it would simply make the provision available at any stage in the proceedings.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said, defendants may realise at some stage in the course of the proceedings that they have made a mistake and may realise that they should not have lodged defences. Well, mistakes sometimes have an effect. In such a situation it is still possible for them to settle, although the terms of settlement may be rather different from what they would have been if they had not lodged the defences in the first place.
The special machinery provided in Clauses 2 to 4 is neither needed nor intended as a substitute or alternative formal procedure for cases that have reached the stage of defences having been lodged. It is designed to provide immediate amends avoiding all the trouble and expense of conventional proceedings where the defendant comes forward at once ready to minimise and make up for the harm he has done. This has advantages for both sides in achieving a mutually satisfactory outcome quickly and cheaply. The plaintiff knows that proper amends will be made without his having to go through an action, and the defendant knows that the steps which he will have to take once he has committed himself to an offer will be reasonable.
The question is why the machinery should not be made available to cut short proceedings which have already gone further down the line, since the lack of immediacy could be reflected by a larger award. There would, I think, be dangers in this. If we try to give the same advantage to the honourable defendant who has been misled by his sources or advisers as to those who have immediately admitted their wrong, advantage could also be taken by those who were less "honourable" and simply did not bother to make appropriate inquiries before deciding to contest the claim or saw the machinery as a useful fall-back to guarantee that they would never have to face a full trial even if the plaintiff was not intimidated by the pleaded defences.
It was suggested on the previous occasion—and I think it is implicit in what was said tonight—that defendants may need more time to make their decisions before lodging defences. Of course there will be

635
flexibility in that. A defendant who has had time to decide to contest the claim on the basis of a particular defence has also had time to make the inquiries on which that decision is based. However, it is right to consider the interaction which this new machinery will have with the new provisions for summary disposal. Under Clause 10 there is an express power to make special rules as to summary disposal. These may include modification of the rules usually governing the timetable for serving pleadings and authorising the court to require a defendant to elect, at or before the summary disposal hearing, whether to make an offer to make amends. In practice, therefore, the defendant may have rather longer to make his inquiries and make his election than if the standard timetable applied.
Therefore I believe that there is an opportunity in the procedures which we are introducing to give defendants a longer time to make their decisions than perhaps exists at the present moment. I believe that is a better type of flexibility to introduce than to allow this procedure to be used after defences have been lodged, when it is a procedure which is really designed to avoid the necessity of a case going that far. I hope that that will meet the type of flexibility that is asked for, and that therefore the noble Lord will feel able not just to withdraw his amendment but to feel reasonable satisfaction that the point is properly dealt with.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall certainly not press my amendment, but with great respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I do not think that he has dealt with the matters that I and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, have addressed. A quick "hands up" has its virtue but it would often be brought about after the issue of a writ. Even if the Bill becomes an Act and reduces the limitation period to 12 months, the "hands up" will not necessarily be quick. Speed and shorthand have their value but that is not an overwhelming value. I say with great respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the purpose of this offer of amends procedure is to produce settlement not trial, certainty not uncertainty and, as the noble and learned Lord said, to avoid trouble and expense. If there is an easy mechanism available to defendants who find themselves to be in the wrong, why should it not be available? Not all newspapers are ignoble in what they print. Some of them simply honestly get things wrong. Sometimes their sources are not, in the end, reliable. Sometimes further documentation or evidence will come to hand. A defendant is obliged on the rules to serve his defence fairly promptly and it seems a folly to disentitle him from this relief, which may, of course, be a disadvantage from the plaintiff's point of view also. Having said that, and indicating generally that I may well want to return to these matters yet again, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Failure to accept offer to make amends]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 3:
Leave out Clause 4.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment reflects the same approach as underlay my previous amendment. At present Clause 4(3) indicates in respect of offer to make amends:
"There is no such defence if the person by whom the offer was made knew or had reason to believe that the statement complained of—

(a) referred to the aggrieved party or was likely to be understood as referring to him, and

(b) was both false and defamatory of that party".

The simple proposition I put forward is that if the defendant's defamer repents, discovers different information and comes to a different conclusion, why should the offer of amends not be available to him? It would be of benefit to him, to the plaintiff in many cases and certainly to the benefit of the system generally. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, once again I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. One should bear in mind that the burden of proof is cast upon a defendant. No one wants to encourage newspapers to be irresponsible. The law is strong in preventing that. However, it seems to me that this is again an unnecessary limitation upon the new procedure. For the reasons given I support what has been said.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it must be my fault that two such experienced practitioners press upon me such an obviously simple and highly desirable change. However, that is not the way that I see the effect of this amendment. As I understand, its effect would be to undermine the whole purpose of the offer to make amends which has been widely welcomed and is designed to encourage defendants who realise they have erred to take immediate steps to right admitted wrongs. Everyone will benefit if there is an incentive for the defendant to make an offer and for the plaintiff to accept an offer for amends which will provide a satisfying conclusion making conventional proceedings unnecessary.
But in making an offer the defendant must commit himself to making appropriate amends, which may include money compensation assessed by a judge. The incentive to commit himself in this way is provided by the knowledge that he will have an absolute defence if the offer is not accepted (unless it is shown that he knew or had reason to believe that he was defaming the plaintiff). The effect of taking that defence away—which is the effect of leaving out Clause 4—would be that once the defendant has made an offer, the plaintiff must win and has nothing to lose by disregarding the offer and insisting on a trial. The amendment removes a carefully prepared balance. If the plaintiff has nothing to lose by disregarding a genuine offer, I find it difficult to see how the defendant has anything to gain by making it. The machinery provided in Clauses 2 and 3 would have very limited usefulness and would not, without Clause 4, have the desired effect of encouraging sensible settlement. Therefore it seems to me that Clause 4 is an essential part of the mechanisms of Clauses 2 and 3.

637
However, that does not seem to be the basis on which this amendment has been proposed. That gives me cause for concern, but at the moment that is my position.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sure that the amendment could have been more felicitously phrased but I think that the purpose behind it is quite plain. Both I and my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill have tried to explain it. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the purpose of the new and improved procedure is to right admitted wrongs. We entirely agree. The noble and learned Lord also said that its purpose is to bring about sensible settlements. We entirely agree with that. It is not the whole clause that one is focusing on—although the amendment is crudely put—it is Clause 4(3). I say with great respect that we are simply suggesting that, if one wants to right admitted wrongs and produce sensible settlements, one should shut the door on no one who wishes to avail himself or herself of that opportunity. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Limitation of actions: England and Wales]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 4:
Leave out Clause 5.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is now our old friend; namely, the matter of limitation being reduced from three years to one year. I put forward my stance on the previous occasion we discussed this matter. I am not sure that I can advance my case by putting it further at any great length except to say the following few words. First, plaintiffs have no legal aid in libel cases. Defendants are often wealthy and powerful. To limit a defendant to 12 months to take action is therefore capable of being unjust. Secondly, I see no distinction in principle between a limitation for personal injury of three years and a limitation of one year for libel.
Thirdly, there is a category of persons—doctors, prison officers and police officers, to take a few examples at random—who are often subject to internal disciplinary complaints procedures which are frequently not concluded before the one year is up. It is always open to a judge, and judges frequently direct juries, that if a plaintiff has delayed in bringing his action that may have some effect, first, in damages, and, secondly, as to whether or not they believe the plaintiff in his complaint that he has been wounded, or even that his complaint is genuine. Most plaintiffs—as I believe was said on the last occasion—bring their actions fairly quickly, but many are not able to do so either because they lack financial resources or because other extraneous matters such as disciplinary procedures or criminal cases disable them from bringing their cases within the one-year period. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I shall not take up your Lordships' time by repeating what I said last time. On this occasion I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
638
Perhaps I may clarify one point. The noble Lord referred to disciplinary procedures taking a long time. It is a long time since I looked at the Limitation Act 1980. In replying, can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explain whether in such a situation the court would have a discretion to extend time in relation to the limitation period? Although the cause of action will accrue, is there not a discretion to extend time in circumstances where real hardship could be shown? I have the impression that that was the position. In any event, I support the stance taken in the Bill and would not wish to change it in any way.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have always found some difficulty about limitation generally. There is always a question about precisely what purpose it serves and what the principle should be on which it should proceed. A good deal of concern has gone into that subject matter over the years. The more I have seen of detailed provisions of limitation, the more complicated they look.
The amendment would amount to the rejection of one of the major recommendations by Lord Justice Neill's working group—namely, that the limitation period both for actions in defamation, and actions for malicious falsehood, should be reduced to one year, but that there should be a discretion to extend the period. Therefore there is in the Bill, in this situation, a completely open discretion to extend the period.
I have considered quite carefully, in particular in relation to some of the examples that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, gave last time, whether the discretion should be in some way elaborated so as to indicate what might be done in particular situations. However, I have concluded that that would be unwise. On the whole, judicial discretion in this area without any circumscription would be the right answer. I am comforted in the view that that is correct when I consider the attempts made to limit judicial discretion in other types of limitation. They produce tremendous complexity and metaphysical distinctions of comparative fineness.
The recommendation of Lord Justice Neill's working group was made after careful consideration of the reality and all the issues arising in considering the time limits which should apply to defamation proceedings. Your Lordships will remember that the personnel of the working group were extremely experienced in this area of the law. The group pointed out that only in the most exceptional circumstances could a plaintiff be justified in delaying for more than a year before starting proceedings. It is almost always in his own interest to do so as soon as he knows that he has been defamed. If he acts at once, his action can minimise or even prevent any substantial damage, which is why he has a cause of action, and presumably why he chooses to take proceedings.
This is very different from a personal injuries claim, where it may not immediately be apparent to an injured person that his injury is attributable to some other person's fault, and his action, however prompt, cannot halt, minimise or prevent the injury: indeed it may be

639
impossible to assess the inexorable long term effect of the injury. It is right, therefore, to require particularly swift action as the norm in defamation cases.
The group gave examples of circumstances (other than the plaintiff's lack of requisite knowledge during the running of the limitation period) which would justify extension. The present law allows extension only in the narrow case of when the plaintiff in defamation (not malicious falsehood) did not acquire the relevant knowledge until after the period had expired. Thus this clause is in two ways more generous to plaintiffs than the old ones, since the strict limitation rule may be relaxed, for instance, in favour of a plaintiff who only acquired the requisite knowledge at the eleventh hour, or a plaintiff who had some other good reason for not starting proceedings within the period prescribed.
In my submission, the balance of a very ample judicial discretion is the answer in relation to those cases where there is a special reason for not taking action within the year. I therefore think that it is right that your Lordships should give effect to the recommendations of the Neill Committee having regard to the reasons which it has given and which I have sought both to summarise and to elaborate.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most obliged for that summary and elaboration. I regret to say that I remain unconvinced. I do not think that the discretion allowed for in Clause 5 is a completely open judicial discretion since it is circumscribed to an extent by the terms of new Section 32A.
The noble and learned Lord confessed a difficulty with the metaphysical principles of limitation. I do not seek to swim in those waters. However, on limitation one is dealing with balancing the plaintiff's right with the defendant's certainty. Of course it is in the plaintiff's own interest to get on with his claim as soon as possible, but that is true of almost every claim in almost every circumstance in tort. However, if lack of money or the other extraneous circumstances which I indicated tell against that interest being immediately asserted, then it does not seem unreasonable to have the full three-year period.
Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
UNJUSTIFIED PROCEEDINGS FOR, OR ACTIONS IN RELATION TD, ALLEGED DEFAMATION
(" .—(1) If a person (whether or not the person allegedly defamed) without reasonable cause issues a writ for defamation or by letter, advertisement or otherwise without reasonable cause threatens to issue such a writ, or otherwise without reasonable cause attempts to hinder the publication or further publication of allegedly defamatory material, the person aggrieved (whether or not the person to whom or against whom the threats or attempts were made) may bring proceedings against the person issuing the writ or making the threat or attempt, claiming any relief mentioned in subsection (4) below.
(2) In any such proceedings the onus of proving reasonable cause shall be on the defendant or defender but he may discharge it as follows—
640

(a) if he has issued a relevant writ, by undertaking to the court to pursue the consequent proceedings with due expedition,

(b) if a relevant writ has not been issued, by undertaking to the court that such a writ will be issued forthwith and that consequent proceedings will be pursued with due expedition.

(3) Breach of any such undertaking mentioned in subsection (2) above shall, in addition to being a contempt of court, revive the plaintiff's or pursuer's right to claim the reliefs in subsection (4) below.
(4) The reliefs are as follows—

(a) dismissal of the writ,

(b) a declaration that the threats are unjustifiable,

(c) an injunction or interdict against the renewal of the writ or the continuance or resumption of the threats or attempts,

(d) damages, including (where appropriate) aggravated or exemplary damages.

(5) The provisions of this section apply mutatis mutandis to the law of criminal libel.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 5, I speak also to Amendment No. 12, which is intimately linked with subsection (5) of Amendment No. 5.
The amendments originate in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, at Second Reading. He referred to the notorious mischief of gagging writs. I intervened in the gap to suggest that there might be a model in the patent code whereby what is in effect a gagging writ for infringement of patent may be actionable unless it can be justified.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who was standing in for my noble and learned friend in replying and who was obviously hotly in pursuit of an honorary silk gown, promised that the matter would be considered in Committee. I accordingly drafted an amendment based on a Patent Act. I could not move it; I had already left London. But it was admirably moved, if I may say so, by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. There was, too, a helpful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. All were agreed that there is a problem here: the problem of the gagging writ. The only question is how it should be dealt with. I accordingly put down the amendment again for the Report stage. I wrote to my noble and learned friend during the Recess telling him why I had done so; in other words, asking for his views as to the procedure for dealing with the mischief. He ensured that his answer was in my hands this morning and I am most grateful for it. I know what he has in mind and naturally I shall leave it to him to explain it. I am well content with what he told me.
There is one difference in the amendment which I have put down on Report from the one tabled at Committee stage. The amendment today is in the form that I originally submitted to the Public Bill Office which took the view that subsection (5) and the attendant Amendment No. 12 went beyond the scope of the Bill as they invoked the law of criminal libel. The Public Bill Office kindly pointed out by letter, which I received while I was away during the Recess, that in Clause 20(2) expressly criminal libel is declared to be no part of the Bill.
I took the view that it was important that the two provisions should come before your Lordships for this reason. If, for example, a Mr. Maxwell were precluded from showering gagging writs, he would merely shower gagging summonses for criminal libel. I ventured to disagree with the Public Bill Office as to the scope of the amendment and its propriety. I accordingly insisted that it should go on the Marshalled List so that as a House your Lordships would be able, as you are entitled, to take a collective view as to an amendment's propriety. I do not intend to press the matter to a Division, but I start from the point that all speakers on the previous occasion agreed that there was a problem which required solution.
I tried to draft an amendment modelled on Section 70 of the Patents Act 1977. Obviously, it required considerable modification in the translation from patent to defamation. I concede that the drafting can be criticised in a number of respects, but the amendment is down so that it may be considered.
Only one real objection was raised by my noble and learned friend, who picked up an observation of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The noble Lord drew attention to a number of respects in which defendants had defied the gagging writs issued by Mr. Maxwell. That is true, but it is not an answer. That some stout-hearted people stand up to that kind of threat is no reason why those who succumb to fainter hearts should not be protected. After all, there are plenty of stout-hearted people who stand up to threats of blackmail. "Publish and be damned", said the Duke of Wellington to Harriet Wilson. But that does not prevent us from having a law of blackmail reiterated in code after code.
In my respectful submission, something needs to be dealt with here. When I wrote to my noble and learned friend I suggested that either the Law Commission should examine it or a reconvened Neill Commission. My noble and learned friend has given me reasons which he will no doubt develop as to why there should be an alternative method of dealing with it and I accept that.
As I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division, I only need to deal briefly with my new subsection (5) and its attendant Amendment No. 12. The reason I took the view that I did, notwithstanding the advice of the extremely able officers of the Public Bill Office, in the end comes down to this. The draftsman thought it desirable to provide expressly for the exclusion of criminal libel. That is not quite conclusive because the draftsman quite often puts in such a provision from an abundance of caution. But it is not in the form of being for the obviation of doubt, "It is hereby declared", etc. It is set down as an enacting provision as though there were something there for it to bite on. In other words, it is at least arguable that some provisions of the Bill would extend to criminal libel but for that provision. That is why I presumed to insist on the matter being in black and white before your Lordships. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that it is the appropriate procedure for me, on behalf of the Leader of the House, to draw attention to the advice, to which my noble and learned friend clearly referred in his speech, which was given by the Clerk of the Parliaments to the Leader of the House. It was to the effect that subsection (5) of Amendment No. 5 and the later Amendment No. 12 are beyond the scope of the Bill for the reasons given. The principal reason is that the Public Bill Office takes the view, as it would in all other Bills dealing only with the civil law, that any amendment which deals with the criminal law is irrelevant; that is, beyond the scope of the Bill.
In view of what my noble and learned friend said about what he wished to do, in a sense it is academic, but it is right for me to draw the matter to the attention of the House as being the advice which the House has received from the Public Bill Office.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is present this evening to move what always was his own amendment. With his great authority, experience and eloquence, he moved it far more effectively than I attempted to do on the previous occasion when he could not be present. The point of procedure raised is one that I perfectly understand and am alive to.
The reason why in debate it is important to examine the criminal implications of a civil Bill of this kind is that there is something extremely special about the civil law of defamation; namely, it springs entirely out of the criminal law. As I said on the last occasion, this is a creature of the jurisprudence of the Court of Star Chamber. The entire civil law of libel comes from it. Therefore, quite apart from the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, when trying to understand why we are where we are in relation to civil law, one needs to look over one's shoulder to see the nature of the criminal law.
I think everyone in the House who spoke last time, as the noble and learned Lord said, agreed that there is a problem in relation to the misuse of the civil law of libel. The problem is there because, unlike any other tort, the tort of libel places the burden of proof on the defendant to prove the truth of the publication. I sought to deal with that on the last occasion. I am told that the Australian Law Commission—perhaps it is the Law Commission for New South Wales—recommended, as did the Irish Law Reform Commission, that the burden should be shifted. Given that that is not likely to happen in this House in our lifetime, one of the consequences of the reverse burden of proof is that it enables the Robert Maxwells of this world to issue gagging writs. Unless the defendant is able to swear on oath that he intends to justify, which may be extremely difficult at the interlocutory stage, there is then the danger of an interlocutory injunction being granted.
Everyone is aware of the problem. The solution put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is an ingenious one from another field, another kind of intellectual property, namely, patent law. I am encouraged to look forward to any remarks

643
by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as to an appropriate way of dealing with the problem. In principle, I very much support the intention behind the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale for his courtesy in letting me know his intentions in relation to the amendment and the other to which he has spoken, and for his remarks about my letter to him.
The question is how far the problem extends. It is true that a problem is created; but I do not know exactly how widespread the particular problem is. Most of the examples given relate to a particular plaintiff who is not in a position to issue any more such writs. Therefore, from that point of view, that aspect of the problem may have been resolved. However, I see the force in requiring us to consider the matter.
The circumstances of patent law are a little different from those referred to here. Patent law is intended to deal with an abuse of the monopoly power itself which the state has conferred in the shape of the patent. These unjustified threats were used in effect to extend the monopoly beyond that which the state had granted. In that sense the state had a special responsibility for seeing that that does not happen.
In the defamation field the matter is rather different. There are other areas, too, in which unjustified threats can be made. The ordinary remedy is to defend the action. And in our system of jurisprudence there is the sanction of cost. That is an important part of our system. It is one which those on the other side of the Atlantic are certainly aware of and in some cases now use. So that particular sanction is available.
What I propose, as I stated in the letter to my noble and learned friend, is that I should undertake, in the department, to consider this matter further. I want to try to find out how extensive the problem is, or continues to be, and to see what is regarded as the best solution to it. Obviously, that cannot happen in the context of this particular Bill. I have no doubt that the law of defamation will require further reform as time goes on. This is a matter that requires more thorough investigation than we are able to give it in the context and timetable of this particular Bill. All the proposals in the Bill have already been the subject of considerable consultation, many of them coming from Lord Justice Neill's working group. I propose therefore to take the matter forward in this particular way.
It may well be that, having done so, I shall want to try to see whether a reconstituted group might help. At the moment I want to find out more about the extent of the problem before setting up machinery to deal with it. I hope that with those assurances my noble and learned friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment, feeling that the purpose for which he brought it forward has been served and that the problem will not be lost sight of, but will be further investigated.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, my only regret about flouting the wishes of the Public Bill Office is that
644
I seem thereby to have forfeited an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, whom I know has no love for criminal libel.
As to my noble and learned friend, I need say only this. The problem is not confined to Robert Maxwell and his machinations. I raised this matter, although I cannot remember the circumstances, long before Maxwell started to use the gagging writ. Moreover, one can think of other examples.
I do not like mentioning the first case, that of Mr. John Profumo, since he was a ministerial colleague and by his devotion to the service of his fellow man ever since his fall from grace has put all of us to shame. But there was an example of the issuing of a writ which effectively closed down a newspaper revelation about a matter which was subsequently admitted to be true.
The second case I can think of is that of the Moonies, who were very prolific in relation to gagging writs. They were very successful for a long time in hindering investigation into their less salubrious activities.
Therefore I do not accept that this is an isolated problem. It is a serious problem, as was demonstrated in Committee. I am perfectly satisfied that my noble and learned friend should have the matter investigated in his department so long as he puts a stick of ginger behind those who investigate it. With those observations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Meaning of summary relief]:
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:
Page 8, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert—
("(b) an order that the plaintiff have leave to make a statement in open court at such time and in such terms as the court may determine if the parties cannot agree;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, although this amendment was tabled at Committee stage, I chose not to move it. I intend to do so now instead.
As it is currently worded, Clause 9 would enable a court, following summary judgment, to prohibit the publication or republication of the matter complained of. That is a potentially far-reaching prohibition. On its face it would appear to prevent a newspaper, for example, publishing any further articles on the issue out of which the plaintiff's complaint has arisen, even where new developments and facts have subsequently come to light.
In Sir William Blackstone's parlance, it is a sweeping prior restraint. The present amendment would confine the scope of the court's power following summary judgment to restrain republication of the original defamatory statement. That is why I have sought to narrow it to cover the real vice, not to be over-broad and disproportionate by covering wider matter which, as I said, would be covered by the Bill as it stands.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is speaking to Amendment No. 8. Certainly the amendment would remove the power of the court to order the defendant to publish a

645
correction or an apology, even if an appropriate wording had been a matter on which the parties reached agreement at the conclusion of the case.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am so sorry, my Lords. The amendment that I seek to move is Amendment No. 7. I shall not move the earlier amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The amendment that I should call is Amendment No. 7.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, Amendment No. 6 has officially not to be moved before we reach Amendment No. 7.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
8.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 8, line 29, leave out ("matter") and insert ("statement").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for my mistake. I have now spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful that we have reached Amendment No. 7. This is a matter which I would wish to consider. Since we have produced a special definition of the word "statement" which was brought in following consultation, and other provisions of the Bill have already been modified, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for identifying this provision as one where it might be appropriate to use the term which we have expressly defined elsewhere in the Bill to provide a clear and certain description. Many other terms have been used in defamation law generally to describe the same thing—that is, what has (or may have) been published and was (or may have been) defamatory, and is the reason why an action has been brought.
The context here is slightly different, however, as this paragraph is directed not to what the defendant has already published but to what he may publish in the future. Those future publications from which he should be restrained would not necessarily take exactly the same form as the statement which has been considered in the proceedings. It may be that he could devise another statement in a completely different form but conveying the same meaning as that which he has been ordered not to make or repeat as the case may be. That is the reason why the word "matter" has been used in this special context. But I should like to consider further the noble Lord's amendment.
Taking the patent situation, obviously, in a patent infringement the defendant is usually subject at the end, if he is found to have infringed, to an injunction against further making or using the particular subject-matter of the invention, as he has already used it, and any comparable imitation of it often. So one wants to be sure that just by a very small change one could not get out of this particular form of order. But I feel that the noble Lord's amendment raises the question of whether we
646
should consider the matter further or whether it should be elaborated somewhat. I am grateful to him for that and would be happy to consider it further.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the gratitude is on my part for the sympathetic way in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has approached the matter. It is common ground that we must seek to avoid unnecessary and excessive restraints on free speech. I am greatly encouraged. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Evidence of convictions]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 9:
Leave out Clause 12.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to the benefit which is given to one party and taken away from another in libel actions. In other words, the present Clause 12 in some circumstances will regard criminal convictions possibly having been confirmed in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division as being conclusive for one party or one witness but not conclusive for another. I believe that to be fundamentally unjust as a matter of principle. Secondly, I believe that it will open the door to many collateral attacks on the rightness of criminal convictions. For those reasons I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the purpose of this clause is to prevent an injustice which was identified by the working group under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Neill. Where a convicted person seeks to challenge his conviction, he should of course do so by way of appeal in the criminal court. It would be wrong for him to seek an alternative route of appeal by using the law of defamation in the civil courts where the standard of proof is lower. But other considerations apply when the convicted person is someone other than the plaintiff. It is contrary to public policy that plaintiffs in defamation proceedings should enjoy the artificial advantage of the rightness of someone else's conviction being unchallenged so that the defendant may be prevented from pursuing a proper defence. The injustice would, of course, be particularly apparent in a case where the conviction was quashed after the conclusion of the defamation proceedings in which it had been unchallengeable.
It is important to recognise that Clause 12 does not set out to restore the position as it was before 1968, when the conviction was not even admissible as evidence that the convicted person had committed the offence. The conviction will be admissible evidence that that person committed the offence and any other person who disputes that, in defamation proceedings, will have to produce evidence to the contrary. Clause 12 will allow that evidence, if any, to be considered and weighed fairly. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I regret to say that I remain unconvinced that there is any justice in the

647
proposition that a plaintiff who has been convicted of a crime is enveloped in the conclusive presumption that he has committed it but other parties or witnesses are not. On this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Basis of entitlement to damages]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 10:
Leave out Clause 13.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have had the opportunity of re-reading and reflecting further on the indications in column 250 which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave. I am satisfied in my own mind that the problem that I had contemplated is likely to be mitigated if judges follow the indications given by the noble and learned Lord at column 250. Therefore I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Lord Finsberg Lord Finsberg moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
EVIDENCE CONCERNING PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT
(".—(1) Where the conduct of a person in or in relation to proceedings in Parliament is in issue in defamation proceedings, he may waive for the purposes of those proceedings, so far as concerns him, the protection of any enactment or rule of law which prevents proceedings in Parliament being impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.
(2) Where a person waives that protection—

(a) any such enactment or rule of law shall not apply to prevent evidence being given, questions being asked or statements, submissions, comments or findings being made about his conduct, and

(b) none of those things shall be regarded as infringing the privilege of either House of Parliament.

(3) The waiver by one person of that protection does not affect its operation in relation to another person who has not waived it.
(4) Nothing in this section affects any enactment or rule of law so far as it protects a person (including a person who has waived the protection referred to above) from legal liability for words spoken or things done in the course of, or for the purposes of or incidental to, any proceedings in Parliament.
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4), that subsection applies to—

(a) the giving of evidence before either House or a committee;

(b) the presentation or submission of a document to either House or a committee;

(c) the preparation of a document for the purposes of or incidental to the transacting of any such business;

(d) the formulation, making or publication of a document, including a report, by or pursuant to an order of either House or a committee; and

(e) any communication with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards or any person having functions in connection with the registration of members' interests.

In this subsection "a committee" means a committee of either House or a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall move the amendment in the momentary absence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann.
This is an issue that I raised originally at Second Reading. I thought that there was an injustice being caused because it was not possible to waive privilege in the case of individual Members of either House. I wanted to try to ensure in the legislation that it was possible for an individual Member of either House to waive his or her privilege in the case of legal arguments. I am glad to see that my noble and learned friend has now arrived. Perhaps he could put the more detailed arguments on this particular point. I beg to move.
Lord Hoffmann: My Lords, I apologise to the House for choosing to leave at precisely the wrong moment. I spoke at some length to this amendment at Committee stage and I therefore do not propose to repeat what I said at that time.
The purpose of the amendment is to redress what appears to be an injustice which was demonstrated by a recent case in which Mr. Neil Hamilton—a Member of another place—brought proceedings against a newspaper. He alleged that he had been defamed because the newspaper published an article which he said amounted to an allegation that he had accepted money in return for asking Questions.
The proceedings were stayed by the judge on the grounds that the jurisprudence which the courts developed, based upon the Bill of Rights, prevented the courts from investigating whether or not those allegations were true. The court held that the effect of a series of judicial decisions over many years since the Bill of Rights was passed in 1689 meant that the court had no right to inquire, even at the behest of a Member of Parliament, into anything that he had done in the course of his parliamentary duties.
The result was that the judge held that the newspaper was not in a position to defend itself by putting forward a plea of justification and it would therefore be wrong and unfair to allow the plaintiff to continue with his action. The plaintiff was therefore denied the opportunity which others would have, having been, as he alleges, libelled in a professional respect, to vindicate his reputation.
The historic privileges of both Houses contained in the Bill of Rights are of the greatest constitutional importance. I would not table the amendment if I thought that it in any way trenched upon the policy or the intention of that statute. But I see no reason why the preservation of those privileges should be inconsistent with the rights of a Member of either House to invite the court to investigate his conduct, and his conduct alone, within the House in order to clear his name from a libellous accusation. There seems to me to be no inconsistency in that at all. Justice requires that he should be able to do so. I am unable to detect any higher policy which should prevent that from being allowed. For those reasons I support the amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, there was a fairly full debate on this amendment at Committee stage. I reflected upon what was said during that debate. I agree with both noble Lords who have spoken thus far. The existing state of the law is absurd and unjust.

649
However, the problem that has been created by the way in which the law has been interpreted now raises a complex and sensitive problem which was well understood by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his properly sensitive speech on the last occasion.
The key issue is whether the other place—the amendment primarily affects its Members—will agree to permit, through the statute, what has always been regarded as its collective privilege or immunity since the Bill of Rights was passed to be waived by an individual Member of Parliament to enable her or him to sue for libel while retaining the immunity from suit possessed by every Member of each House. That is the key issue and it is likely to affect another place more than this House, though it affects both.
I am not troubled by the one-sided nature of the position that will arise if the amendment is enacted, provided that the courts develop qualified privilege to cover the case where a Member of Parliament sues for libel. What I mean by that is this. At the moment Members of Parliament are immune from suit for what they say in Parliament. At the moment they are stymied in bringing libel proceedings to vindicate their parliamentary and public reputation. It is exactly that lack of reciprocity or mutuality which caused Mr. Justice Brennan in the American Supreme Court to decide that there should be a constitutional privilege for newspapers when they are dealing with an MP plaintiff.
It seems to me that there is no injustice, no real lack of equality of arms, provided that the courts adopt that approach, if MPs are to be permitted to sue for libel. What would be offensive to justice and any notion of equal treatment is if an MP, starting with Members' complete immunity for what they say in Parliament, was able then to waive that immunity on an individual basis and there was no corresponding qualified privilege. I agree that it must be on an individual basis, since, if it were on a collective basis, party politics might intervene in deciding whether or not an individual MP was to be permitted to take this action. That is why it is right that an individual MP should be able to waive what is regarded as a collective privilege but it would be an affront to justice if he were permitted to do that and then there was to be no qualified privilege in respect of that situation.
It is on that basis that I support the amendment. I remain troubled by the point I raised last time, which concerned what happened when more than one Member of Parliament was involved and one Member of Parliament sought to waive his privilege and the other did not and yet the conduct of the two was closely connected or they were closely associated with the alleged defamatory statement. I cannot see any answer to that. The courts will have to fashion their own answer in such a case. It might be that, if both MPs were unwilling to waive their privilege, the courts would have to stay the action at the behest of one of them. I am not sufficiently clever to be able to think of an answer and perhaps there is no answer.
I agree with what was said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the last occasion. However, it may be sensible, before reaching any final conclusion,
650
for this House to see what another place says about the situation. On that basis I support the aim of the amendment and the way in which it was moved.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, this amendment raises issues of high constitutional importance. The privilege of Parliament, the privileges of both Houses of Parliament, the privileges of individual Members of Parliament and the Bill of Rights are involved.
It is hardly possible to exaggerate the constitutional importance of this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, indicated just now some of the qualifications that may be required. I hope therefore that the amendment will not be tendered for a Division or tendered to the vote at all to the collection of raised voices this evening. It would be highly inappropriate at this hour, in your Lordships' House, in an empty Chamber, to try to pass an amendment which is a starred amendment and which we only saw this morning, and to seek to get it passed into law. In my view, that would be quite inappropriate.
It is true that a somewhat similar amendment was tabled at Committee stage. But that again was at extremely short notice. Since then there has been the Recess. There has been no opportunity to canvass the views of the many others who are entitled to be considered, not least the Members of the other place. I hope that those who propose the amendment will withdraw it on this occasion. They will lose nothing by doing so because Third Reading will be on 7th May and that will give time for the proper consultation to take place which should take place.
I would make only one other point in relation to the terms of the amendment. It deals only with defamation actions. I should have thought it strongly arguable that, if the principle is admitted at all, it should apply to any action where it might be relevant. As I understand it, we are concerned with three constitutional issues. The first is the privilege of Parliament and of each separate House of Parliament. The second is the Bill of Rights. The privilege of Parliament does not depend on the Bill of Rights. One can easily ascertain that by looking at the famous case of Stockdale v. Hansard where the House of Commons was vindicating its privilege as it saw it to prevent the publication of its proceedings. It ended rather distastefully with the law courts committing to prison the officer of the Serjeant of Arms and the House of Commons committing the Tipstaff to prison. That case shows that the privilege of Parliament is independent of the Bill of Rights. There was a famous judgment by Lord Ellenborough which makes plain the foundation of the privilege of Parliament; namely, that Parliament could not properly carry out its functions unless it was free from the scrutiny of the courts of law or anyone else outside.
The third issue is the privilege of the individual Member of Parliament. That, I think, does depend on the terms of the Bill of Rights. But the Bill of Rights must now be scrutinised carefully in the light of the judgment in Pepper v. Hart. In my respectful submission, the proper procedure when it is desired to waive privilege for an individual Member of either House is to petition that House for waiver of its right to

651
insist on its Members being under its own control. That happens time and again whenever a Member of your Lordships' House is requested to give evidence before a committee of another place. The other place then petitions your Lordships' House to allow that Member to give evidence. The same occurs the other way round.
That procedure by way of petition is not only a matter of everyday occurrence but it was expressly approved by Mr. Justice Pearson in the libel case of Dingle v. Associated Newspapers where I had the duty of intervening on behalf of the House of Commons and submitting that the proper procedure was by way of petition. Mr. Justice Pearson, as he then was—he was subsequently a most distinguished Member of your Lordships' House—agreed with that.
As I said, we lose nothing by not rushing inappropriately into this amendment. On 7th May the Bill will have its Third Reading, when the matter can if necessary be resubmitted in a proper form after consultations with all those who are entitled to be consulted.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I rise to support the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I do so in a sense with some regret because I am acutely aware of and greatly sympathetic towards the dilemma in which Mr. Hamilton finds himself. I think it most appropriate that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, should have tabled this amendment. However, I believe it raises questions that go beyond the scope of the Defamation Bill. Those have been well expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and I do not propose to go into them in detail. I shall simply underline the two central points that he made.
The first is that this is a constitutional matter. The Bill of Rights is at the heart of our constitution and constitutional matters ought to be considered very seriously by both Houses, with plenty of time to do so. I do not believe that sufficient time has yet elapsed for us to be confident to incorporate an amendment in a Bill in this House at this stage.
The second point is that it goes beyond the scope of the Defamation Bill in a second sense—why should it not apply to other civil proceedings. If this important change in our constitutional arrangements is going to be made, it goes way beyond the scope of the Defamation Bill.
For those two reasons I ask the House to stay its hand on the amendment at the moment, to perhaps set up a committee to consider the matter, to listen to what the other place says and to come back to it at Third Reading. But I should like to say again how much I sympathise with Mr. Hamilton's difficulties and dilemma and that it should not be taken from what I have said that I necessarily oppose the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, on the last occasion I specifically disqualified myself since I act in the matter in question for Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Greer. I simply wish to say neutrally that I respectfully agreed with the approach of the noble and learned Lord the
652
Lord Chancellor, in particular at col. 258 of Hansard that, whatever the occasion may be, this is an important issue which should be properly ventilated in debate in each House. I do not put on one side what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. That it should be properly ventilated is beyond dispute. I do not think I can say more than that.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not wish to repeat what I said on the last occasion. This is clearly an extremely important amendment and is at the very heart of the privileges that are associated with Parliament and with individual Members of Parliament. It is certainly a matter which requires very careful consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, mentioned some difficulties, as have my noble and learned friend and my noble friend.
On the question of other rights of action than those in defamation, I am not particularly clear as to how that might arise. But I am clear that this is a Defamation Bill and it is only in so far as these matters trench on defamation that we could properly deal with them in this Bill. The fact that that problem could arise in connection with other rights of action is of interest, but I do not think that that can determine the matter here.
On consultation, it is important that Members of your Lordships' House should be aware of what is at issue and should have an opportunity to consider the matter. The provision has now been on the Marshalled List twice. It may be that its appearance for a third time would ensure that everybody knew about it.
With regard to consulting the other place, I regard it as important that the other place should be consulted by a clause or an amendment to the Bill being discussed. I think that that is the proper way. I do not think that it is for us to ask the other place about its view on the matter. Obviously, if any Member of this House wants to discuss the matter with a Member or Members of another place, that noble Lord is free to do so. However, the constitutional procedure would be that it is for this House to decide whether it thinks that this amendment is appropriate as far as it affects this House and its Members—
9 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. Does he not think that a Joint Select Committee of both Houses would be suitable? That was what was done in the case of disclaimer of peerages which, like this, affects both Houses. That was not just passed by one House and laid on the plate of the other. I respectfully suggest that in a matter of such high constitutional importance it is most important that the other place should be closely identified at this stage with what is proposed.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is open to noble Lords to propose setting up a Joint Select Committee in connection with this matter. However, my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann has proposed this amendment, having considered the matter, and my noble friend has moved the amendment again this evening. Whether or not noble Lords want to pass the amendment

653
is a question for the House. My view is that it is for Members of this House, the amendment having been tabled, to decide whether from their point of view it is an appropriate amendment to include in the Bill. If the amendment is incorporated into the Bill, the position in the other place would be that the Bill (with this amendment) would have to be considered there. I have no doubt that care would be taken in that consideration. Your Lordships have clearly expressed your view of the importance of this amendment and have stated certain of the difficulties implied by passing such an amendment. That matter would be before the other place. I think that that is appropriate.
The Government would not wish to take a view on this matter until the other place has had an opportunity to consider it. Therefore, the government view would be one of neutrality. I say that it is for the House as a whole to decide whether or not to pass the amendment. It may well be that the question of the extent to which the House has been consulted will be relevant in deciding what should happen tonight, but in my view it is right that the House should consider and decide its view on this matter before the Bill leaves this House—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am so sorry to interrupt my noble and learned friend again. He has used the phrase, "before the Bill leaves this House", but there is a Third Reading before then.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble and learned friend will know that I understand that. That is precisely why I used the phrase that the matter could be considered before the Bill leaves this House. In other words, there is another opportunity than tonight for the amendment to be incorporated into the Bill if that is what your Lordships want. My noble and learned friend's intervention is extremely helpful and points out what I had in mind. It is for my noble friend to decide what he wishes to do with the amendment.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, first, having listened to the earlier debate I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would appreciate that, had the amendment been beyond the scope of the Bill, the Public Bill Office would have said so. It did not, so it is within the scope of the Bill.
Secondly, the question of petitioning the other House was dealt with fully in Committee. The same argument was used, "There are not many people in the House; it is a pity; let's have it again". Here we are a second time. On the last occasion, the amendment received general support, including from the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, who perhaps more than anyone would know the feeling of another place. I am loath to see the amendment withdrawn because that would mean more delay. There is also the fact that I shall be abroad on parliamentary business on 7th May. I have been here twice. I have been able to make that possible twice, but I cannot be here on that occasion. I should feel sad if the amendment were not included in the Bill at this stage.
I remember arguing in another place that if there is a difference of opinion and if there is a later stage, put in the provision in question because that concentrates the
654
mind and it can always be taken out. That is the point that I want to make. Including the amendment now gives us an opportunity. It means that no one can say that they did not know; that it was a starred amendment or that they did not have the time to see it. That could not happen if the amendment were included now in the Bill to be considered, if necessary, on Third Reading.
I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment. I hope that it will go into the Bill. It can always be knocked out at the next stage or in another place. The point is quite simple: it affects both Houses. It only affects the privilege of an individual Member who wishes to withdraw his or her privilege. I do not want to repeat what has been said on two previous occasions. I very much hope that the amendment can go into the Bill on the understanding that it can always be pulled out at another stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, surely it is absurd for so empty a House to vote on so important a matter. The opportunity to do this again properly on Third Reading is to be preferred to asking so empty a House to vote on so important a matter.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question is, That this amendment be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content".
Lord Finsberg: Content!
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Not-Content!
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that the "Not-Contents" have it.
Lord Finsberg: Content!
The Lord Chancellor: Clear the Bar.
9.7 p.m.
Division called.
9.11 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think it is important to notice that if the amendment is not to be put into the Bill tonight, the obvious answer is that those who may be very content with it need not vote for it tonight.
The Question is, That this amendment be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content".
I think that the correct ruling is that the amendment does not go in the Bill at this stage in view of the fact that there are no voices from either side.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 20 [Short title and saving]:
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Qualified Privilege]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 13:

655
Page 14, line 27, leave out ("the legislature of") and insert ("a legislature in").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 13 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 and 18. These are all minor drafting amendments to Schedule 1 which sets out the various reports and other materials which may have qualified privilege under Clause 15. I should also like to mention a matter in connection with Clause 14 which deals with another aspect of statutory privilege. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, tabled an amendment in Committee with the intention that international war crimes tribunals should be included among those courts to whose proceedings Clause 14 applied so that reports of their proceedings would have absolute privilege, provided the reports were contemporaneous. As I indicated then, I am undertaking further inquiries in connection with that proposal. I hope to be in a position to inform your Lordships of the results of those inquiries when the Bill is next considered by your Lordships. As your Lordships have been recently reminded, that will be at Third Reading. I hope to be able to take it forward at that time.
Amendment No. 13 is a small drafting amendment to change paragraph 9(1)(a) of Schedule 1 so that it can be read more easily as referring to a local legislature, as is provided in paragraph 16(1) of the schedule.
Amendment No. 14 is a drafting amendment to confirm that this reference, like others in the schedule, to the ECJ will include courts attached to it. Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 18 are drafting amendments to include references to dependent territories which would not necessarily be implied in references to the member states. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 14 to 16:
Page 14, line 34, after ("Justice") insert ("(or any court attached to that court)").
Page 15, line 26, after ("proceedings") insert ("in any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man or").
Page 15, line 51, after ("of") insert ("any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man or of").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 16, line 44, at end insert—
("() References in this Schedule to a member State include any European dependent territory of a member State.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes after nine o'clock.

  Brussels Treaty
  Brussels Treaty
  Drugs: Proposed World Conference
  Drugs: Proposed World Conference
  Chemical Weapons: Destruction
  Chemical Weapons: Destruction
  Gibraltar Airport Agreement
  Gibraltar Airport Agreement
  European Court of Human Rights and Council of Europe: Separation of Powers
  European Court of Human Rights and Council of Europe: Separation of Powers
  International Criminal Court Proposal
  International Criminal Court Proposal
  Mykonos Trial: Request for Documents
  Mykonos Trial: Request for Documents
  Extra-territorial Jurisdiction
  Extra-territorial Jurisdiction
  "La Lecture de Moliére" by de Troy
  "La Lecture de Moliére" by de Troy
  "The Holy Family" by Fra Bartolommeo
  "The Holy Family" by Fra Bartolommeo
  Vale of Clwyd: Channel 4 Programmes
  Vale of Clwyd: Channel 4 Programmes
  Royal Parks: Review Recommendations
  Royal Parks: Review Recommendations
  Electro-shock Therapy
  Electro-shock Therapy
  Child Support Agency
  Child Support Agency
  Goodwin v. United Kingdom: Implementation of Judgment
  Goodwin v. United Kingdom: Implementation of Judgment
  War Crimes Act 1991: Conclusion of Investigations
  War Crimes Act 1991: Conclusion of Investigations
  GCSE Subjects Studied in a Foreign Language: Performance Assessment
  GCSE Subjects Studied in a Foreign Language: Performance Assessment
  Bilingual Teaching Projects
  Bilingual Teaching Projects
  Education of 16 to 19 Year-olds: Review
  Education of 16 to 19 Year-olds: Review
  Polar, Antarctic and Arctic Research
  Polar, Antarctic and Arctic Research
  Comfrey Products: Sales Ban
  Comfrey Products: Sales Ban
  EC Directive 92/106: Combined Transport of Goods
  EC Directive 92/106: Combined Transport of Goods
  European Aviation Authority: Response to Working Paper
  European Aviation Authority: Response to Working Paper
  Northern Ireland Election Proposals
  Northern Ireland Election Proposals
  Prison Standing Orders: Internet Publication
  Prison Standing Orders: Internet Publication
  Sexual Exploitation of Children: UK Statement
  Sexual Exploitation of Children: UK Statement
  Entry Clearance and Extension Applications: Primary Purpose Rule Refusals
  Entry Clearance and Extension Applications: Primary Purpose Rule Refusals
  Defendants Aged Under 17: Remand Statistics
  Defendants Aged Under 17: Remand Statistics