Sitting of 6 February 1996

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

    Eurofighter
    Mr. Atkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his discussions with the German Defence Minister on the workshare and purchase of Eurofighter. [12026]
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): I met my counterpart, State Secretary SchŐnbohm, on 18 January of this year. I welcomed the announcement by the German Defence Minister of his country's intention to increase its commitment from 140 aircraft to 180, which has largely resolved the question of workshare in the production phase of the Eurofighter project and is excellent news for British industry.
    Mr. Atkins: I and my Lancashire Conservative colleagues thank my hon. Friend for responding to our lobbying on behalf of our constituents and for holding firm in the negotiations over workshare with his German counterpart. Can he confirm that the decision will mean many extra billions of pounds'-worth of work for my constituents and those of other hon. Members and that the production investment phase will move forward as rapidly as possible?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. I pay tribute to him and our right hon. and hon. Friends from the area for the vigour with which they support an industry that is important not only to their constituencies but to the country. I can confirm what my right hon. Friend says. The agreement that we have reached means that the production phase of Eurofighter will bring to the United Kingdom between 37 and 38 per cent. of the workshare—an increase of 4 per cent. over the development phase. That means that some £9 billion-worth of work will go to United Kingdom industry.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister will know that what he just said will be welcome on both sides of the House. Does he agree that Eurofighter is a significant example of the European co-operation on defence procurement that was recently endorsed by the Trade and Industry Committee and the Defence Committee joint report? Does he further agree that if the European
    120
    industrial defence base is to be maintained and the United Kingdom and others are not to become the compliant customers of the United States, common procurement in Europe will be essential?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: It is an extremely valuable example of the way in which collaboration can work. I am delighted that the project is going ahead and that Eurofighter is now back on track to become the cornerstone of the Royal Air Force's capability into the next century. It is necessary for us to have collaborative links both with European partners and with the United States, where we have many industrial ties and where we can gain many benefits from collaboration.
    Mr. Colvin: Eurofighter is a most important defence industrial project but, last Thursday, in the debate on the Royal Navy, my hon. Friend referred to the review being carried out by his Department into our defence industrial base and announced his response to the Select Committees' joint report referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). Was that response his definitive statement following the completion of his review, or can we expect another document?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right to refer to that response. We found the Select Committees' joint report extremely constructive. We have given a continuing response that shows the closeness of our ties with British industry. We continue to discuss these important matters with British industry and with the National Defence Industries Council. A sub-group is working on precisely the industrial base questions that my hon. Friend raised.

    Market Testing
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change his policies concerning market testing; and if he will make a statement. [12027]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The Government remain committed to market testing. The "Competing for Quality" initiative seeks efficiencies and best value for money through competition and private sector involvement. Our aim is to deliver defence support at the high level that our armed forces deserve, and at a cost that the taxpayer can afford.
    Mr. Jones: Surely the Government will abandon market testing as an instrument of policy, because it involves such a high risk. Will the Minister please receive a deputation from RAF Sealand in my constituency, whose 1,500 staff are now very uneasy about the implications of market testing? Does he agree that RAF Sealand played a magnificent part in the Gulf and Falklands wars? Surely the in-house team bid should be accepted. RAF Sealand is the finest maintenance unit of its kind in the world, and it is a British strategic asset. Surely the Minister agrees with me.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I agree that RAF Sealand has performed a magnificent job over the years, and I will of course accept a deputation from the hon. Gentleman; but I must discourage him from asking us to abandon our approach on market testing, which has proved extremely

    121
    successful. Over the past three or four years, it has saved us some £250 million annually—money that can be spent on other equipment for the armed forces. It has also brought us private sector expertise and improved quality, response times and delivery times. I am afraid that we will not abandon it.
    Mr. Wilkinson: In implementing the "Competing for Quality" exercise, will my hon. Friend ensure that the armed forces retain a surge capability, so that maintenance facilities can be expanded at times of emergency or war? To that end, will he ensure that a fair number of the contractor personnel are members of the new sponsored reserves?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend on the first point: we are very conscious of its importance. As for the second point, it is a very interesting idea which I would like to pursue further.
    Mr. Murphy: Will the Minister take his mind back to RAF St. Athan? Can he guarantee that market testing will never again result in the fiasco that occurred there when the former Airwork company botched repairs to Tornado aircraft? When will he give the House the full details of that sorry affair—and will he tell us whether the market testing exercise cost British taxpayers £30 million, £120 million or, as some claim, as much as £300 million?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: This is bizarre. I should like to know whether the hon. Gentleman would abandon market testing in the unlikely event of his ever gaining power. If so, he would abandon the huge savings that we have achieved through market testing.
    As for Airwork, the figures that the hon. Gentleman plucked out of the air—with an irresponsibility of which I had not previously thought him capable—are completely out of the question. We are pursuing a claim against Bricom of which we have made the company aware; I shall not disclose the amount of that claim, because it is commercially confidential. The aircraft are steadily coming back into service as British Aerospace returns them, and they are all well on the way to being properly repaired. The hon. Gentleman's irresponsibility astounds me.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Where did wealth creation, the United Kingdom's manufacturing base and jobs in the United Kingdom feature in the Minister's response to the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy)?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: That is a difficult question to answer, because the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) is clearly not interested in wealth creation. We know that, if a Labour Government came to power, they would want to cut defence spending. They cloak that intention with the suggestion that they want some sort of review, but we know that they are scared to reveal that they want to cut defence spending. That is why they have called for a fundamental spending review.

    Beaufort's Dyke
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to monitor the ammunition dump at Beaufort's dyke. [12028]
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): My Department will contribute to a follow-up survey of the Beaufort's dyke area by the Scottish Office Marine Laboratory.
    Mr. Jones: I hope that the Minister had the opportunity to read yesterday's Western Mail because it contained a revelation that a distinguished bomber in the second world war, Mr. Robert Wannop, and many of his colleagues had disposed of large quantities of chemical and incendiary bombs in Cardigan bay. The British public want to know how many other dumps exist in seas around Britain, where they are and what their state is. Is it not time that the Minister's Department conducted a comprehensive survey and provided the public with the much-needed answers to those questions?
    Mr. Soames: I did not have the great joy of reading the Western Mail yesterday—it passed me by—but I shall ensure that I receive a copy so that I may establish more carefully the basis of the hon. Gentleman's claim. As we have said throughout this matter, there is no marine, navigational, safety or other defence requirement to conduct further monitoring. We have already released a substantial amount of information—the most detailed information that has ever been released in a parliamentary answer—on all the dumping sites. Scientific opinion is that, if left undisturbed, such sites present no significant risk to human health or to the marine environment. I shall certainly read the article that the hon. Gentleman mentioned and report back to him.
    Sir Hector Monro: Is my hon. Friend aware that the local authority in Dumfries and Galloway has been concerned at the washing ashore of incendiaries following the installation of the pipeline? Will he assure me that all Ministries concerned will come to a conclusion on the way forward before a decision must be made on the interconnector between Scotland and Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Of course we liaise closely with the Scottish Office on the matter. I am sure that he will wish to pay tribute to the remarkable work of members of the Royal Navy's Clyde submarine base clearance diving unit and the Scotland, northern England and Northern Ireland diving units, who have cleared approximately 4,500 devices from affected beaches. I take note of what he said.
    Mrs. Ewing: As the House will be interested today in the change of personnel at British Gas, what direct contacts have been made with British Gas on the laying of the pipeline? What issues were discussed? On what dates were meetings held and what recommendations, if any, were made by the Ministry of Defence?
    Mr. Soames: A contractor working for British Gas surveyed the proposed route north of Beaufort's dyke dump before the pipeline was laid and filmed metallic objects and other debris on the sea bed. The contractor notified the MOD on 29 September that it intended to clear the proposed route. The MOD advised against that, but following confirmation that the Health and Safety Executive had accepted the company's risk assessment, work was allowed to continue. Throughout this matter,

    123
    the MOD has treated the problem extremely responsibly. Explosive ordnance disposal teams will, whenever necessary, continue to undertake any clearance work.

    Homosexuality
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will publish his departmental report regarding homosexuality in the armed forces. [12030]
    Mr. Soames: I expect to receive the homosexuality assessment team's report later this month and, when I have considered it, a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Brown: Will my hon. Friend confirm or deny the reports in today's Evening Standard?
    Mr. Soames: Again, that is a pleasure that has passed me by. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that neither I nor my right hon. and hon. Friends have yet received the report. When we do, we will give it the most careful consideration. I am grateful for the sensible and realistic way in which my hon. Friend has approached these matters and for the helpful guidance that he has frequently given.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that many homosexual service men were decorated for bravery, for gallantry in the field and for their courage during the second world war? Will the Minister confirm that from the Dispatch Box?
    Mr. Soames: I am sure that, in the course of a number of global conflicts, a number of homosexuals have acted with the highest gallantry. The view of service chiefs and Ministers is based not in any way on moral judgment, but on the impracticality of homosexual behaviour, which is clearly not compatible with service life.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my hon. Friend give the House a clear undertaking that no changes will be effected in the armed forces against the wishes of those currently serving?
    Mr. Soames: I know that my hon. Friend will accept from me the clear statement that I have just made, but he will also understand why we commissioned the report, the basis of which will form part of a paper that is to be submitted to the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill. A copy will placed in the Library. The House will have a full chance to discuss such important matters, but the view of service chiefs, of Ministers and, I have to say, of the great majority of the people in the armed forces, is exactly as I have outlined.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is there not some inconsistency in Government policy towards homosexuals in the armed forces? Is it not technically possible for a Defence Minister to be homosexual, even though it is unlawful for someone in the armed forces to be homosexual? Is not that unfair and inconsistent?
    Mr. Soames: I have rarely found inconsistencies in Government policy of any sort.

    Defence Expenditure
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of expenditure is currently devoted to defence; and what is the current European average. [12032]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): My Department expects to spend about 3 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1995–96 compared with the current NATO European average of 2.3 per cent. of GDP.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Have not successive Labour party conferences voted to reduce the proportion of our GDP devoted to defence expenditure to the European average? The question was avoided at the most recent Labour party conference only because it was not put to the conference. Will my right hon. Friend say what effect such a policy would have on our ability to meet our NATO commitments and to defend ourselves?
    Mr. Portillo: On the figures that I have given my hon. Friend, it would mean a reduction of more than £4.5 billion in Britain's defence budget. I can confirm that successive Labour party conferences have voted to reduce this country's spending to the European average. Indeed, I calculated the figure so as to give the most benefit to the Labour party, because I used the average of the NATO European countries. If a broader definition were drawn, the figures might have been even more divergent. The time has come for the Labour defence spokesmen to tell us whether the Opposition would increase or decrease defence spending, and whether they would follow the dictation of their party and satisfy their hon. Friends by reducing spending by £4.5 billion or more.
    Dr. Reid: He is a beauty, is he not, Madam Speaker? That is all a scare story to cover up the Secretary of State's own incompetence and cuts. Does he remember that the same scare stories appeared in the 1992 manifesto, in which it was claimed that Labour
    "would devastate our conventional forces by cuts of … 27 per cent."?
    Why is the right hon. Gentleman not boasting, because he has managed to beat that? He has made spending cuts of 27.3 per cent. on the defence budget, and of more than 30 per cent. on the conventional forces budget over the past decade. Why does he feel compelled to spread those scare stories again? Are they a cover-up for further cuts, or are the Conservatives genetically disposed to say one thing and do another?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman has such contempt for his own party and its conference that he sums it up as a "scare story". I am not inventing things; I am talking about Labour party conferences year after year. What I want to know is whether the hon. Gentleman sticks with his party and his party conference. Would he increase defence spending or reduce it? The whole House will have noticed that he had nothing to say about what a Labour Government would actually do.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be inconsistent for the Government to implement further defence cuts while their Back Benchers were

    125
    calling for orders for factories in their constituencies and for the deployment of troops to all sorts of destinations in the third world, but that that is what we hear again and again from Opposition Members?
    Mr. Portillo: It is indeed. There are no more vociferous voices than those of Labour Members calling for orders for their constituencies—yet their party's policy is to reduce spending. In the debate on the Navy the other day, three Labour Members told us once again that they are active members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and that they want our nuclear deterrent to be abolished. What have the Front-Bench team to say about such things? Why do they not tell us the proper policy of the Labour party and, in the process, how they propose to deal with a Labour conference and Labour Back Benchers whose determination to cut this country's defences will not be silenced?
    Mr. Skinner: Is not it true, once we have cut all the cackle, that the Labour party conference regularly passes resolutions proposing a cut in defence expenditure, and the Tory Government carry them out?
    Mr. Portillo: If the hon. Gentleman is so uninfluential in his own party, I do not know why he does not give up and find something else to do.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Labour Government's major decision was to cancel the TSR2—the most magnificent aircraft at the time—which decimated jobs in Preston and lost a 10-year lead in electronics?
    Mr. Portillo: Hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent constituencies that depend on defence orders should remember that the contrast between a Conservative Government and a Labour Government is that a Conservative Government announce orders and a Labour Government announce cancellations.

    Official Service Residences
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been spent by his Department on the official service residences in the past five years. [12033]
    Mr. Soames: Over the past two years, £2.61 million and £1.51 million respectively has been spent on maintenance, building work, furniture and fittings of official service residences. I have today placed in the Library of the House my Department's detailed response to Sir Peter Cazalet's recommendations, which includes a reduced list of posts that carry an entitlement to an official service residence. The list shows that we have reduced such posts from 75 to 48, with further reductions to 44 as other posts lapse. I understand that Sir Peter is very satisfied by the way in which my Department has implemented his recommendations.
    Mrs. Prentice: Given last year's scandal about expenditure on official service residences, including £33,000 for a set of curtains, does the Minister agree that
    126
    such a gross waste of taxpayers' money must stop or does he agree with the Daily Express that it makes the Secretary of State appear like
    "a squalid little estate agent"?
    Mr. Soames: No, I do not agree with the Daily Express. The hon. Lady has plainly not done her homework on the subject. In May 1995, the Government commissioned Sir Peter Cazalet, to whom we owe a great debt of gratitude for a very thorough piece of work, to report on representational entertainment in the armed forces. A copy of that report has been placed in the Library. Since then, and in the light of the Cazalet report, a great deal of work has been done and I am pleased to say that we have been able to implement Sir Peter's recommendations in full. I hope that the Labour party accepts that, in future, such matters will be managed more effectively and efficiently, and that, above all, there is no doubt that there is an important requirement for the services, which are a golden asset to this country, to entertain where they have a significant representational role.
    Mr. Key: Will my hon. Friend confirm that our senior officers—when they are not living cheek-by-jowl with service men while winning wars or keeping the peace— are often occupying their first permanent home after a career of moving their wives and families around the world? Do they not occupy houses that represent the dignity of the rank that they hold for a short period? Is not that very necessary in the armed forces? It would be entirely inappropriate for the Prime Minister to live in Lewisham, for example, just as it would be inappropriate for senior officers not to live in official service residences.
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend, through his constituency interest, is well aware of the importance of the representational role of very senior officers in all three services. We can now account for these matters more effectively, and I hope that we will be able to go forward from here.
    Mr. Spellar: Is not the sale of Haymes Garth another example of the breathtaking incompetence of the MOD? When added to the sale of the married quarters estate, does not that comprise the giveaway of the century? Will the Minister confirm that the proceeds of the sales will go to the Treasury, but that future rents will come from the Defence budget? Is not that a defence cut by the back door?
    Mr. Soames: That was as fine a display of soundbites as I have heard this year, and it displayed the politics of mediocrity and envy for which the Labour party is famous. Let us establish the facts—Haymes Garth is being sold and, very sadly, the officer who was previously concerned has left the service. The Cazalet report, which was commissioned by the Government, has been thoroughly examined and all of its recommendations carried out. The hon. Gentleman's question seems extraordinary in those circumstances.

    Lost Medals
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy in reissuing lost medals for ex-service men. [12034]
    Mr. Soames: Where evidence of genuine loss is produced, replacement medals can be supplied. Replacements are charged at cost.
    Mrs. Gorman: Will my hon. Friend accept the grateful thanks of my constituent, Mr. Edwin Rymer, who lost his war medals but was able to regain them, although at a cost of £70—almost a week's pension? Will he also accept that Mr. Rymer and his generation of war heroes would be absolutely devastated if the freedom to run our country for which they fought were ever to be lost? Would not a Labour Government hand over that freedom lock, stock and barrel to Europe?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend does well to highlight again Labour's imperfect understanding of defence matters. I am grateful for her tribute to the work done by the medals office of the Ministry of Defence. We realise how distressing it is when treasured medals are lost or stolen. Claims for replacement take some time to process, as it is important that they are properly verified. As the years go past, such requests will increase, and we must make sure that they are properly satisfied by having an effective and efficient operation in place. As for her question about the Labour party, defence and Europe, the least said the better.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister consider issuing medals to the service men who advised against the route of the gas pipeline across Beaufort's dyke? Will the Government examine the route of the proposed electricity interconnector with the same degree of care—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is abusing Question Time. He stood to ask a supplementary question on the subject of Beaufort's dyke, but was not called. He now seeks to ask his question, but he will not do so.

    F16 Aircraft
    Mr. Pope: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his American counterpart concerning leasing American F16 aircraft. [12035]
    Mr. Portillo: The question was discussed briefly during a meeting with him in October last year.
    Mr. Pope: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the plan to lease American F16 aircraft was the brainchild of David Hart? Will he further confirm that the plan is bitterly opposed by the chief of the RAF, Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon? Does he agree that to proceed with the F16 will be a kick in the teeth for Lancashire aerospace workers who are working on the Eurofighter?
    Mr. Portillo: I do not agree with any of that. It is a perfectly simple matter of ensuring that the United Kingdom has the best equipment for its defence. In deciding whether to upgrade the Tornado F3, it is necessary for us to make a comparison with the other courses that we might follow, which include leasing the F16.
    128
    If the hon. Gentleman is trying to tell me that, if the Labour party were in power it would not compare one option with another to get the best solution for the country, he would serve the country even less well than I had imagined.
    Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend go a little further and confirm the Government's absolute commitment to the Eurofighter project? In the long run, will that not give the RAF the multi-role aircraft that it needs for the future?
    Mr. Portillo: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The Government have on many occasions made clear their commitment to Eurofighter, and I am pleased to do so again today. Thanks to the good work of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, that project now has the green light. This discussion about the F3 and F16 is about how we fill the gap for that capability between now and the day that we have the Eurofighter. I am pleased to say that the latter will be an excellent aircraft for the RAF.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Secretary of State recall grumbling to his American counterpart just two weeks ago that Britain had placed defence orders worth more than £5 billion with the United States and arguing that it ought to reciprocate with some orders for British defence equipment? In the light of that grumbling, will he drop his obsession with this one-way deal to lease F16s, which will cost thousands of British jobs and be very expensive, as we shall have to adapt the refuelling arrangements and the aircraft will require new support systems?
    Mr. Portillo: I went to Washington not to grumble, but to represent my country and to say that we demand a two-way street in defence procurement. It is true that, last year, we placed orders worth £5 billion with the United States and, therefore, we look to that country to buy defence equipment from us. I am pleased to say that it is buying at the rate of about £800 million a year, and I want to see more of that. The hon. Gentleman is the Opposition defence spokesman and he wants to hold my job. He cannot be so irresponsible as to say that, if he were in my position, he would not compare one project with another. If he is saying that, there will be no value for money and no way of ensuring that Britain has the defences that she requires.

    Defence Industries
    Sir Roger Moate: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the export potential of United Kingdom defence industries; and if he will make a statement. [12036]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: British defence equipment manufacturers continue to enjoy success in the export market. In 1995, they won contracts worth about £5 billion. That achievement makes us the second largest exporter in the world.
    Sir Roger Moate: Can my hon. Friend give any estimate of how many hundreds of thousands of jobs are dependent on our defence industries? Is it not the case that, if ever the Labour party were in a position to carry

    129
    out its conference policies of reducing spending to the European average level, a large number of those jobs would be in jeopardy in Labour as well as Conservative constituencies?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right. Around 400,000 jobs throughout the United Kingdom depend on the defence industry. If we were to reduce spending on defence by £4.5 billion every year, it would be devastating to the British defence industry. That is why it is plain to the British people that we cannot trust Labour on defence, or even on industry for that matter.
    Mr. MacShane: Is the Minister aware of the large export potential for British arms in Europe, both in the European Union and the wider continent? Does he find helpful the continuing public hostility of the Secretary of State to European integration and co-operation? Does he find helpful the speech that the Minister of State made in Munich last week, in which he invited Germany, in effect, to re-arm? The last person to say in Munich, "Deutschland Erwache!" which means "Germany Arise, Germany Awake!", caused some little trouble in Europe. Is it not the case that, while we have a Defence Department that is so hostile to European integration and co-operation, the future for Britain's defence industry is poor indeed?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: That question was total, unmitigated drivel. When British defence exports have risen from 15 per cent. of world market share in 1994 to 19 per cent. in 1995, we should feel proud of what the country has done and realise that that shows the strength of British industry and the support of the British Government and the armed forces. We should talk about, for example, the Red Arrows' recent tour, which was a fantastic aerial display. They are excellent ambassadors for British industry. For the hon. Gentleman to come up with a question such as that is pathetic.
    Mr. Mans: Given the importance of the arms industry to the north-west, when my hon. Friend next speaks to his American counterpart, will he ensure that there is fairness in the export of arms to eastern Europe and that certain statements made by the Americans to the effect that eastern European countries will be more likely to be able to join NATO if they buy American combat planes are stopped?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have some sympathy with what he says because whether countries join NATO does not depend on their buying high-tech US equipment. That is something that they need to be well aware of before they make their decisions

    Korean War
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will evaluate the "Time Watch" programme on prisoners from the Korean war, a transcript of which has been sent to his Department; and if he will update the evidence produced by his Department during the meeting between a Minister of his Department and the hon. Member for Linlithgow on this subject. [12037]
    Mr. Soames: I have great sympathy for the families of service men who remain unaccounted for following the
    130
    Korean war. Nothing has been discovered since the hon. Gentleman's meeting which has altered our view that there is no evidence that British service men were improperly detained after the post-hostilities repatriations. We will, of course, follow up any evidence if it should emerge.
    Mr. Dalyell: As it now seems not entirely inconceivable—I put it no higher—that national service contemporaries of mine in the Royal Armoured Corps could still be in remote Russian camps after 45 years, and as Russia is becoming more free, will the Government follow up any possibility that there are British people, all these years after the Korean and Vietnam wars, still in those camps?
    Mr. Soames: I wholly understand and applaud the hon. Gentleman's honourable concern and sympathy for those who still remain unaccounted for. His words will, I am sure, have been recognised by those families that are affected. As he knows, most careful and detailed investigations were carried out by successive Governments and Administrations to resolve the cases of service men unaccounted for. No evidence has been found of any British service men being detained, but I assure him that we will, and are, taking advantage of greater openness in Russia. My Department has in recent years carried out detailed research and exchanged information with US and Russian experts to see whether any evidence could be found. No new evidence has emerged. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to work hard where any leads emerge.

    Royal Navy
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent additions to the effectiveness of the Royal Navy have been introduced. [12038]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The Government continue to maintain and enhance the operational effectiveness of the Royal Navy. Over the past year, the second Trident submarine, HMS Victorious, has entered service, the type 23 frigate HMS Richmond has been accepted and the helicopter carrier HMS Ocean has been launched. In addition, a further seven upgraded Sea Harrier aircraft have been delivered.
    Mr. Devlin: How many ships are currently on order or out to tender for the Royal Navy? Will my hon. Friend assure me that none of those orders will be cancelled, which is what used to happen under the last Labour Government, when Labour used to say one thing and do another?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I agree with my hon. Friend. At least our decisions are positive. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, Labour's decisions on, for example, the TSR2 were all cancellations. Labour would have cancelled Trident. Even the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) once said that he would like to ban all nuclear weapons from our soil. We know that Labour cannot be trusted on defence.
    Mr. Hutton: Will the Minister accept that the effectiveness of the Royal Navy would be improved by

    131
    modernising its amphibious capability? Will he therefore tell the House and my constituents when he expects the delayed contract for the replacement of HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid to be signed?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I accept that the amphibious capability is very important indeed, which is one of the reasons why on Tuesday last week I went to see HMS Fearless as it was being maintained and re-equipped. We believe that it will come out of dock on schedule, in time for its exercise in April. It is very important to maintain that important capability.

    Defence Spending
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the effect on Britain's contribution to peacekeeping operations around the world of reducing United Kingdom defence spending to the European average. [12039]
    Mr. Portillo: If any Government were to reduce spending to the European average of 2.3 per cent. of gross domestic product, they would be forced to cut spending on defence by more than £4.5 billion. That would severely undermine our capacity to undertake operations of any kind.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is incredible hypocrisy for Opposition Members on one hand to support, by and large, peacekeeping operations and on the other to call for cuts that would be the equivalent of all 40 infantry battalions?
    Mr. Portillo: Every Labour Government increase taxes. Every Labour Government dream up new ways of spending public money and therefore every Labour Government are subject to intense pressure from their Back Benchers to cut defence spending. That is ultimately why we know we cannot trust the Labour party on defence.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 February. [12055]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the considerable strength of the economy throughout the country, including Scotland, is based in large measure on reduced burdens on business? During his busy day yesterday, did he have the opportunity to—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Waterson: Did my right hon. Friend have the opportunity to read reports in Scottish newspapers that
    132
    two different spokesmen had said diametrically different things about whether extra public spending would be required to carry out Labour's plans for Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: I am not remotely surprised to hear that Opposition Members say different things about their devolution policy. They have not yet thought through that policy; it is full of holes and full of damage. We said from the outset that a Scottish Assembly would require increased taxation and increased public expenditure. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has, I think, referred to that as utter rubbish. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) has confirmed that that is indeed the case and that taxes will go up—a tartan tax of £6 per week initially, but undoubtedly more later. Another instance of Labour saying one thing and doing another.
    Mr. Blair: When customer complaints to British Gas have doubled and the company has been forced to split into two today because of huge losses on gas contracts, does the Prime Minister think that the leaving package of the chief executive—a £4 million pension fund, an annual income of £250,000 a year and £120,000 in consultancy fees—is justified?
    The Prime Minister: As a matter of fact, the company has split into two to increase competition, which I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have liked. As for the package that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, that, in the private sector, is a matter for the shareholders. As those shareholders include the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman takes it up with the union. If the shareholders are unhappy with the arrangements, no doubt they will pursue the matter. If he does not know how to get the RMT on his side, he can ask the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the deputy leader of the Labour party, who is sponsored by it.
    Mr. Blair: Do we take it from that answer that the Prime Minister recognises no responsibility at all on the part of Government? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Blair: Two years ago the Prime Minister told us that he found those excesses distasteful, and they have grown since then. He then told us to wait for the Greenbury committee, and the excesses continued to grow. We have had Greenbury and nothing has happened. When will the Prime Minister act in the public interest to make those privatised utilities serve the public and not a small group at the top?
    The Prime Minister: A moment ago, I explained to the right hon. Gentleman that he and one of his hon. Friends were saying different things. We have it again here. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the Government should not attempt to sit in the boardroom in a metaphysical sense. One of his hon. Friends said:
    "We believe that people should be rewarded for a performance, whether in the form of salary or the granting of share options".
    That person, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling)—a shadow Treasury spokesman— continued:
    "It is not for me to spell out the benchmarks of success".

    133
    The right hon. Gentleman is once again playing the politics of envy. [Interruption.] Let me be a moment. He loathes privatisation, he loathes private ownership and all that he has had to say about private ownership and a new Labour party is exposed every time that he takes that line.
    Mr. Blair: With all due respect to the Prime Minister, can he not see the difference between people operating within a highly competitive market and the privatised utilities operating monopoly services? Can there be any more telling expression of Conservative values than the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday condoning late payment to small companies while today condoning the excesses in the privatised utilities? One group of hard-working people is told to wait for its money and the other group is given by the Government a licence to print it.
    The Prime Minister: Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman the benefits of privatisation for millions of people who happen to be consumers. Gas prices have fallen by more than 20 per cent. since privatisation. Potential new suppliers are offering price reductions of 15 to 20 per cent. in the south-west. Personally, I believe that we need
    "the enterprise of the market and the rigours of competition".
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that, because that is the Labour party's new clause IV, which he pushed through last year. As ever, Labour's constitution says one thing and Labour Members do another.
    Mr. Hendry: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the exceptional courage of 21-year-old Fleur Lombard who came from the High Peak and who lost her life at the weekend in the course of her work as a firefighter? Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is great scope for a scheme of rewards to recognise the contributions made by young people in all walks of life, whether they have shown great courage—as in Fleur's case—or they have made a contribution to others and to society? Will he consider whether such a scheme could be backed by the Government?
    The Prime Minister: I will of course consider the matter. I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing our sympathy to the family of Fleur and those of the other firefighters who have lost their lives in service. There is no doubt that such incidents underline the selfless bravery of the fire service. On this occasion, a young lady lost her life while seeking to save the lives of other people. I shall certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister think that it is right to delay payment on other people's bills and to use their money to gain interest for oneself? Having done that, does he think it wise to then boast about it?
    The Prime Minister: Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. Skinner: Can't pay, won't pay.
    The Prime Minister: That reminds me of what the trade unions say about their control over the Labour party.
    134
    They say that unless they maintain that control, they will not pay for the Labour party, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for reminding me of that.
    On the substantive question, the Government—not least my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, when he was President of the Board of Trade—have done a great deal to encourage prompt payment. My right hon. Friend encouraged the establishment of the CBI's prompt payment code. We required Government payments to comply with the code and we improved procedures in the small claims courts. We are making companies disclose their payments rapidly. Those are the practical measures that we are taking.
    Mr. William Powell: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the remarks of the Prime Minister of Belgium, delivered at Davos at the weekend, to the effect that, if the single currency does not proceed in 1999, the single market will collapse? Is it not the case that Belgium has not the slightest chance of meeting the Maastricht criteria as its general Government gross debt is more than twice the threshold level set down in the Maastricht treaty? Does my right hon. Friend believe that there is a secret agenda to proceed with the single currency despite the treaty of Maastricht? Do not Mr. Dehaene's remarks vindicate my right hon. Friend's decision to veto Mr. Dehaene as President of the European Commission?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly do not believe that the single market would be at risk if the single currency did not proceed in 1999 or at any other time in the future. I do not think that anyone can seriously dispute that, at the moment, there are uncertainties about the timetable. No one can say with absolute certainty which countries might qualify for stage 3 if it goes ahead in 1999. What is relevant is that we must address the key issues about how stage 3 would work, and I have raised that point at successive European Councils. Were it to proceed without the right economic background, there is no doubt that it would be a disaster, not just for the countries taking part, but for all the countries of the European Union.
    Mr. Dowd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday
    6 February. [12056]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dowd: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his condemnation of late payment as a serious threat to the very survival of many small firms, or does he side with the Deputy Prime Minister, who advocates becoming skilful at keeping creditors away? Is not that latter approach a kick in the teeth for millions of honest small businesses? Which one does the Prime Minister support? May we have a straight answer?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman must have been dozing, because a few moments ago I set out a range of measures that the Government have introduced to encourage prompt payment, some of them initiated by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
    Mr. Booth: As last week we all heard the German Chancellor say that integration would be a matter of war and peace in the 21st century, will the Prime Minister tell Herr Kohl that integration and federation forced on countries and peoples that are free, against their will, often result in civil war? Where is Yugoslavia now? Will my right hon. Friend tell Chancellor Kohl that this country takes it ill when we hear loose talk of war from Germany?
    The Prime Minister: The whole House recognises the importance of examining very carefully what criteria there might be for any countries that decide to move ahead to stage 3. We need to look at what has been achieved in the European Union over the past 30 years or so and to ensure that that is not imperilled by moves to other advanced changes for which the European Union is not yet ready. That needs to be a pragmatic debate on whether the economic circumstances are right for movement and on what the implications would be, both in the short term and in the long term, for the countries that might be in a single currency and for those that might not be.
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 February. [12057]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Is the Prime Minister aware of the growing feeling that the country is being run for and by a narrow magic circle of privileged people? In that regard, will he tell the House how it is that former Eton toff Darius Guppy can negotiate his sentence and negotiate his way out of prison—a prison that he likened to his school, Eton? How is it that top rail managers can fail to pay rail ticket fares yet not suffer any penalty? How is it that Cedric Brown can have a massive windfall pay-off? Is it not a case of, "It's the rich what gets the pleasure and the poor what gets the blame"?
    The Prime Minister: That was an exceedingly well worked pay-off line by the hon. Gentleman, but I am not sure that the build-up merited it. This is the first time in my life that I have been told that I am part of a magic circle, and I do not think that I like it.

British Gas
3.30 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett(by private notice): To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the proposals for the restructuring of British Gas, and his Department's response to them.
The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): The separation of British Gas's supply and transportation businesses is a requirement of schedule 5 to the Gas Act 1995. This provision was debated at length during the passage of the Bill. The Act received broad support. It has been widely agreed that separation is a necessary step in opening up competition in the domestic gas market and in ensuring that British Gas operates on the same basis as its competitors.
The British Gas schedule 5 transfer scheme, which effects that separation, has now been approved by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Today's announcement by British Gas of a demerger is a commercial decision by the company, and is not imposed by the provisions of the Act. However, it has been welcomed by, among others, the Gas Consumers Council and the GMB union.
Mrs. Beckett: Many people will wonder why Ministers did not volunteer to make a statement on the matter today, since it is of great concern to the 19 million customers of British Gas, and especially since, despite what the Minister has said, what he is telling the House today is the right structure for British Gas seems so closely to resemble the structure that the Government and the Minister himself specifically rejected as "unnecessary" less than nine months ago, when the Gas Act 1995 was being debated in the House. Why have the Government changed their mind? Is it because they have failed to find any other solution to the problems of the potential £1.5 billion losses British Gas faces as a result of take-or-pay contracts?
Is it not the case that what the Minister has just announced means that, while one company retains a natural monopoly over gas transmission, the second, which is the company responsible for gas supply to those 19 million customers, is the one saddled with all the liabilities and all the attendant risks? What assurances can the Minister give that that company will be viable in the long term? Will he give an absolute assurance that the interests of consumers will be protected, especially as consumers are already suffering from a deteriorating service, as evidenced by the loss of British Gas's charter mark and the doubling of complaints since privatisation?
Finally, who loses? British Gas has large liabilities which seem to have led directly to the decision. Those liabilities are still there, so who is going to carry the can? Is it the customer? Is it Sid, who is not getting the deal he was promised by this Government? Plainly, it seems to be neither the board nor Mr. Cedric Brown.
Mr. Eggar: The right hon. Lady asked me who loses. The answer is the Labour party and the right hon. Lady. The right hon. Lady voted against the Bill and in favour of a reasoned amendment that made it quite clear that the Bill would result in harm to the south-west. As she knows
138
very well, the south-west will be the first to benefit from the effect of competition, with most south-west consumers being offered reductions in their bills of between 15 and 20 per cent., and some as much as 25.2 per cent. The right hon. Lady was scaremongering when she voted for the reasoned amendment. She should withdraw it and apologise to consumers in the south-west and elsewhere who will benefit from the results of competition.
The decision on the demerger was a commercial decision for British Gas. The right hon. Lady should know that, under schedule 5 to the Gas Act 1995, it was always envisaged that there would be a transfer scheme that effectively separated the supply side of British Gas from the transportation side.
Finally, the right hon. Lady should be aware that the Gas Consumers Council has welcomed today's announcement, as has the GMB union, and that the chairman of British Gas has recognised that the introduction of competition will lead to a reduction in prices to consumers. Rather than deploring what has been announced today, she should welcome it, because it is good news for consumers.
Mr. John Whittingdale: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the right hon. Lady felt it necessary to table a private notice question shows that the Labour party still wishes to intervene in industry, and dictate to private sector companies? Will he confirm that it remains Government policy to leave such decisions to those best qualified to make them?
Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am amazed that the Labour party should regard the matter as worthy of a private notice question. It is a commercial decision by a commercial company.
Mr. Nick Harvey: Having pressed almost single-handedly during the passage of the Bill for such a division, I welcome the fact that, albeit belatedly, it has been made. What discussions have the Government had with British Gas or the regulator about the possibility of business failure because of the debts that British Gas has accumulated? Is the Minister absolutely confident that the division that has been announced today will protect the consumer against having to pick up the tab for those debts?
Mr. Eggar: The British Gas board, in recommending the demerger, has addressed the issue under its Companies Act obligations. The Government are satisfied that the transfer scheme meets the necessary requirements under schedule 5 to the Gas Act 1995.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the demerger makes total sense? It makes sense for the companies that will be competing in supplies against British Gas and obviously want the transmission company to be separated, and for consumers, who will benefit.
Mr. Eggar: The decision to demerge is a matter for British Gas; none the less, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that the effect of increased competition, which is a direct result of Government policy, will be sharply to reduce prices to consumers and improve the quality of service.
Mr. Ken Purchase: Are not such corporate gymnastics, which were foreshadowed in the Bill, simply a ruse to ensure that the take-or-pay contracts are paid for by consumers and taxpayers rather than by British Gas shareholders, who have already benefited disproportionately?
Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands the position. He particularly fails to understand that everyone who observes the sector or who is involved in it, including the chairman of British Gas and the Gas Consumers Council, recognises that the introduction of competition will result in lower prices to consumers. The old and new Labour parties do not believe in competition. They do not believe in the private sector; they still believe in state control.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the demerger clearly vindicates the Government's policy of competition in the private sector, as opposed to nationalised industries. I also agree with him that it is clearly a commercial matter. Therefore, can he clarify exactly which of his responsibilities we are holding him to account for in the House today?
Mr. Eggar: I have some difficulty in answering my hon. Friend's question. The Government's responsibility relates to the transfer scheme under schedule 5 to the 1995 Act. The responsibility regarding the demerger of British Gas has nothing to do with the Government, because that is a matter for the board of British Gas.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does not the Minister recognise that he cannot guarantee that British Gas Energy—with the contracts that it will inherit on the demerger, and in a competitive market with its reduced market share—will not fail?
Mr. Eggar: That is certainly not the view of the British Gas board. The Government have been satisfied about that, and have had regard to the requirements of schedule 5 to the 1995 Act. Of course, the hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the new entity, which is, at least temporarily, being called British Gas Energy, contains the significant assets of the Morecambe Bay north and the Morecambe Bay south fields.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Is it not the case that the privatisation of the gas industry, which was fiercely opposed by the Labour party, has led to prices falling substantially—by about 25 per cent. since privatization—to far fewer disconnections, and, of course, to greater competition in the industry? Is it not clear that this private notice question, tabled by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), is simply her attempt to cause mischief? However, does not the question prove that the Labour party still believes in interfering in British industry as much as ever?
Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There has not only been a 23 per cent. reduction, in real terms, in prices to domestic consumers, but there are significant further price reductions in the pipeline in the south-west of the United Kingdom. Most people anticipate that, as competition is extended beyond the south-west, there will be further price reductions in the rest of the
140
United Kingdom. As for the position taken by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), her instincts now—as they were when she was in government during the previous Labour Government—are to intervene on every possible occasion. She believes that she can run British industry better than British managers can.
Mr. Michael Clapham: The Minister must be aware that the new company could increase gas prices unless the take-or-pay contracts are sorted out. What action will he take, therefore, to ensure that British Gas's 19 million customers are protected against those likely price increases?
Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman simply does not understand the nature of competition. There is no way in which British Gas will be able to raise its prices when its competitors are lowering prices. The future for consumers is bright because competition will produce significant price reductions and because of improvements in the quality of service. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Given that the demerger is supported by the Gas Consumers Council, in particular, and by the GMB union, will my right hon. Friend remind the House that British Gas is a private company—whatever the Labour party might say—that it is operating in a very competitive sector, and that it is giving an increasingly good service to the public as a result of privatisation? Is it significant that the Labour party is raising this issue on the Floor of the House and showing how much it wants to over-regulate industry and establish a stranglehold on the private utility companies, and so much other British industry, which would take us right back to the 1970s, when this country was the sick man of Europe?
Mr. Eggar: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The fact is that, when faced with a choice between regulation or state ownership on the one hand and competition on the other, the Labour party always chooses regulation and nationalisation.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I wonder if the Minister understands that the demerger will give an opportunity to some of the Tory Ministers who are leaving Parliament to get jobs on those companies' boards. Can he give us an assurance that he is not among them? Will he condemn the action of any Tory Ministers who leave Parliament and take jobs on those boards? Will he give us a guarantee that no Tory Back Benchers will get moonlighting jobs on those boards?
Mr. Eggar: I have not yet received a job application form from British Gas, and, if I did, I would not fill it in.
Dr. Robert Spink: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in future, following the demerger, gas prices will fall? Will he also confirm that those reductions will be in addition to the price reductions that have occurred since privatization—the Prime Minister today said that the fall was more than 20 per cent.? Can he give an estimate of the total reduction in prices in, say, three years' time?
Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We can look forward to significant further reductions. In the

141
south-west trial area, some consumers are being offered reductions of as much as 25.2 per cent., and average reductions of between 15 and 20 per cent. In future, I would expect to see similar reductions available in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Action taken by the regulator in the price review on transportation may lead to additional nationwide reductions. Of course, I cannot anticipate the outcome of whatever proposal she may make or any right that British Gas may have to appeal to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I am confident that increased competition in the gas market will lead to lower prices and better-quality service for consumers.
Mr. Michael Connarty: I am sure that the Minister will recall that I did my Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship with British Gas. Is he not concerned that BG Energy—which has only £2.6 billion assets and the possible loss of £1.5 billion owing to its contracts for gas—is a vulnerable British company? There is a possibility of retail closures, with more job losses. Is the Minister not concerned that the other company, which now has most of the overseas assets and transco monopoly, is ripe for overseas takeover? We shall lose a British company because of the predatory actions of foreign investors.
Mr. Eggar: Before the hon. Gentleman stood up, I should have thought that he was one of the last Opposition Members whom I would have to accuse of scaremongering. Why does he have to talk down a successful British company in that way? Only today I was told that the proposals being put forward would
"ensure British Gas was able to compete in the 21st century."
Mr. John Battle: What about the share price?
Mr. Eggar: My opposite number intervenes from a sedentary position, but he does not know that I was quoting from Mr. MacGregor of the GMB union. The view I gave was not mine, but that of Mr. MacGregor, the union leader on the side of the gas workers in the GMB.
Mr. Ian Pearson: In the light of today's revelations about Cedric Brown's pension settlement, how can the Government claim to have
142
implemented the Greenbury report in full, when the Department of Trade and Industry's Companies Acts consultation paper exempts companies such as regional electricity companies from the requirements of full disclosure?
Mr. Eggar: Mr. Brown is
"widely respected by the work force"
of British Gas
"for his years of experience and commitment to the company."
That is not my view, but the view of the GMB union spokesman.
With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is a pity that he should ask such a question on the day when Mr. Cedric Brown has announced his retirement—a man who has made a major contribution to the gas industry over 40 years. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to his views on Mr. Brown's pension entitlements and salary. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, those are matters best dealt with by the company and its shareholders. If the hon. Gentleman or other customers object to the level of pension paid to someone like Mr. Brown or other executives, under the changes that we have introduced, they will shortly have the right to take their custom elsewhere and to buy their gas from other competitors.
Mrs. Beckett: Does the Minister realise that people will have noticed that we have heard nothing from him this afternoon except bluster and abuse, and not a single answer to a single question? I ask him again: as he is not claiming that the liabilities of British Gas have disappeared, who will pick up the tab)—the customer or the shareholder? Who is it? It must be somebody.
Mr. Eggar: British Gas itself is confident that it will be able to improve service to customers and lower prices to customers. That is not my view; it is the view of Dick Giordano, the chairman of British Gas.
The issue of take-or-pay contracts is, of course, a matter for commercial negotiation between the producers and British Gas. I have no doubt that those negotiations will start shortly, and I am as hopeful as the right hon. Lady that they will be resolved satisfactorily. I am absolutely clear that, at the end of the process, as a result of the Government's policies—first of privatising British Gas and secondly, of introducing competition—we will see lower prices and better quality of service for consumers. The right hon. Lady should support that.

British Gas

  Points of Order
  3.50 pm
  Dr. Robert Spink: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I rise to defend innocent people. Can you please advise me whether the jealously guarded privileges of the House are being improperly used? Column 20 of the Official Report for yesterday shows that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) stated that the London-Tilbury-Southend line management team is "corrupt". I thank the hon. Lady for being present this afternoon; I gave her notice.
  As the hon. Lady knew yesterday when she made her statement, investigations are proceeding, so the matter is surely best left until they are completed, without being prejudiced or prejudged by the House under the protection of privilege. In any event, I believe that those investigations will entirely exonerate all the members of the LTS senior management team.
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point of order is rightly to me. I personally would not have used the expression that the hon. Lady used, but there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who, under questioning and in the often excitable conditions of the House, use language that I personally do not find appropriate. It is used under privilege, and all of us must be responsible for the language that we use in the House. I remind hon. Members that good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language, and when our exchanges occasionally become heated and fractious, I wish that hon. Members on both sides of the House would use the English language with care and concern.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: No split infinitives.
  Dr. Spink rose—
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has expressed himself. I should now hear from the hon. Member for Ladywood Birmingham (Ms Short).
  Ms Clare Short: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. What I said yesterday, and what is very important, is that, "if the allegations that are made are true, it would show that the management team was corrupt, and therefore there is a question whether the franchise should be awarded—if the allegations prove to be true. That is what I said, and that is my view.
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Ladywood has read the whole of the exchange yesterday. That is now the end of it.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I wonder whether I could ask you briefly, Madam Speaker—
  Madam Speaker: Is it a point of order?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Yes, it is.
  144
  I ask whether the matter of a Minister of the Crown sponsoring the pass of a commercial lobbyist has been referred to you, and whether you will refer it to the Serjeant at Arms for an inquiry, because clearly there has been an abuse of our arrangements.
  Madam Speaker: The matter has already been referred to the Serjeant at Arms, and I understand that the pass in question has been made available to the staff member in question since—if I remember correctly—the mid or late 1980s. It has been in the possession of the staff member since that time.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I can narrow it down a little further. You will know that the Minister involved signed a document last May, three months after his appointment as a Minister, sponsoring that commercial lobbyist's access to the House of Commons with a pass endorsed by the Serjeant at Arms. Clearly that must be wrong. I have checked, as well.
  Madam Speaker: I have checked the matter thoroughly, but as the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter, I shall do so again. It is my understanding that the person concerned has been a staff member of the Minister since the mid or late 1980s.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. We are not having a debate about the matter. I shall check the matter again.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: The word "if did not come in the statement on the record yesterday. There was a straight assertion
  "because it has shown itself to be"—
  Ms Short rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. Let us hear the hon. Lady.
  Ms Short: I should be grateful if you would allow me to read from Hansard for the benefit of the House. The words that I used were
  "because it has shown itself to be a corrupt management team … if the allegations are true."—[Official Report, 5 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 20.]
  Madam Speaker: I, too, am accustomed to read Hansard every morning. Not only did I listen to the exchange; I read it this morning. We shall take the matter no further.

  NEW MEMBER
  The following Member made the Affirmation required by law:
  Jon Trickett Esq., for Hemsworth.

  Questions to the Prime Minister
  Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. No doubt you noticed that Question 2 to the Prime Minister was reached at 3.28 pm—I was looking at the clock. You are, I am sure, aware of the intense competition for the Prime Minister's questions slot, and you have often asked for short replies.
  You may also have noticed that the Prime Minister took a long time to answer the questions from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. It seems unfortunate that, when an hon. Member has been lucky enough to table Question 5 or 6, only Questions 1, 2 and 3 should be reached. Would you like to comment, Madam Speaker? What happened today was extremely unfair to Back Benchers, who, if they are lucky, may find themselves somewhere near the top slot twice or, at most, three times a year.
  Madam Speaker: A total of 10 questions were asked today, although the hon. Gentleman is right: only three of them were listed on the Order Paper.
  Recently, questions to the Prime Minister have not moved as speedily as they used to. When questions and answers were short, those 15 minutes were one of our best periods in the House. I have noticed recently that both questions and responses are rather long, and the hon. Gentleman—and, obviously, the House—have noted that we are not moving as speedily as we could.
  The hon. Gentleman's point of order gives me an opportunity to appeal both to the House as a whole and to those on the Front Benches to move more speedily in the future. It is absolutely right that hon. Members who take the trouble and time to place questions on the Order Paper should at least have a reasonable opportunity of being called. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. Richard Tracey: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. Can you explain why the Leader of the Opposition needs to ask three or four questions to make his point? That may well answer the point made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick).
  Madam Speaker: I have probably been in the House for at least as long as the hon. Gentleman. Leaders of the Opposition, whatever their party, have often been able to ask three questions. If hon. Members wish to change that procedure, perhaps they should ask the Procedure Committee to have a look at it. I shall certainly make no decision at this stage.

BILL PRESENTED
  REGULATION OF DIET INDUSTRY
  Mrs. Alice Mahon, supported by Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Ms Jean Corston, Mr. Tony Banks, Ms Diane Abbott, Ms Liz Lynne, Ms Mildred Gordon, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Ms Harriet Harman, Ms Clare Short and Ms Tessa Jowell, presented a Bill to regulate the diet industry; to bring all medicines relating to diets under control; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 22 March and to be printed. [Bill 53.]

  Periodicals (Protection of Children)
  3.58 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require publishers of periodicals to display prominently on the front cover of their publications their own assessment of the youngest age for which they consider that publication to be suitable; and for related purposes.
  The House has many duties, but none is more important than the duty that we owe to our children. The influences on children in British society are many and varied. The House must be satisfied that it is doing its best to create the healthiest climate possible for our children to grow up in. I am not convinced that we are rising to that challenge.
  I greatly appreciate the support for the Bill that I have received from hon. Members on both sides of House. It suggests that my view is widely shared. The country has been shocked by the case of the 13-year-old bride of a Turkish waiter. It has led many people to question our nation's moral condition.
  We should not be surprised that children respond in worrying ways, when we consider the pressures that are placed on them. As a parent, I worry about all those pressures, whether they be from television soap operas, pop music lyrics, our increasingly materialistic society or the growing drug culture.
  I start from the premise that, although children may be physically mature younger, it is not necessarily true that they are emotionally mature any sooner. I may be a bit old-fashioned, but I believe that childhood innocence still has its value. We may have to warn children of dangers rather younger, but, in doing so, we should not go further than is absolutely necessary to protect them, and we must not lead them to admire aspects of adult behaviour that are less than admirable.
  Therefore, the Bill deals only with one aspect of a much larger problem. In this general climate, some influences stand out as especially worrying and yet capable of some control. My Bill deals with one of those: teenage girls' magazines.
  Hon. Members whose memory of teenage magazines is of the Beano, The Dandy, Jackie, Bunty, Eagle and Look and Learn, may be somewhat puzzled by my concern. I invite them to consider just the covers, never mind the contents, of some of the magazines that are on sale and aimed at young girls. They state:

  "Sex and you—read our sealed section now!"

  "Men unzipped—an intimate guide to men's minds (and bodies!)"

  "Red hot! Sizzling male model posters inside".

  "I had sex with my ex, but was forgiven".

  "Boys in the buff—shots so hot we sealed the pages".

  "First time sex—how to get it right".

  "Seven steps to sexual heaven—bedtime bliss starts here".

  "Your sex secrets—I've slept with over 100 boys".

  Inside, the contents are even more explicit. The worst case was probably that of TV Hits. In the November edition of a magazine probably read widely by 10 and 11-year-olds, there was a reply to a letter giving precise details of how to perform oral sex—and I mean precise.
  The problem pages are often the worst offenders. Letters pages that could often be about the real emotional and physical problems of adolescence too often

  147
  degenerate into squalid titillation. One page in a magazine aimed at a young audience is called: "Let's talk about SEX".
  The magazines defend themselves by saying that they are offering important advice not offered elsewhere by schools or by parents. That defence is not entirely untrue. Some of the advice that they offer is sensible and useful, but much is not. All the advice is not wrong or inappropriate—girls do grow up younger and need franker advice than the sort once offered by Jackie, but the letters are often written using language more usually seen on the walls of public conveniences. The answers, even in magazines aimed at 12-year-olds and therefore read by much younger children, give explicit advice on sexual technique.
  It is not just the letters—it is their context. Role models are offered. In the present edition of It's Bliss, celebrities such as Jon Bon Jovi, Sean Maguire and Prince boast of losing their virginity at 12, 14 and 11. Such boasts undermine the magazines' claims they are offering only advice that is urgently needed.
  Take the editor's letter in the current edition of one magazine:
  "Us MORE! girls are not known for being shy and retiring when we go on the pull, so I was gagging to see how we'd compare to a bunch of lechy lads out looking for a bit of skirt action."
  The only impression any girl reading such magazines could be left with is that her personal fulfilment will come only from looking good, wearing the right clothes and getting a good sex life. That is deeply sexist. Girls should be encouraged to believe that there are other ways of leading a meaningful life. Sexual stereotyping of that sort is wrong.
  Does it matter? Does such open discussion about sex encourage girls into promiscuity? I believe that it does.
  The House need not take my word for it. Only last Friday, Daniel Wright, of the Medical Research Council's medical sociology unit, told a British Medical Association conference of his concerns about the coverage of sex in magazines for young girls:
  "The way sexuality is presented suggests that most young people are engaged in sexual relations".
  According to reports of his speech, he said that girls were given the impression that they were being left out if they did not engage in sex. But research shows that only 23 per cent. of girls under 16 have had sexual relationships.
  For my money, even 23 per cent. is too high a proportion, but we must not allow the pressures to grow, and thus increase the numbers. I say that not because I am a prude, but because I believe that sex is not a mechanical activity performed for immediate gratification, but a God-given gift that, in a loving relationship, is one of the best things about being a human being. Those magazines undermine the value and the importance of sex.
  I do not say for one minute that we can return to some age of lost innocence; the pass has been sold. Encouraging magazines such as Sugar, Mizz, It's Bliss, 19, and More! to behave more responsibly will not change the world. But it could help to prevent further deterioration. I believe that some of the magazines, too, want to avoid any further drift into salaciousness and smut. Others, such as More!, which is aimed at an older audience, could not but gain from having that fact better
  148
  understood by readers and parents. Above all, the editors need to pull back. The current edition of 19 gets as close to full frontal male nudity as it is possible to get without actually showing it, and the centre-page spread in Mizz is the same.
  Since I launched my campaign, I have been overwhelmed with letters and telephone calls from parents saying, "We didn't realise what was in them," or, "We thought it was only us who were worried. Now we feel we can do something about it." I want to help editors, parents and schools by making it easier to learn what is inside the magazines. I want editors and publishers to decide the lowest target age for each magazine, and to show it on the front cover.
  Because there would be an outcry if a magazine made a major error of judgment by publishing material unsuitable for its own declared age range, I do not believe that any complex regulatory machinery is necessary— simply a sanction for failing to display on the front cover a clearly defined target age for the periodical.
  I do no more than ask the magazines to follow the lead already set, entirely voluntarily, by the computer software manufacturers. I had the privilege of launching their now well-established age classification system. The European Leisure Software Publishers Association—ELSPA—the trade association for well-known names such as Sega and Nintendo, which I am pleased to say is based in Worcestershire, was concerned that a statutory system might be imposed after concern was expressed about the violent and sexual content of certain games. ELSPA moved voluntarily, and so far it has succeeded. The Bill gives the magazine publishers the chance to do the same. They would be well advised to seize the opportunity to clean up their act, before pressure grows for a more draconian system.
  The Bill is a serious attempt to legislate; unlike so many ten-minute Bills, it is not simply a way of debating or drawing attention to an issue. It is simple, it is not bureaucratic, it has no public expenditure implications, and it enjoys overwhelming support both inside and outside the House. It would impose no burden on newsagents, who have for many months called for just such a scheme, and who strongly support the Bill.
  The Bill does not mean censorship. Magazines would be free to publish as they saw fit. They would simply have to be straightforward about who they wanted to read them. The Bill would not encourage girls to buy magazines intended for older girls; they already know what is in them. It is their parents who have been in the dark. Neither is it an attempt to deny young people essential advice. I accept that the advice in magazines has to be more explicit than that given 20 years ago, if only because girls reach puberty at an earlier age.
  I leave it to the magazines themselves to decide how to go about the task that the Bill would impose on them. If I were them, I would set up some kind of organisation under the Periodical Publishers Association to monitor and implement the scheme, and adopt an age-range classification system.
  The Bill enjoys all-party support. My fellow sponsors know that parents, teachers, Church groups, newsagents, journalists and even many of the children at whom these magazines are aimed, want change. They are right, and I am determined to ensure that they get it.
  4.8 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the debate, and I shall not try to divide the House. Although it is right that we should debate the Bill, we should proceed carefully. My fear, and the fear expressed by many outside the House, is that, by legislating in such a way, we may not achieve the objective of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), or that of others who support his proposals. The hon. Gentleman and I must accept that men of our age, even parents of daughters of his daughter's age, may not be the best people to form judgments on such issues.
  The law is clear; it says that the age of consent for a girl is 16, and that should be reinforced in the House. Advice is clear-indeed, I concur with the hon. Gentleman in citing the advice of the British Medical Association, the General Medical Council and others— that it is better not to have sex before the age of 16; people are not normally ready for it. The Church, other faith groups and many others are even clearer, and say that sex, especially intercourse, should be left until marriage.
  Even the most well-regulated households, however, do not necessarily manage to avoid under-age sex. According to all the evidence, one in five young people have had intercourse before they are 16 years old. That, of course, means that four in five have not. It is therefore not right for youngsters to try to influence their peers to have sex by saying that everyone else is doing so.
  It is, of course, also true—I hope that the hon. Gentleman concedes this—that, although young people develop in different ways and have different interests at different times, the fact that some people may not have any form of sex until well after the age of 16 does not mean that most youngsters are not interested in sex well before then.
  What should we do? It is a case of separating fantasy from fact. We regulate magazines, yet we do not regulate radio, television, plays, records, tapes, compact discs, newspapers, books or advertisments. Cinema is in part regulated. Records banned from being played on Radio 1 because they were regarded as—potentially—too sexy immediately shot to the top of the charts.
  Young people say that they would rather receive information from parents or at school, but that parents and schools are often not very good at giving that information, and that their peer group and magazines are the best places to turn to.
  In an article printed in the Evening Standard on Monday, a girl of 13, who reads two magazines—Shout and Sugar—said:
  "I think they are the best. They give you really good advice but I don't think I would ever actually write in. Reading about other people's problems is really helpful. I'd be embarrassed to ask my mum some of the questions they ask the agony aunts."
  I am not aware that there has been any criticism that the information given in the magazines has been wrong, which is often not the case with information culled from other sources. It is also clear that young people ask questions and want answers about some matters about which people find it difficult to be explicit.
  To be fair, the magazines generally contain substantially more non-sex parts than sex parts. Indeed, we must be careful not to overstate the amount of sex-related content on the pages that carry it. On the
  150
  problem page of a magazine published this month, sensitive responses are given to questions about family rejection, being scared in a home alone, being sexually abused and coping with arguments at home.
  Only two letters out of eight dealt with sex. One concerned a reader's knowledge of her brother's under-age sexual activity. Advice was given that it is illegal, and that, if she could not persuade him to stop, she should inform her parents. The other letter was from a girl who had had sex and wished that she had not. The reply was good; it said:
  "relationships don't need to centre around sex, so this is a lesson for the rest of you".
  Some of the difficult issues, such as pregnancy, petting, contraception and orgasm, need to be dealt with in a factual way, since people in their early teens ask questions about such matters and deserve factual answers. All the magazines that I am aware of seek professional, independent advice before writing their advice columns.
  Mr. Luff indicated assent.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is nodding. The Brook advisory centres are certainly regularly consulted on writing the agony aunt or agony uncle columns, as are the Family Planning Association and the Health Education Authority.
  Very important to the defence of the present situation is the fact that there has been no great recent upsurge in the number of teenage pregnancies. Indeed, as advice has increased, teenage pregnancy rates in this country have gone down.
  Secondly, there is no evidence that sexual education leads to more sexual activity. Indeed, some say that such education may delay the onset of activity, and that activity may decrease overall. Lastly, the countries with the most clear and uncomplicated attitude—such as the Netherlands—have lower conception rates than this country. Surprisingly, the rate of conception in the Netherlands is one seventh of the rate in England and Wales.
  How should we proceed? First, we must not end up with an age marking that makes those magazines more rather than less appealing. Secondly, it is difficult to define an exact age when young people develop, and that applies to boys as well as girls. Thirdly, we must not make it seem that sex is talked about more than everything else, and, in doing so, make sex the centre of attention.
  There is an equal danger of cultivating a view that other things that the magazines promote—a beautiful body, expensive clothes, designer life styles and a certain range of luxuries—are as desirable as anything else. We should be clear about giving the facts, but also about raising young people's horizons. We should make sure that there is proper consultation on the issue before we proceed to legislate.
  We should be discouraging young people from having under-age sex, but not pretending that it is not entirely natural to be interested in it. We should be informing young people that most of their peer group are not having under-age sex, but tell them what happens when they do. We should not pretend that information that is not obtained in teenage magazines will not be obtained somewhere else.

  151
  We must proceed carefully, because hon. Members may not be the best people to teach parents in the rest of country how to manage these matters. If we proceed carefully, we may be able to have a healthy attitude to this matter, as we have with all matters of concern to young people.
  Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Luff, Mr. Michael Alison, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Nicholas Baker, Mr. James Cran, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Sir Timothy Sainsbury, the Rev. Martin Smyth, Ms Tessa Jowell and Ms Estelle Morris.

  PERIODICALS (PROTECTION OF CHILDREN)
  Mr. Peter Luff accordingly presented a Bill to require publishers of periodicals to display prominently on the front cover of their publications their own assessment of the youngest age for which they consider that publication to be suitable; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 1 March and to be printed. [Bill 54.]

  GP Fundholding
  4.17 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I beg to move,
  That this House pays tribute to the role that GP fundholders have played in kick-starting and developing innovative practice in both primary care and the acute sector; welcomes the advances that fundholding has brought to many patients; accepts that fundholding has acted as a lever to improve services; and consequently remains committed to the further development of GP fundholding.
  The Government have selected the subject for debate this afternoon for a simple reason: we believe that it is important to expose the double-speak that passes for Labour's health policy. That is true across the whole field of health policy, but it is particularly true of fundholding. I intend to remind the House of the claims that Labour makes for its health policy, and then to examine the reality of those claims in the context of its approach to fundholding.
  Labour says that it favours empowerment of GPs, yet it remains opposed to the system that brought about the greater empowerment of GPs. Labour says that it favours innovation, yet when it sees it in the context of fundholding practices, it immediately retreats into verbiage about a "two-tier service". Most of all, Labour says that it is in favour of a system based on choice and diversity and encouraging professionals to develop their own approach to the profession that they practise. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) shows in her decisions about her own family that she holds that principle dear, but Labour as a whole remains resolutely opposed to putting that principle into effect within the NHS.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Is my right hon. Friend aware that virtually every general practitioner in the Mid-Staffordshire constituency is a GP fundholder? Is he equally aware that they are fundholders because they believe that it helps them to be better doctors and to make the sorts of choices that GPs ought to be making? They live in fear at the thought of a Labour Government, who would oppose GP fundholding, getting in and abandoning it.
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is precisely right. I shall quote some of the speculations of the hon. Member for Peckham on why my hon. Friend's constituents have opted for fundholding. He gave us the answer first: they opted for it because they believe that it is the best way to improve the care that is available to their patients and, furthermore, to give full expression to their commitment to the principles of the national health service.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Is it not true that the patients of fundholders are getting preferential treatment for operations in hospitals? We have some evidence of that. Is it not a two-tier system?
  Mr. Dorrell: It is also true that 70 per cent. of the patients in the hon. Gentleman's constituency are covered by fundholding practices. That reflects the choice made by GPs operating in that health area on how best to serve the interests of their patients and to ensure that an improved national health service is delivered, not just to their patients but to those of all GPs operating in the NHS.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I want to pursue the question asked by the hon. Member

  153
  for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell). A psychologist working in the NHS with whom I spoke on Sunday confirmed that GP fundholders get preferential treatment for their patients from him and his colleagues at the hospital, not because they want it but because they have the resources to buy it. Will he confirm that that is the position and that the perception in every health authority is that those who have the funds call the tune?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is based on a total misapprehension of the position. He can substantiate his proposition that the patients of a particular doctor have an unfair advantage only if the resources available to that doctor to deal with the patients on his list are more generously provided than the resources available to NHS patients as a whole. Within a fundholding practice, a doctor or group of doctors make choices about the use of resources, which certainly allow them to improve the NHS care available to their patients—that is why they do it. That is done on the basis not of an unjust allocation of resources but of better use of the resources available to them.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: I will not give way now, but I will do so again later.
  Last October, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) accepted an invitation to speak to the National Association of Fund Holding Practices. For once, that brought a Labour health spokesman, the predecessor to the hon. Member for Peckham, not up against Ministers, whom the Opposition no doubt think are easy conventional targets, and not in a television studio, but face to face with fundholding GPs—individual doctors committed to the principles and future of the national health service, who had decided that it was in the interests not merely of their patients but of their commitment to the health service as a whole to opt for fundholding. It is interesting to examine what the right hon. Lady said when she was face to face with an audience of fundholders:
  "We want genuinely to pay tribute to the role that you as fundholders ) … have played in kick-starting and developing innovative practice in both primary care and the acute sector."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah.] My hon. Friends should wait, because there is more to follow. She continued:
  "We understand and welcome the advances that fundholding has brought to many patients."
  I cannot detain the House with the entire speech, although there was some good stuff in it, but she also said:
  "I do accept that fundholding has acted as a lever to improve services."
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: No, I am going to make my point.
  Those three sentiments, every one of which I agree with, have been brought together by the Government in the motion. The motion that the House is invited to agree is no more than the bringing together of those three sentiments out of the mouth of the right hon. Member for Derby, South, coupled with the obvious policy conclusion that, if it is that good, we had better have more of it.
  154
  When Labour Members later this afternoon choose to substitute, if that is what they vote to do, the words of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Peckham, they will be voting against the words spoken by their health spokesman of only three and a half months ago. It must be relatively rare for the Government to table a motion for debate in the House the sentiments of which were drafted exclusively by the person who held the shadow health portfolio until only months ago.
  It is properly described as hypocrisy for the Labour party to endorse a spokesman who went to Harrogate to talk to fundholding GPs in October last year and then invite hon. Members, as no doubt the hon. Member for Peckham will in a few minutes' time, to reject those words when safely away from the audience of fundholders.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: The right hon. Gentleman referred earlier to verbiage about two-tier services. Does he recall that I wrote to him in November and sent him a copy of a letter from a GP in my constituency? At that time, there were no GP fundholders in Halifax. The GP complained that when he desperately needed clinical psychology services for a patient, he was told by the trust to which he tried to refer her that there were no services for anyone who was not from a GP fundholding practice. The only service available was a Relate counsellor. He pointed out that that was not what he wanted and had to wait a considerable time before the health authority eventually referred the woman to a BUPA hospital. Is that not a classic example of two-tier fundholding? Why should that patient not have access to a service to which GP fundholders' patients have access? Why should she have to wait?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady said that there were virtually no fundholders in her constituency. In fact, the health authority that covers her constituency will, from next April, have 44 per cent. of its patients covered by fundholders. She is not precisely right.
  Mrs. Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman must get it correct. That is not true in Halifax. It is no good using somebody else's constituency.
  Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman is incorrect about fundholding in the constituency of Halifax, he will make a correction.
  Mr. Dorrell: As you know, Madam Speaker, health authority and constituency boundaries are not precisely the same. The health authority that covers the hon. Lady's constituency—and this is what I said—will, from next April, have 44 per cent. of patients covered by fundholding practices.
  Mrs. Mahon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: I shall give way once more and then I shall answer the hon. Lady's point.
  Mrs. Mahon: Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that patients in my constituency who need a clinical psychologist will be able to get one as quickly as would GP fundholders' patients?
  Mr. Dorrell: I will guarantee that in the hon. Lady's constituency, just as in the rest of the health service,

  155
  where fundholders use resources to develop or open new services—that is what innovation means—it creates precisely the pressure that she wants to ensure that both the patients of other fundholders and the patients of all other GPs participate in an improving general level of service in the NHS.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: I wish to make progress, if I may.
  I return to the words of the motion—the words first spoken by the right hon. Member for Derby, South to the National Association of Fund Holding Practices. On 24 January 1996, two weeks ago, I quoted those words in the House and the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) said, "This is old hat." Three and a half months is a long time in Labour party politics. He was wrong; it was not old hat. It was a flash of inspiration. St. Paul travelled the road to Damascus; the right hon. Member for Derby, South travelled the road to Harrogate. Converts are always welcome.
  The right hon. Member for Derby, South is not old hat; Labour's policy on fundholding is old hat. Yet again, the Labour party is on the wrong side of an argument. It is the repeated experience of Labour and Labour Members in the past 20 years. They fought against privatisation of nationalised industries, and history passed them by; they fought for unilateral nuclear disarmament, and history passed them by; they fought against a framework of law for trade unions, and history passed them by; and they fought—how they fought—against GP fundholding, and history is in the process of passing them by on that subject as well.
  Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the principles of GP fundholding are the same as the principles of grant-maintained schools—that the budget is delegated downwards? Does he find it strange that a person who approves of, and is willing to use, a grant-maintained school opposes the principle of GP fundholding?
  Mr. Dorrell: I have already said so, and I agree that identical principles underlie fundholding and grant-maintained schools.
  The way to improve a state-provided service is to encourage a diversity of approach in the professions and encourage the professions responsible for delivering the service to try new ways to deliver the service. The hon. Member for Peckham endorses that principle by her private action yet refuses to apply it in the portfolio for which she has policy responsibility.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: I want to make progress. I will give way to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) in a few moments.
  I want to begin at the beginning of fundholding. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the Minister responsible for introducing fundholding. He did it for a simple reason: he wanted, and wants, to make the national health service more accountable to its patients. He wanted to accept the
  156
  challenge implicit in the rhetoric about patient-centred care and a flexible health service responsive to its patients, and make those phrases real.
  The hon. Member for Peckham made her approach to the subject clear from the start. She said that
  "there is no support among GPs for the concept of fund-holding practices."—[Official Report, 15 March 1990; Vol. 169, c. 687.]
  Six years later, the evidence on that subject is decisive. She was wrong.
  From 1 April 1996, more than half the patients of NHS general practitioners will be served by fundholding GPs. The hon. Member for Peckham was wrong then in her predictions, just as she is wrong now in her policy prescriptions.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: I have undertaken to give way to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate in a moment.
  The hon. Member for Peckham is now wrong in a different sense, because she now makes a different charge. On 9 November 1995, in Doctor magazine, she said:
  "Fundholding was not a GP idea. It was imposed on doctors".
  That is insulting to the half of NHS GPs who have opted for a voluntary fundholding scheme. It implies that a few letters from me and my predecessors have led them to adopt a scheme that they believe is damaging to their patients and the NHS. Further, I believe that it is a wilful misrepresentation of the facts.
  In saying that, the hon. Member for Peckham knows perfectly well that the fundholding scheme is voluntary, that more than half of NHS GPs have opted to join that voluntary scheme and that the words of her 1990 prediction are on the record, and she feels the urge to explain them away. She will have to think of a better explanation if her remarks are to carry any conviction.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: Is there not another similarity between grant-maintained schools and doctors' fundholding? The imposition of both was fiercely opposed by the professionals— schoolteachers, governors and parents, and certainly the majority of doctors—yet both groups were aware that the only way to provide the necessary educational and medical services was to take the money that the Government were offering them in only one way.
  I refer the Secretary of State back to innovative practices. There is little that is innovative about elective surgery, but last year the Whittington hospital in my constituency issued a directive that all elective surgery must stop, save for patients of GP fundholders. If that is not a two-tier system, perhaps the Secretary of State could explain what it is.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady is simply wrong, as I said in replying to the hon. Member for Fife, Central. [Interruption.] She is wrong about that fact, just as the hon. Gentleman was wrong to describe the comments of the right hon. Member for Derby, South as "old hat".
  The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate is wrong because she has said that GP fundholders have more resources available to them to care for their patients than other GPs in the health service. That is not true.

  157
  The resources available to GP fundholders are provided on exactly the same basis as the resources that are available for other forms of patient care.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I share the Secretary of State's views about the improvement that GP fundholding has made. The fault with the two-tier system lies not so much with the GP fundholders as with the providing authorities, which are leaving much elective surgery until the end of the year because they can then obtain the roll-over from the health authorities. Is that not the real issue, as the KŐrner statistics show?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. He is correct in pointing out what is happening in different parts of the country where GP fundholders are finding better ways of using the resources at their disposal. As a result, the standard of service that GPs are delivering to their patients—which is measured in waiting times and in a variety of other ways—is being ratcheted up. I do not apologise for that fact: fundholding and the other reforms were introduced partly to improve patient service.
  The hon. Gentleman is quite right to point out the second-stage effect. Once a fundholder has found a way of improving the care available to his patients, the system is deliberately established to apply pressure to other fundholders—and to purchasing health authorities acting on behalf of non-fundholders—to raise the quality of service, leading to a relentless improvement in the quality of care that is available across the health service.
  I shall return to the question that troubles the hon. Member for Peckham. Why was her prediction wrong and why do more than half of the doctors now plan to be fundholders from the beginning of April? If she will not accept my explanation of why people are opting for fundholding, perhaps she will listen to the words of some independent and friendly advisers. Howard Glennerster said that GP fundholding
  "has produced a shift in the balance of power back to general practice for the first time this century."
  That is the reason why GPs are opting for fundholding.
  Mr. Alan Milburn: And Julian Le Grand?
  Mr. Dorrell: It is not just Howard Glennerster. I do not intend to quote Julian Le Grand today, but perhaps I shall return to him on another occasion. Brian Abel-Smith, the former special adviser to Lady Castle, who was one of the last Labour Health Secretaries of State, said:
  "Fundholding represents a major transfer of power from specialists to GPs".
  The same theme was picked up by Kathy Jones writing for the Fabian Society. The hon. Member for Fife, Central might do well to read some of the Fabian Society material as it is rather more inspired than some of his speeches. Kathy Jones said:
  "Fundholding gives GPs leverage over hospital doctors, changing the balance of power between them."
  Those three quotations are from three different sources, each of them putting the finger on the real reason—not the cosmetic reason that the hon. Member for Peckham
  158
  prefers, but the real reason—why GPs are opting for fundholding. Not just those commentators but the 13,500 GPs who will be fundholders from April understand the shift in emphasis that has occurred in the national health service as a result of the introduction of fundholding.
  Does the hon. Member for Peckham believe that all those people—all 13,500 GPs and all those advisers—are knowingly undermining the health service? Are they all engaged in a conspiracy to break up a service to which they have given their lives? That is absurd. I have quoted the evidence I have about the support for my policy from people responsible for actually delivering the service. The question I am putting to the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends is whether they believe that all those people who are opting for those changes are doing so because they share the suspicion that that is a desirable way of breaking up the health service. That is the charge the hon. Member for Fife, Central levels at me, but—much more damagingly for him—he is levelling it at 13,500 GPs operating in the national health service.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. It is no good Back Benchers standing up for the whole afternoon when it is clear that the Secretary of State is not giving way.
  Mr. Dorrell: The quotations that I have offered, and I could have chosen a thousand others, demonstrate why doctors are opting for fundholding. They are doing so because fundholding is a means of delivering the objective that so often in the past has been espoused by Opposition Members as a desirable health policy objective—the empowerment of GPs and the strengthening of the role of GPs in the health service.
  Mr. MacShane: May I tear the Secretary of State away from his Oxford Union practice, which will be useful when he is in opposition, and bring him to the point about GP fundholders? In my part of the world, and I hope that the Secretary of State will listen, it is GP fundholders themselves who are concerned about the fact that if they nominate someone for a hip replacement at the Royal Hallamshire hospital in Sheffield it will be done in 12 weeks, but if a non-fundholding GP down the road does the same—and they are all in the same business— the person has to wait 52 weeks. GP fundholders are also concerned that if they put money into private hospitals, it is denied to NHS hospitals that have to provide accident and emergency cover, which the private hospitals do not.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) went to Harrogate, and I invite the Secretary of State to come to Rotherham to meet fundholders and to hear the problems and questions that they would like to put to him. They are worried, whether he likes it or not, that he is creating a two-tier service.
  Mr. Dorrell: What I am doing is supporting a system that has led to a bigger shift of power in the health service, away from the institutions and towards the GPs, than we have seen at any time since 1948. That has been a matter of common exchange between hon. Members on both sides of the House. That aspiration has been accepted— empowering GPs because they are the people who are

  159
  closest to the patients, and allowing them to act as guides and advocates for patients finding their way around the health service.
  Spokesmen on both sides of the House have argued that GPs are well placed to design a patient-centred service. The hon. Member for Peckham goes beyond that and has talked about the importance of the development of a broader range of services in primary care. She is right about that too. We have a broader range of provision of post-operative care, shared care arrangements, emergency care arrangements and better provision for GP support for cottage hospitals. All those are important examples of the developments of primary care. What the hon. Lady does not deal with is the fact that the introduction of the fundholding scheme is the biggest single step forward to the delivery of those objectives since 1948.
  Mr. Charles Hendry: Will my right hon. Friend come to north Derbyshire to talk to fundholding doctors, including the brother of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), about the way in which fundholding benefits the patients of all doctors? Is he aware that in Glossop, because of the way in which fundholders have introduced new surgery cases and new activities at the cottage hospital, waiting lists for ear, nose and throat treatment have fallen from 20 weeks to four and for general surgery from up to 30 weeks to a maximum of eight, not just for patients of fundholders but for all patients? That shows how everybody has benefited.
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right, and a three-part tutorial might be beneficial. I might go to Rotherham and take the brother of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) with me to examine the role of fundholding in strengthening the voice of primary care within the national health service.
  The hon. Member for Peckham used her defence to my argument in a television programme which I saw before I came into the House today. She said that fundholding is not necessary to the delivery of those improvements in primary care, or to the strengthening of the voice of GPs. I ask the House to pause for a moment and consider that argument. For a quarter of century, speeches have been made in the House, from both sides, about the importance of GPs and about how the NHS must deliver a more patient-centred basis of care. Nothing happened. Then we introduced fundholding and it started to happen.
  Is it reasonable to assume that there is a link between those two events, or was that just a massive coincidence? Were the two events entirely unconnected? Would all the changes have happened anyway? Is that the hon. Lady's argument? The changes did not happen for a quarter of a century, but they happened on precisely the day that fundholding was introduced. Is that purely a coincidence? That is what the hon. Lady asks us to believe. The GPs know the answer and on 1 April this year over half of them will be fundholders. They are voting with their feet, and they are not voting for the hon. Lady's arguments.
  Mr. Richard Burden: Can the Secretary of State explain how it is in the interest of patient care to have millions of pounds locked away, unused, in underspends for GP fundholders? In Birmingham, there is a £10 million underspend and the regional executive has suggested that the health authority borrow money from fundholders to get the waiting lists
  160
  down. That may sound fine, but is it a good idea for the NHS to be in hock to its own fundholders rather than putting the money to use at the time it is needed, through properly allocated resources?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman must decide whether he believes the speeches that his hon. Friends have made over a quarter of a century about the best way of using health service resources.
  Mr. Milburn: All GPs?
  Mr. Dorrell: I shall come to that argument in a moment.
  Does the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) believe that the patients' interests are best served by empowering GPs to make decisions in their patients' interests, or does he prefer leaving those decisions to the regional health authorities which we have introduced legislation to abolish? That is the choice. The hon. Gentleman prefers to make great speeches about a primary care-led NHS. He likes to talk about devolving power to enable GPs to act as patients' advocates, but he backs away from the hard facts.
  Mr. Richard Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given that 50 per cent. of the country will shortly be covered by GP fundholders, the Opposition are boxing themselves into a potential crisis? The chairman of the National Association of Fund Holding Practices, Dr. Morris, has said that if Labour ever comes to power and takes the steps it has threatened, those GPs will leave the NHS.
  Mr. Dorrell: If the hon. Member for Peckham pursued the policy that she is committed to pursuing, GP fundholders would have a difficult decision, as my hon. Friend rightly says.
  The hon. Member for Peckham likes to use another argument; she points to the success—Labour's amendment points to this—of commissioners. On that point at least, I can agree with the hon. Lady. There are, of course, many GPs who are not fundholders but who are improving care as commissioning GPs. The hon. Lady should listen to the commissioning GPs to find out what caused the changes that have allowed their commissioning approach to be effective. Numerous commissioning GPs will tell her, if she listens, that it is the introduction of fundholding that has changed the terms of trade—the terms of the relationship between the primary and secondary sectors. That has made possible the success of the commissioning schemes which the hon. Lady likes to endorse.
  The reality of the commitment by the hon. Member for Peckham to replace fundholding with commissioning is that it is bad news not only for fundholders and their patients, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) said, but for the commissioners. The commissioners are taking advantage of the change in the relationship that the fundholders have brought about. That is a key argument which the hon. Lady prefers to fudge. Indeed, Labour is trying to fudge its way out of an embarrassment. Labour Members know that they are caught in a policy position that does not work. They must decide quickly whether they are prepared to opt for and

  161
  to back the fundholding scheme, which would be the best way to convert their fine words about empowering GPs into reality, or whether they confine their ambitions to fine prose and press releases, in which case they can continue their policy of abandoning fundholding.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: No, I will not give way, because I want to make progress. I may give way later.
  Another objective to which the Labour party declares its firm attachment is innovation. Labour is right. Health care is a developing activity and it is important to maintain innovation. There are hundreds of examples of innovations that have been introduced as a result of the initiatives taken by fundholders. However, every one of those is under threat if we accept the two-tier argument that has been the chant from Labour during the debate.
  The guts of the two-tier argument are that nobody can have the benefit of an innovation until everyone can have it. That is an absurd argument. What Labour seems completely incapable of understanding is that it is in the nature of an innovation that it is new and has to be done somewhere first. Furthermore, the problem is compounded by Labour's naive belief that standards can be identical in every part of the country, for every patient, all at once. Everybody knows that that cannot be true even in a static service; it is doubly untrue in an evolving service. The key issue that the House must address is not how to make the service identical for every patient everywhere—that is an undeliverable objective—but how to maintain the pressure right across the service for continuing improvement. That is the key question, and general practitioner fundholding is a key part of our commitment to seeing relentless and continuing pressure for improvement within the national health service.
  That point is the key distinction between Labour's approach and the Government's approach. Labour values uniformity above all. Labour Members talk of diversity and choice, and they use the language of individual responsibility and initiative, but in their actions they opt unerringly for the uniform formula. That absolutist vision represents the hypocritical face of the Labour party. Labour Members say that they favour innovation and diversity, but they set their face firmly against the most effective way in which to bring those factors about.
  The most hypocritical aspect of the whole story is the position of the hon. Member for Peckham. We know that she does not believe this absolutist claptrap; we know that she favours a policy of diversity and choice. We know that she understands that the best way to deliver high-quality social services is to encourage professional people to develop their own approach and to allow responsible citizens to choose which professionals best meet their needs.
  We know that the hon. Member for Peckham is opposed to the imposition of a single unchanging formula, regardless of local preferences and choices. We know all that because she has opted her own family out of the politically correct formula for education and has exercised her right to choose the best education for her son. [Interruption.] This is not a cheap point. We applaud that action and we think that the hon. Lady is right to have
  162
  taken it. What she has to explain to the House and to the country this afternoon is why she continues to oppose the application within the national health service of those principles which, by her actions, she endorses in the education of her own children.
  4.55 pm
  Ms Harriet Harman: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "pays tribute to the role all GPs have played in developing innovative practice in both primary care and the acute sector; regrets that the system of GP fundholding leads to two-tier health care and a massive increase in bureaucracy; believes that the unfairness of the internal market should be ended and GP fundholding replaced by GP commissioning in which all patients get excellent primary care, access to hospitals on the basis of clinical need, and in which all GPs have a say in the planning and development of primary and hospital care.".
  I welcome the debate and the chance that it gives us to talk about what is really happening in primary care. The Secretary of State has clearly forgotten the advice of the Maples memorandum. He has proved again today that no news about the NHS is good news for the Tories. Any time that he wants to use Government time to debate the NHS and our policies, we shall be happy to oblige.
  The Government motion is a disgrace. It congratulates only fundholding GPs; it has nothing to say about all the other GPs who are working hard for their patients. Our amendment, which I commend to the House, pays tribute to the efforts of all GPs who are struggling, despite this Government, to improve patient care.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Was the hon. Lady aware, before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his speech, that the Government motion, almost in its entirety, was drawn from three quotations from a speech by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), her predecessor? Was she aware of that, yes or no? If she was not, that is incompetent; if she was, how can she and her colleagues oppose the motion? If they oppose it, it is clear that Labour spokesmen say one thing, but vote in exactly the opposite direction.
  Ms Harman: It is clear, from the speech that the Secretary of State quoted, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was proposing all the points that we make in our amendment. I quote from the press release that went with the speech. My right hon. Friend said:
  "Labour's proposals are to end a two-tier system of primary health-care provision … Fundholding"—
  hon. Members should listen to this point—
  "has improved GP services for some, but at the expense of others."
  That is our case.
  I am glad that the Secretary of State mentioned the points that I made in 1990 because we warned then that the Tory internal market in the NHS would lead to unfairness for patients. We said that it would lead to costly bureaucracy for doctors and fragmentation of NHS provision. The experience of patients and doctors has borne out our warnings. Labour rejects the internal market now as we did in 1990, and we will end it.
  Mr. Keith Mans: The hon. Lady keeps making the point about the so-called two-tier service that

  163
  she believes fundholding to be. Will she confirm, in that case, that she believes that before fundholding was introduced, there was a single-tier service throughout the health service, despite the fact that across the country, people were waiting different times for the same operation?
  Ms Harman: Later in my speech I shall give examples illustrating that there are different waiting times at one hospital because of the two-tier system that has been driven into the NHS.
  Mr. Mans: There always were.
  Ms Harman: No, there were not. Clinical need determined priority before the internal market, but now it is cash before care. The hon. Gentleman is wrong.
  We shall replace GP fundholding by GP commissioning—a system that will benefit all patients, not just a few, and will give all GPs the opportunity to commission care.
  Ms Jean Corston: Is my hon. Friend aware that last week I met a member of the Avon fundholders group? I asked him what innovations he could provide under fundholding that he could not have made available before. He told me that his practice now offered psychological counselling two nights a week and that that would have been impossible before he was a fundholder. However, locality commissioning in south London has enabled non-fundholding surgeries to provide psychological counselling five days a week between 10 am and 3 pm. So fundholding allowed that GP to provide a service that must surely be available to non-fundholding GPs.
  Ms Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In his speech today, the Secretary of State sought to perpetuate the idea that innovation takes place only in fundholding practices and that all other GPs are letting their patients down. We reject that and GPs are right to be angry.
  The Tories want GPs to compete. They want to be divisive, but Labour wants GPs to work together in the interests of their patients. I shall set out four principles, and the primary care system should measure up to them. We heard nothing about the principles and objectives for primary care from the Secretary of State, so we shall hear whether he agrees with these. The system should provide equal access for all patients; it should make the best use of NHS resources; it should help to provide stability within the NHS so that it can grow; and it should play a part in local health strategies to improve the health of local people.
  The Government's policy of fundholding fails on all those counts. It has created a two-tier service; it has added to the mountain of management bureaucracy and red tape; it prevents hospitals from planning for their services; and it cuts across any chance of strategic planning for health gain.
  The Secretary of State claimed that fundholding is the fount of innovation in primary care. That is a sectarian and partial view. The Government see no merit whatsoever in the work of non-fundholders. There are hundreds of examples, but I shall mention just a few. Dr. Helen Groom, a GP in Gateshead, has set up a nurse
  164
  assessment unit for men with prostate problems. That is innovative and the Secretary of State should welcome it. Dr. Robin Singer, a GP in Enfield, has set up a new service to treat cataracts and a twilight nursing service. The Secretary of State should welcome that. Why has he not done so?
  Mr. Dorrell: I did. I said in my speech that there was no difference between the hon. Lady and myself on the benefits that commissioning GPs have brought to their patients. However, the hon. Lady has to explain how that would have been possible had the relationship within the health service not been changed by fundholding.
  Ms Harman: We are talking about GPs innovating within their own practices. That has nothing to do with GPs buying hospital care and managing their budgets. Non-fundholding GPs do not control their budgets; they are simply improving primary care in their surgeries. However, we have had some success today because we have forced the Secretary of State, against his motion, to recognise that all GPs are doing a good job, whereas previously he wanted to concentrate on fundholders— to divide and rule.
  The Government's claims for fundholders do not stand up. They claim that fundholders improve efficiency, responsiveness and quality of care. Angela Coulter, director of the independent King's Fund centre, says that those claims
  "are in general not supported by the evidence."
  The Tories claim that fundholding has been the mechanism for reducing prescribing costs, but the British Medical Journal says:
  "Early reports of the effectiveness of fundholding in curbing prescribing costs has not been confirmed in its longer term study.".
  There is one thing about GP fundholding on which the Government like to stay silent and everyone else agrees. A two-tier system is an inevitable part of GP fundholding. Some patients are fast-tracked for hospital appointments, while others have to wait longer.
  The Secretary of State for Health has always denied that unfairness. This afternoon, it was not clear whether he was denying it or admitting it as his line of argument was somewhat confused, but in the past he has denied the unfairness. He said:
  "The role of fundholding is not to allow a two-tier service",
  but the evidence tells another story.
  I have here a bulletin sent out by the hospitals in Sheffield. It shows the two-tier service in action. The first column reveals that cardiology patients of non-fundholders wait 26 weeks for an out-patient appointment, and the second column sets out the waiting time for patients of fundholders. Instead of waiting 26 weeks, patients of fundholders wait only 12 weeks. Dermatology patients of non-fundholders wait 26 weeks, while patients of fundholding GPs wait only nine weeks. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Dorrell: Perhaps the hon. Lady would prefer to make her own speech in her own way, but she is illustrating the force of my argument. Is it wrong to improve the service available to the patients of fundholders? If it is not wrong to improve the service to the patients of fundholders, is it then wrong to apply

  165
  pressure, as the hon. Lady and many others will do, to improve the service available to all patients of the health service? The hon. Lady is highlighting how fundholders are improving standards and that leads to pressure for improvement across the board. While she is talking about waiting times, she might also recount to the House how waiting times for out-patient and in-patient care have tumbled over the past five years, not least under the pressure created by fundholders.
  Ms Harman: Hospitals, not GP fundholders, carry out operations. The document also deals with hip replacements in Sheffield. It no longer matters who is in greatest pain and needs a hip replacement and who finds it most difficult to get upstairs and has to sleep on the sofa on the ground floor because they cannot get to the bedroom. What matters is whether or not the patient's GP is a fundholder. In Sheffield hospitals, patients of non-fundholders have to wait up to 52 weeks for hip replacements, but patients of fundholding GPs, even if their condition is less serious, have to wait only three months.
  The Secretary of State said that he wanted to know what was wrong. I shall tell him: it is the unfairness of a two-tier system. We are not talking about advantages won by GP fundholders; they are not carrying out the hip operations. The system simply provides unfair access to our hospitals.
  Did the Secretary of State know about the position in Sheffield? Did he know about the two-tier bulletin for waiting times in Sheffield? Does he defend it?
  Mr. Dorrell: Yes, I just did.
  Ms Harman: He defends it.
  Unfairness is built into the heart of the system of GP fundholding because the advantages of the patients of fundholding GPs—
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you ensure that Hansard shows that the Secretary of State said, from a sedentary position, "Yes, I do defend it"?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not for the occupant of the Chair to determine what Hansard reporters record.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My concentration during the debate has been badly upset by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), who at no stage has tried to intervene, but continually barracks from a sedentary position. Will you call him to order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In an ideal world, there would be less barracking from both sides of the Chamber, from both the Back and Front Benches. It has been a lively debate so far.
  Ms Harman: My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is absolutely right.
  166
  In the debate that the Secretary of State has called today, he has just endorsed the two-tier waiting-list system. That is a disgrace.
  It is the same story across the country. In Scotland, the Glasgow royal infirmary issued a letter proposing to give priority to the patients of GP fundholders. In King's College hospital in my constituency in London, there are extra surgery sessions for fundholding patients only. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said, it is the same in Halifax. I have a letter that was sent to a GP in her constituency from St. Luke's hospital. It states that
  "we are not able to respond to your recent request to provide a psychology assessment/treatment service for your patient, and I am, therefore returning your letter of referral … We are only able to provide services…where we have contracts with fundholding practices".
  When the Secretary of State responded to one of my hon. Friends, he tried to say that a new system was being developed. What is being developed is not a new system, but unequal access to an existing system. It is not just that the internal market is unfair; it is too expensive to ran and it piles bureaucracy on to bureaucracy. Every GP fundholder has to have his own set of contracts and has to have a business manager in the practice. Each fundholding practice now employs a business manager who is paid twice as much—if not three times as much—as the practice nurse. The hospitals have to employ more managers to negotiate with the fundholder managers and the bill is huge—at least £80,000 extra in administration costs for each fundholding practice. With the current number of fundholders, that amounts to an extra £212 million a year on bureaucracy. There is no contribution to patient care, just more bureaucracy.
  With the multiplicity of GP fundholders, there is no chance of developing what we want to see: an overall strategy for health services in each area. It is impossible for hospitals to plan from one year to the next. Like unfairness, instability is driven into the system by GP fundholding. We do not criticise the patients of GP fundholding; we do not criticise the fundholders. GP fundholding was not the idea of doctors; it was forced on them by the Government and there is still widespread opposition to it among GPs.
  The Secretary of State misrepresented GPs' views. A survey in 1995 by Pulse magazine found that more than three quarters of GPs wanted fundholding abolished; half of all the fundholders wanted the scheme abolished. The GPs joining the fundholding scheme are not giving a vote of confidence to the fundholding scheme; many are simply trying to do the best for their patients in an unfair system. Unless GPs become fundholders, they have no right to choose where patients go for treatment; unless GPs become fundholders, they have no say in the planning of local services. Two thirds of GPs object to fundholding in principle, but half of them said that if other practices in their area started to become fundholders, they would have to apply too.
  Because the fundholding scheme is fundamentally flawed, many doctors across the country are working together to remedy its defects. They are trying to make fairness in an unfair system; they are trying to make sense out of a senseless system. They are struggling to overcome bureaucracy.
  In Hertfordshire, GP fundholders have tried to instil some strategy into the fragmentation of the NHS market. A joint strategy working group there incorporates

  167
  fundholders and non-fundholding GPs, public health, Hertfordshire health agency and the local medical committee. The group has created a Hertfordshire-wide policy where the fundholders agree to purchase within the policy.
  In Winchester, an attempt has been made to mitigate the two-tier system by using fundholders' budgets to pay for operations for the patients of non-fundholders, who would otherwise have to wait until after April for their operations. In Newham, GPs have tried, single-handed, to influence the purchasing decisions of the health authority by combining to create the Newham Innercity Multifund.
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I am grateful that the hon. Lady has at last decided to give way on a constituency point. Does she not understand that if the fundholders had not been in a position to manage their budgets to make savings, the money would not have been available for health care in my constituency? That is the point.
  Ms Harman: No, that is not the point. The situation was unfair: neither the GP fundholders nor the non-fundholders found it acceptable, so they all got together to pool their resources so that the fundholders could help out the non-fundholders in an unfair system. That is an example not of the system working, but of good people on the ground trying to mitigate the unfairness of the Tory system, and I applaud them for that.
  All the examples that I have given show GPs struggling to improve their care for patients despite the problems of fundholding. The Labour party will build on their work and will replace fundholding with GP commissioning— a framework for primary care that will allow all GPs to have a role in shaping local health services.
  All GPs will have substantial new powers and opportunities under Labour's scheme for GP commissioning. First, all GPs will be able to refer their patients to the hospital or specialist they want so that GPs can ensure that their patients are in the right hands without the tangle of red tape. Secondly, Labour offers all GPs an enhanced role in the planning and public health functions of the health authorities. GPs and the health authority will team up to commission health care. There are a number of models, so the relationship between the two can be flexible. But, under our system, health authority commissioning decisions will have genuinely to reflect the views and experiences of local GPs. GPs will have the chance to innovate, while bureaucracy can be cut and strategic planning maintained.
  GP commissioning is, as the Secretary of State acknowledged, already evolving throughout the country: more than 60 commissioning groups are in operation, representing more than 5,000 GPs and covering 11 million patients. The range of commissioning models is still developing. In Nottinghamshire, a commissioning group has been established by 200 GPs, caring for nearly 400,000 patients. They have achieved many improvements in patient care. In Tamworth, first-wave fundholders frustrated with the limitations of fundholding have taken up commissioning instead. Working with non-fundholders and the South Staffordshire health commission, they have created a health commissioning group. They say that commissioning is the way in which the NHS should work in the future.
  168
  The Tory internal market in the NHS creates division. It sets patient against patient, doctor against doctor and hospital against hospital. Today, the Secretary of State has sought to manufacture further division with his motion. He has tried to play fundholding GPs against non-fundholding GPs. He realised that it did not work and so he backed off. His strategy, however, is widely understood. One fundholding GP, Dr. Marcoolyn, observed that the Government
  "are never happier than with divide and rule situations."
  When they cannot find those situations, they create them.
  The debate should not be about dividing GP from GP or fundholders from non-fundholders. It should be about what the Government could be doing to improve primary care, but the Tories are fixated on one divisive ideological model for primary care—GP fundholding. Their only new ideas for primary care are that GPs should take on casualty work to help out the hospitals because of the hospital crisis, and backing private GPs to set the standard for all other GPs. We have, "Dorrell backs private GPs"— an interesting suggestion that he did not introduce in the debate today. Perhaps we shall hear that he has thought better of it.
  The Tories are prisoners of their own policies, and they are afraid to listen to the experience of GPs and patients. Labour is moving forward, listening to GPs and patients and building on the best practice of all GPs to create a primary care service fit for the millennium. The Tory party is not interested in patients, the state of the NHS or the condition of Britain. It is interested only in clinging on to power. The Tory party has, as evidenced today, shut down the business of government and is simply trying to act like a propaganda machine, and is using the House to do so. [Interruption.] In effect, this has been an Opposition—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that an hon. Member used the word "hypocrite" in relation to another hon. Member. If that is correct, will the hon. Member please withdraw the word immediately?
  Mr. Terry Dicks: It was another word, but if the context is offending you, of course I withdraw.
  Hon. Members: What?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would speak slowly and clearly so that I can hear.
  Mr. Dicks: I withdraw the word "hypocrite" and use the words "double standard".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am most grateful.
  Ms Harman: In effect, this has been an Opposition day debate. The tables in British politics have now turned. We are an Opposition preparing for government, and the Conservatives are a Government preparing for opposition.
  5.23 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: It is extremely helpful that we have the opportunity today to expose the differences between the Government and the Labour party

  169
  on GP fundholding. It is about time that we began to hear what the Labour party proposes for health care. I make my contribution to the debate not only as Chairman of the Select Committee on Health but as the Member of Parliament for Broxbourne, and I shall outline the health services that are available to my constituents in Hertfordshire.
  It will not be a surprise to anybody to hear that, during the Select Committee's inquiries into priorities in the national health service—both in the drugs budget and in purchasing—the role of GP fundholders was brought to our attention. In the NHS drugs budget inquiry in 1994, we received evidence that focused on GP fundholders' management of their budgets. We were informed that fundholders had consistently spent considerably less on drugs than had non-fundholders, despite their budget allocation being set on an identical formula. We were given examples. In Mersey, although real costs had increased, 70 per cent. of fundholders had reduced their prescribing costs in relation to their set budgets. In the five months from April to August 1993, Oxford regional health authority published figures that showed a 9 per cent. difference above permitted target growth for fundholders as against non-fundholders.
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Roe: Not at the moment. When I have finished this point, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Lincolnshire showed a 2 per cent. lower rise in drugs costs between fundholders and non-fundholders. In Derbyshire, fundholders underspent their budgets by 1 per cent. Non-fundholders overspent theirs by 8 per cent.
  We were given three reasons for those results: first, the incentive of being able to reinvest the resulting savings for the benefit of patients; secondly, the ability to contract directly for the minimal use of expensive drugs emanating from hospital prescribing; and, thirdly, the self-imposed commitment required in fundholding health plans to show improvement in the quality and value for money of the delivery of health care. I should also add that we were assured that, in attempting to reduce prescribing costs, fundholders accept that rational prescribing does not necessarily mean cheap prescribing, but the financial incentive and necessary commitment make fundholders much more aware of the general headings under which drug expenditure can be reduced. Effective and appropriate prescribing with a value for money principle must be a worthwhile goal that we would all support.
  Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Lady raises a matter about which there is some evidence rather than just opinions. She will be aware that much of the evidence that she quotes is for the first year of fundholding. A significant reduction in prescribing costs was confirmed in a paper published in the British Medical Journal in 1993. Perhaps she has not read the paper that was published in the BMJ on 9 December last year. I quote from the abstract of the conclusions, which says:
  "Early reports of the effectiveness of fundholding in curbing prescribing costs have not been confirmed in this longer term study."
  170
  The claims that she makes were for the first year only, and were due to GP fundholders being given more money at the start. They were not borne out in the longer term.
  Mrs. Roe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing that to my attention, but I should explain to him that, during the course of our inquiry, evidence was given to us that showed that on many occasions doctors were handing over a prescription to a patient to get them out of the surgery, which I understand had frequently been the case in the past, and the emphasis was on more appropriate prescribing—not just the budget itself— to benefit the patient.
  In its purchasing inquiry, the report of which was published in January 1995, the Health Select Committee questioned five fundholders. When asked:
  "What changes have you made to secondary care services since becoming involved in commissioning and what changes are you expecting in the next 3 to 5 years?",
  the East Shropshire GP commissioning group replied— the reply is headed "Impact on Secondary Care"—
  "We have virtually eliminated any waiting time for GP direct access physiotherapy. We have influenced the nature of the outpatient experience for patients, driving towards innovative 'one stop' clinics whereby the patient gets everything necessary for operation work-up done in one afternoon rather than up to four visits to hospital. In the next three years, if we still exist, we would expect to achieve much closer integration of the secondary and primary services, possibly with clinicians moving out from the hospital base into the primary care setting.
  We would hope to achieve better communication between consultants and GPs, better measurement of outcome and better quality standards in the purchasing contracts, based upon following an individual patient through the system (not currently possible on the information available to the district health authority)".
  Surely all of us, especially patients, would approve of that statement.
  I was pleased that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) drew attention to the innovative ideas that we are implementing in Hertfordshire. We feel that we lead the field in the provision of high-quality health care. My Broxbourne constituency contains 15 GP practices with a combined list size of 97,185; 11 practices are fundholding, and have a combined list size of 92,935. GP fundholders comprise 73 per cent. of practices in Broxbourne, and serve 96 per cent. of all patients. Their combined budgets in 1995–96 amount to nearly £15 million.
  I have no doubt that GP fundholders can claim to be at the leading edge of implementation of the Government's policy of a primary care-led national health service. From the start of the scheme, they have developed services in their own surgeries that are convenient for patients, avoid inappropriate use of hospital facilities and provide better value for money. For example, there are outposted out-patient clinics where hospital consultants hold regular clinics in different specialties. That helps to develop GPs' specialist skills, and has frequently led to jointly agreed protocols for hospital referral. Fundholders have also contracted for, or directly employed, physiotherapists, counsellors, dieticians, chiropodists, nurse practitioners and other professionals, and carry out an extended range of minor surgery procedures in their own surgeries.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I ask the hon. Lady a question that my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham

  171
  (Ms Harman) asked the Secretary of State? The hon. Lady, who chairs the Health Select Committee, has seen the Sheffield document that showed two different waiting lists for the same discipline in a certain hospital. Does she accept that a two-tier system operates there?
  Mrs. Roe: I have not seen that document. It has been displayed across the Chamber, but I have not had an opportunity to read it. I was going to make the point that in Hertfordshire there is no two-tier system. If the hon. Gentleman visits my constituency, I will demonstrate to him that the system there is operating very effectively for the benefit of patients. I shall, of course, look at the document, and I am sure that my colleagues on the Select Committee will do the same. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has been in the House long enough to know what the procedures are.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I know the procedures.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman knows the procedures, he should not have crossed the Floor as he just did.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I may say so, I am entitled to sit on the Conservative Benches.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows the procedures of the House full well. He knows that he should not have crossed the Floor of the House with that document.
  Mrs. Roe: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has tried to make his point in a rather forceful way. I listened to what he had to say, and I have told him that, as Chairman of the Select Committee, I shall look at the document when I have an opportunity to do so.
  Mr. David Ashby: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Roe: I am told that a number of other hon. Members wish to speak. I have already given way twice; my hon. Friend will be able to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Through an innovative and flexible approach to health care, GP fundholders in my constituency have now made available an extensive range of diagnostic investigations and screening including blood tests, electrocardiograms, audiology screening before referral to an ear, nose and throat surgeon and ultrasound screening. They are working increasingly closely with hospital colleagues in developing protocols for referrals, treatment and discharge. They have increased the number of community and practice nursing staff to cope with the increased work load as hospital lengths of stay shorten, more day-case surgery is undertaken and the move from secondary to primary care settings accelerates.
  Most GP fundholders place contracts with trusts on a "cost per case" basis, which has led to improved procedure-based costing by trusts and to more timely
  172
  communications. That is very important. Fundholders are also working closely with the Hertfordshire health agency in developing joint approaches to contracting, and in reviewing the appropriateness and effectiveness of different treatments.
  Those of us who represent Hertfordshire constituencies are proud of the way in which the whole local medical profession is delivering health services to our constituents. I assure the hon. Member for Workington that no two-tier system operates in my area: equity of service for all patients is an acknowledged priority. Moreover, there are four total-purchasing pilot projects in the county, which will begin purchasing all health services in April.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Roe: No. I want to finish my speech.
  Given my experience as the Health Select Committee Chairman and my work in the constituency, I believe that GP fundholders are doing an excellent job in putting the interests of their patients first and ensuring that they receive a high-quality service within the NHS. There is no doubt that fundholders are a success, and also very popular with patients. They have set a standard for others to follow, and I believe that they should be encouraged and assisted to flourish and develop in the future.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson: I feel very privileged to speak in the debate, mainly because I have done what the Secretary of State suggested and listened to some of the comments of GPs who are members of the non-fundholding consortium that operates in Nottingham. On the basis of those comments, I shall address the seven deadly simplicities offered by the Government in defence of their policy on fundholding, and the four more sensible options that might result from adopting the same course as the non-fundholding group in Nottingham. It may help hon. Members to know about the non-fundholding consortium's structure. It has an elected committee of 13 general practitioners, who represent more than 200 GPs in the city. Between them, they cover more than 400,000 patients. The consortium has proved so successful that it is contracted to advise Nottingham health authority on its purchasing policies.
  The consortium's objectives were set out about a year ago by Dr. Doug Black, Dr. Alan Birchall and Dr. Ian Trimble in the British Medical Journal. They said that they could
  "collectively offer more time and knowledge to the contracting process while minimising the impact on clinical workload. As a large purchaser with low management costs the group has secured access to quality secondary care which is equitably available to all patients, preventing the development of a local two tier service."
  It is in that context that I shall deal with the first of the simplicities and inaccuracies that the Government offer us.
  The Minister for Health recently said that GP fundholders' savings far outweighed their administrative costs. It was on that basis, he said, that fundholding saves money. Let me refer him and hon. Members to last year's Audit Commission report. Paragraph 37 pointed out that, of the £19 million-worth of savings that had been made by fundholders,

  173
  35 per cent. had been spent on premises and 25 per cent. on office furnishings. One Nottingham GP pointed out in Pulse that the report showed that
  "of the £19 million of fundholders' savings actually spent by 1993/4, less than 20 per cent. was spent directly on patient care. If this pattern continues, fundholders will re-invest less than £13 million of the 1993/4 savings on patient care."
  He added that, if that trend continues
  "fundholding will have resulted in nearly £90 million … being withdrawn from patient care in a single year."
  That is a pattern not of value for money spending, but of a profligate waste of money. In Nottingham, 75 per cent. of general practitioners are non-fundholders. The administrative costs in Nottingham are the lowest in the Trent region. That achievement is a direct result of the non-fundholding consortium's role and contribution.
  The second magical myth that the Government have peddled is that fundholding reduces drug spending. A recently completed study in Nottingham shows, however, that, over a four-year period, fundholding GPs' prescribing bills have been rising faster than those of non-fundholding GPs. It is an objective fact that, in Nottingham, non-fundholding GPs' cost for drugs per prescribing unit is almost £3 less than that of fundholders. Although non-fundholders lay claim to that and view it as a virtue, they also point out that, if the House genuinely wanted to understand the key issues in prescribing costs, it should not simply compare fundholders with non-fundholders but should consider the extent to which any savings are dwarfed by the power and pressure exerted by the pharmaceutical companies in relation to the total drugs bill. A different way of pursuing substantial savings on the drugs bill would be to link hospital and prescribing budgets at district level. That would offer direct incentives for consultants to work alongside their GP colleagues to promote more effective use of budgets.
  The third fantasy that we were offered is that fundholding is popular with GPs. Last year in Nottingham, however, not a single GP moved from non-fundholding to fundholding. A meeting that was scheduled to be held on the invitation of the Health and Safety Executive, to promote fundholding, had to be cancelled because it could not attract GPs to attend—such is the measure of fundholding's popularity. All that must be viewed against the backcloth of nearly five years of direct financial incentives to GPs to opt out of non-fundholding status.
  I did not understand the Secretary of State for Health when he said that the funding arrangements for fundholder GPs did not differ from those for non-fundholder GPs. The consortium in Nottingham tells me clearly that fundholders are paid on an activity basis, that non-fundholders are paid on a capitation basis and that Government rules restrict the way in which non-fundholders can use any savings that they make collectively. The aim of the unequal approach to funding is to drive GPs out of the non-fundholding sector.
  The fourth Government myth is the notion that fundholding is popular with patients. A Which? report last year pointed out that about 59 per cent. of patients did not know whether or not their GP was a fundholder. We can all understand and excuse that: it will not necessarily be
  174
  the biggest issue in a person's life. What was more significant was that the survey accepted that lack of knowledge and asked patients whether they were getting better or worse access to their GP. It found that more fundholding GP patients were having difficulty in gaining such access than non-fundholding GP patients. So the claim that fundholding is popular is itself somewhat dubious and does not stand up.
  The Government then tell us that fundholders influence service provision. In some cases, they do—evidence of a two-tier system can be seen in the Sheffield list—but they do so at the cost of other patients. Ironically, some of this is beginning to boomerang on Government policy. The National Association of Fund Holding Practices recently surveyed its members and found that a high proportion of them were experiencing increasing prices because of demands by trusts, after purchasing budgets had been set. Their members were having to pay increased moneys to purchase the extra services that they wanted. That is hardly a sensible way of dealing with serious, overall reductions in patient waiting lists.
  Again, in Nottingham, the non-fundholding consortium's role has been precisely what the Secretary of State wished: to exercise a collective role in reducing patient waiting lists. It has been astonishingly successful. I identify just three of the sectors where there have been amazing results. At the Queen's medical centre, a teaching hospital in my constituency, the waiting lists for non-urgent, out-patient operations went down considerably. For example, the waiting list for ear, nose and throat operations went down by 30 per cent., in the ophthalmology department it went down by 48 per cent. and in the orthopaedics department it went down by 15 per cent. Overall, waiting lists have gone down by 14 per cent. That is what can be achieved by GPs acting collectively in non-fundholding consortiums.
  The sixth claim that the Government make is that fundholding promotes change through market forces. Again, the evidence from fundholders is that it takes a huge amount of time to negotiate contracts. Many of them are simply signing copycat contracts that have been written by the hospital trust. Fundholding has not shifted the basis of leverage in terms of innovation. GPs tell me that, although they have a sense of what they can do in terms of patient care and meeting patient needs, if they are drawn into individual contract negotiations, they do not have the time or expertise to view the broader picture and to assimilate epidemiological evidence. That task must be done at a collective level.
  The seventh, and the last, of the fabulous myths and simplicities that we have been offered is that fundholding ensures that the NHS is primary care led. The simple fact is that, in negotiations between a GP and a hospital, an individual practice is dwarfed by the power of the large providers, and their ability to set the agenda.
  In Nottingham, the non-fundholding consortium proposes that an elected group of GPs should share the responsibility for Nottingham's budget with the executive of Nottingham health commission. That would give an innovative, primary-care edge to the whole purchasing process.
  The real excitement about the debate that we should be having lies in the possibilities beyond the fundholding absurdity. Again, Nottingham has come up with an exciting idea—that of a total commissioning project based

  175
  on four assumptions. The first is the shared fiscal responsibility that I have already mentioned. That would be not an abrogation of responsibility, not a "grab it for yourself and run as far as you can" notion of responsibility, but the establishment of a common and collective responsibility for commissioning, in the interests of all patients.
  The second requirement is that the absurdities and inconsistencies between the funding offered to different GPs should be removed. The consortium wants us to understand the need to accelerate the move towards capitation-based budgets at regional, district and practice level.
  Thirdly, the House should acknowledge the value of allowing for virement between budgets at a district level. If drug budgets are overspent, money now automatically comes out of next year's health service allocation. There is already a direct linkage, but virement at a local level would offer incentives for consultants to work with GPs to get the maximum out of the budget, in the interests of all their patients.
  Finally, the group asks for funding for information technology advances. It is a recognition of the fact that if the different elements can act collectively, they can get far more out of the system, in the interests of patients, than if they all set off down separate paths.
  The group has carried out costings for the project, showing that there would be an overall saving of £3 million, compared with any equivalent move to push an extension of fundholding. That is the local Nottingham advantage that would arise simply from any such approach. If we extended the idea across the country, to the 60 or more commissioning units set up by non-fundholding practices, the benefits would be spread even more widely.
  We must recognise that the choice is between being stuck in a system that will increasingly confer benefits only on the few, and the opportunity of delivering substantial benefits to the many. The new approach that I have described would not be a question of "no change"; it would bring substantive change for the vast majority of people and prospective patients, and we must consider that.
  Of course Labour must scrap GP fundholding, but the real debate—the debate that we should be having now— is about how to replace it with a national programme that incorporates the visionary lessons, and a far more efficient system, that are already being learnt both in Nottingham and by other GP non-fundholding commissioning groups across the country. The challenge is to weld those into a national strategy to restore the structure of a single-tier national health service.
  5.53 pm
  Dame Jill Knight: I am glad to have the opportunity to make a brief speech in support of the motion. Fundholding has a proven record of success, and it is one more milestone on the road of the Government's achievements in modernising, improving and enhancing our British health service. It cannot be said often enough that our health service today is better than it has ever been in the whole of its history.
  Fundholding has indeed done all that the motion says it has. Fundholding doctors know from experience how advantageous it has been for patients, in enhancing primary care and in giving doctors the tools with which to improve their practices.
  176
  Doctors who have learnt the advantages at first hand have been talking to their friends, and fundholding is soaring. At the beginning of 1991–92 only 7 per cent. of practices were fundholding. In two months' time the proportion will be 51 per cent. That alone, quite apart from anything that my right hon. and hon. Friends or I may say, is a clear sign of how much the GPs like fundholding systems.
  Fundholding has brought so many advantages to patients that I have time to list only a few of them. The range of treatment now available has now improved so much since fundholding started. The quality of care has improved and, as the Opposition agree, waiting lists are much shorter. There has been a reduction in bureaucracy, and services such as chiropody, which is most important for elderly people and makes all the difference to their lives and to whether they can get about without pain and discomfort, have improved.
  The minor operations done by doctors in their practices since fundholding began have also helped a great deal. I could also say much about dermatology, because I was closely involved for a long time as the president of one of the groups of people in my area who suffer from skin diseases. Treatment for all such conditions and many others are now available within practices.
  That has made a tremendous difference to the burdens that hospitals have to bear. Hospitals today are carrying out more and more complicated operations and treatments, and they need all the alleviation of their work load that can be provided. Fundholding has made an important contribution there. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) said, doctors can now negotiate directly with hospital consultants in a way that was not possible before. That, too, has been a help.
  Practice nurses are important, because their presence has improved primary care. I was amazed when I learned that since fundholding was introduced the number of practice nurses has increased by 261 per cent. That is marvellous news. I spoke to a practice nurse recently, and she was eulogistic in her support of what had happened in fundholding practices.
  Doctors have been able to use the savings to improve their waiting rooms, and in other small ways whereby patients' comfort can be increased. That is most important. Fundholding has given doctors a power over their own domain that they did not have before.
  I have always felt that those nearest the point where money is spent, those who know the score and know the specific problems, should decide how money should be allocated. That is equally true of school budgets. Those, too, are better decided by heads and governors than by education committees. Doctors running practices know better than health authorities where money is most needed and how it should be spent.
  The Labour party disagrees with all that—at least, I think that it does. It is sometimes difficult to figure out what Labour Members are really saying—especially now we know that, although the motion uses the words of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the Labour party apparently proposes to vote against what she said.

  177
  Labour's response to the fact that the treatment of patients is very much better than it was is absolutely typical. Labour cannot deny that patients are receiving much better treatment. Indeed, Opposition Members are not advancing that argument—
  Mr. Hinchliffe rose—
  Dame Jill Knight: I said that I would make a brief speech. The Opposition are whingeing and whining that patients of doctors who are not fundholders are disadvantaged. The argument is not that patients of fundholding practices are getting a bad deal. Those patients are getting such a good deal that it infuriates the Labour party because the service for everybody else is not improving as well.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: They are getting no service. That is the problem.
  Dame Jill Knight: I understand that constant attention is paid to ensuring that money is as fairly allocated as possible between fundholding practices and non-fundholding practices. The difference is that fundholding practices are managing their money much better.
  Conservative Members want the benefits that patients of fundholders receive to be spread all over the place. There is no absolute ban on the number of doctors who can become fundholders. There is a stipulation about the size of the practice, but many doctors have overcome that problem by amalgamating with other practices. The Government have not said, as one would think from listening to Labour Members, that nobody else is allowed to become a fundholder because the number is limited. Conservative Members are trying to spread far wider the undoubted benefits of fundholding, which is absolutely right and proper.
  The Opposition will have problems if they rubbish fundholding. Although their argument today has not been that fundholding is wrong, they still want to get rid of it. That is extraordinary. The Labour party should recognise that the British Medical Association has given fundholding the seal of approval for good housekeeping, and patients most certainly approve of it.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) could not wait to hear the rest of the debate and has already left the Chamber as I wanted to raise a particular point with him. He said that patients were not very keen on fundholding. If patients are receiving so much better treatment from fundholding doctors, why should they not be keen on the system? They are very keen indeed.
  The support for fundholding among doctors who have experienced it is undeniable. The National Audit Office has approved of it; the Public Accounts Committee has said what a good system it is. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) seemed to imply that the King's Fund did not approve of the system. I wonder whether she has read the 1994 report which evaluated NHS reforms and described fundholding as one of the major successes of the reforms. So how can the hon. Lady suggest that the King's Fund is not in favour of fundholding?
  178
  It is clear that the Labour party will meet strong opposition to its policy to abolish fundholding. I wonder whether it will include that policy in its manifesto at the next election.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: Yes.
  Dame Jill Knight: Good—that will mean many thousands more votes for us. What a good idea that is. [Interruption.] Labour Members are stuck with it now. They will have to put it in the party's manifesto. Will they argue with the BMA, doctors, patients and the King's Fund? They should ask themselves whether all those people can be wrong. Labour is in a tizzy—it is in a mess.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Peckham has left the Chamber as I should have liked to draw her attention to the many instances in her speech when she seemed to be facing both ways. For instance, she complained that money which ought to be used for patients was wasted in fundholding practices on management, but at the same time she had to admit that those patients got better care than any patients of non-fundholding practices. She cannot have it both ways, although she loves to try.
  I do not know what the Labour party intends to do, although it has proposed some alternatives—joint commissioning came up again today. So far as I can gather, there is little support for that among doctors who happen to be in the Labour party. I read that the Labour party is suggesting shadow budgets. Labour Members are so used to being shadows that they advocate them even for doctors. Long may they continue being shadows.
  If the Labour party removes real money—I understand that that is what having shadow budgets means—real control will go as well. Running a medical practice is not a game of Monopoly, and Labour Members had better understand that. Other Members wish to speak, so I will conclude my speech. I strongly support the motion.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey): Anybody without prior knowledge of the subject who heard this debate would have thought that it was a dialogue of the deaf and would probably have left without being further enlightened. Although the benefits and disbenefits of fundholding have been cited, nobody so far has explained what fundholding is intended to achieve. I shall describe why I think that the debate has so far been a dialogue of the deaf.
  The position of my right hon. and hon. Friends is clear from the amendment that we tabled. Although Madam Speaker did not select it for debate, it is on the Order Paper and sets out what we believe. There are problems with the other two expressions of party opinion. The Government motion, which is fine so far as it goes, does not admit that there is anything wrong with the system at all.
  The Labour party's amendment, which rightly points to the failures of the system, does not specifically address the question asked by, for example, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). Does it imply the abolition of fundholding? I have read the Labour party policy document and I know that it proposes the replacement of fundholding with commissioning, but the question of abolition is not answered. Fundholding GPs would want to know the answer to that question.

  179
  Despite this rather unsophisticated debate, it is none the less obvious why there is such a difference of view. It is clear that the system that the Government set up to devolve power to GPs by giving them budgets enabling them to buy their own health care for a specific list of activities—obviously not forms of acute care and the like—has been welcomed by some GPs, who see it as an advantage. It is also abundantly clear that the system has produced innovation and a knock-on effect on the way in which other practices are organised.
  Disparity of treatment in some areas—described in the document to which the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) referred, and which, courtesy of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), has found its way to the other side of the Chamber—has arisen because when hospitals are deciding who is first on the list for treatment, they have to make a choice between keeping fundholding practices happy and keeping the local health authority happy. Non-fundholding GP practices do not have the individual clout of fundholding practices as customers in the marketplace. For example, if GP fundholders do not get put first in the list, they may take their business to another provider or trust. Therefore, the trust will lose out and its budget and prospects will be reduced. That is why there is a difference.
  It may be true that the formula for allocating money in terms of patients is more or less similar, but the providers are dealing with two different sets of people—GPs, who are buying services directly, and the local health authority, which is the indirect purchaser. The health authority is likely to continue to be a purchaser, as the local health authority for the place where the trust is will probably be providing either community care services or acute services from a hospital. It is quite explicable as to why there are benefits for many patients and for fundholders. Fundholders get to the top of the list in some places, even though that is not written into the system and is not part of the defined difference between fundholding and non-fundholding GPs.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) made a good speech and asked some pertinent questions. He alluded to the fact that proper criticisms can be made of the fundholding system. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) visited the Mid Devon Family Doctors commissioning group in Cullompton last autumn. One of the doctors at that practice, Michael Dixon, wrote to me enclosing the group's document. The introduction illustrates why at present there is a two-tier system. If the Government would accept only that, we could make some progress.
  Mr. Milburn: The Minister of State does accept that.
  Mr. Hughes: He has certainly defended the system, but he has not formally accepted—so far as I am aware—that there is a two-tier system. The introduction to the Mid Devon group's document states:
  "We are quite happy with the pluralist system of purchasing, which allows for GP commissioning groups and fundholders, but the unnecessary and unreasonable bias in favour of fundholding must end. No-one doubts that historically fundholders have been over-funded. Furthermore, they, but not GP commissioning groups, are provided gratis with money for management and computers from outside funds (approximately £35,000 per practice). It is also unfair that fundholders are able to substantially increase their expenditure on practice staff over non-fundholders by committed overspends on their staff budgets. It is neither fair nor ethical that underspends
  180
  (which averaged £59,000 per practice in Devon last year), can be spent on furniture, equipment and buildings to the financial benefit of the practice and the partners themselves."
  According to that document, 99 per cent. of fundholders in Devon use underspend money in that way. The national figure is 75 per cent. The document continues:
  "Doubly absurd are the present rules whereby the local Health Authority (and thus indirectly the patients of non-fundholding practices) have to pay out for any fundholding practice that overspends."
  That is true. If a fundholding practice overspends, the tab gets picked up by the health authority, which has to divide the rest of its budget between other practices. That is clearly unfair, and the Government ought to recognise that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) received a letter from Dr. Mark Beer of Chumleigh in my hon. Friend's constituency. Dr. Beer quoted from a letter from Dr. Rosemary MacRae of Rainford, St. Helens, that was published in the December issue of Financial Pulse, entitled:
  "Why should GP fundholding savings become 'assets'?"
  Dr. MacRae's letter states:
  "I regret I was not appalled to read that a retiring partner is entitled to a share of assets bought from fundholding savings … I merely read it with cynicism and resignation.
  It seems unjust that money allocated as such can be 'saved' and invested in assets that become the property of the GP. It suggests too much money was allocated in the first place, the services bought were not comprehensive, or there has been inordinate waste in the way patient care has been financed in the past."
  Dr. Beer wrote to my hon. Friend, saying:
  "Would your Health Spokesperson be interested in this …? I am appalled by the implications as I am sure most of the population would be. There should be questions in the House!"
  I have now posed that question in the House, and I hope the Minister will respond to it. Can he explain how certain people can stack up assets by buying that advantage while others lose out because the total amount of health service money allocated in any area is, by definition, limited?
  There is no secret about the Liberal Democrats' position and policy. I believe that the Minister has been sent a copy of the policy document approved at our conference last autumn and entitled, "Building on the Best of the NHS". The document sets out our proposals for unifying the service in the way we have set down in our amendment. Very simply, the document states that there should be
  "a unified system of funding for all GPs … All GPs would be allocated funds by their joint commissioning agencies on the same basis as the joint commissioning agency are allocated funds by the Department of Health."
  That could happen in one of three ways for the individual doctor and practice. First, the doctor would be able to manage his budget independently, although subject to strict accreditation and the expenditure of annual savings in accordance with plans agreed with the health authority. The important thing about that is that GPs and the health authority must agree on a way forward. Secondly, the doctor could manage his funds as part of a consortium. Thirdly, if those options were not acceptable, the local health board could be asked to manage the budget directly as the GP's agent.
  There are two fundamental planks on which we will go forward. First, we need negotiation between the health authority and GPs as to what the plan for the area should

  181
  be within which GPs work. GPs must also retain the right to buy out of the local authority area if they wish to do so. Secondly, fundholding would therefore be able to continue. In answer to the hon. Member for Edgbaston, we would not propose to abolish fundholding, and she is right to ask Labour the same question.
  The Government must come clean about the fact that the present system is unfair, even if—although I am rather sceptical about this—they may not have intended that to be so. Labour must come clean as to whether it would abolish fundholding. We believe that there is a way forward which recognises the increased power of GPs, but requires them to be partners with all the other GPs and the health authority in their area in planning the provision for all of the services that they provide as part of the primary care service in this country.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: When I first stood to become a Member of Parliament in 1987, I fought the election on the proud boast that the Government had not only replaced health funding lost through inflation, but had gone on to spend an extra 50 per cent. per annum on the health service. Today, that figure is 72 per cent. over and above inflation.
  I could not help thinking, however, that that increased money did not seem to have the right effect for my constituents, who, as patients, felt helpless in the face of the vast monolith of bureaucracy. It seemed to me that the most obvious thing was to try to get the clout in obtaining health care as close to the patients as possible. That is precisely what fundholding practices are all about, and the concept is central to the NHS reforms.
  We have heard time and time again today the allegations about a two-tier NHS. I wish to bring the House's attention to the independent evaluation of fundholding conducted by Professor Glennerster of the London School of Economics, who said categorically that arguing for the abolition of fundholding on the ground that it causes a two-tier service is perverse. He said:
  "It is akin to the philosophical paradox that equality in human needs can best be achieved by starving everyone. Equality is best pursued by seeking to maximise opportunities, not to minimise them—levelling up not down".
  That is precisely the point.
  The particular opportunity to which I wish to draw attention—very rapidly—is obtaining service locally. When I became a Member of Parliament, the Gravesend and North Kent hospital was being reorganised—along with two hospitals in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn)—under the old-style NHS, the idea being to centralise departments.
  When I asked how that helped my constituents who had to travel a long way, the answer was, "Consultants must be all together, nice and cosy. Your patients must travel long distances at great inconvenience, and queue up for their appointments. As consultants, our time is more important than that of the general public who are to be served." Basically, it was the "We know best" syndrome.
  Consultants said that the best health care could come only from centralised hospital provision via consultants, but that idea was completely blown when I went to see the Marshlands practice, the first fundholding practice in
  182
  my constituency. I was fascinated to find that it had contracted for a consultant physician to come in once a week, a surgical consultant to come in fortnightly, and a neurological consultant to come in monthly. I asked how that could be possible in the light of what the consultants had said. I was told, "It is simple. If we wave a cheque, the consultants come running. They are just like anyone else. They respond to funding."
  What happened in that case? The patients were seen by experts in the local surgery in their own village. It took less time, cost less, and the practice found it had a 50 per cent. saving in the budget. What happened to the saving? It went towards clearing the hip replacement queue in the practice. All the patients in the queue were dealt with immediately. It also went on investment in equipment and skills, so yet further patients were seen in-house without the need to travel long distances to hospitals.
  For example, the practice bought cystoscopy equipment, the consultant handles it locally, and the treatments are done locally. Minor operations are done locally. Investigations such as computerised tomography scanning and those using exercise electrocardiographs are done locally. As a result, that surgery alone—there are many more now—is seeing 25 per cent. more patients, and seeing them faster. Fundholding is for the greater convenience of the patients. In the process, the practice has unclogged hospital waiting lists in our area.
  In the constituency of Gravesham, more than half of my constituents are served by fundholding practices. If fundholding were abolished, patients and GPs would be dismayed. I intend to circulate the speech of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), because she demolished Opposition education policy last week, and she is demolishing their health policy this week. That is a gift sent from St. Paul's girls school—the well-known public school—to the Tories.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: GP fundholding is an untested political experiment, so for this debate I thought I might peruse the literature for its effects—old habits die hard. Interestingly, while there is much in the literature, most of it is no more than assertion and opinion. It lacks any scientific rigour or fact. I will deal with some of those assertions, but then I hope to come to the few facts we have.
  I gather from the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) that general practice fundholding brings medicine closer to the patients. I find it ludicrous to suggest that the fact that one holds a budget makes one closer to the patient. However, there is just as good an explanation of something that makes one more distant from the patient. The doctor-patient relationship is based on trust. Once one imposes a financial constraint on it, that trust is lost, and, if anything, the relationship is further apart.
  The Secretary of State and others said that there were new initiatives in GP fundholding, thereby decrying non-fundholding practices, as though they do not have new initiatives. However, the so-called new initiatives in fundholding are all completely untested and untried. That was one of the great problems. Are they of value? Are they appropriate? That is something we have not even begun to consider.

  183
  A third claim about GP fundholding is that it will help us to achieve the priorities for the health service. That was claimed by Geoffrey Scaife, the chief executive of the national health service in Scotland. I find such claims ludicrous. The priorities include cancer, accidents and coronary artery disease. A GP might see three cancer patients in his or her practice each year, so how on earth can he or she make choices about priorities and how those should be delivered by fundholding? That is ludicrous.
  The fourth claim made by the Secretary of State was that somehow or other GP fundholding is more efficient. On that we have some evidence—no more assertions. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, touched on that. She sought to describe how GP fundholders have reduced their drugs budget more significantly than non-fundholders. There might be reasons why that happens throughout general practices that become fundholding. Time does not allow me to go into detail about why the costs and amounts they were given might have been overestimated. Much activity was also underestimated in the practices.
  Let us apply the argument to the drugs budget, and the evidence that fundholders are more effective. We must not talk about assertions, beliefs and political dogma—let us look at the evidence.
  There was some initial evidence from the British Medical Journal, which I quoted earlier. I saw the Minister laughing when the BMJ was mentioned, as though that made the evidence invalid. He ought to know that it is a scientific, not a house, journal. The conclusion of the original paper from Bradlow and Coulter in the BMJ edition 1993;307:1186–9 was:
  "Fundholding has helped to curb increases in prescribing costs".
  That was the conclusion mentioned by the hon. Member for Broxbourne.
  There were many reasons why that might have been so, however, and the curb in increases might have fallen off, so a follow-up study was carried out, which was reported in volume 311 of the BMJ on 9 December 1995—again by Brown, Surender, Bradlow, Coulter and Doll. Their conclusion was:
  "Early reports of the effectiveness of fundholding in curbing prescribing costs have not been confirmed in this longer term study".
  That is the evidence, never mind any more assertions. That shows us that the needs and pressures of patients are the main determinants of clinical practice—not the organisation and the budgets, but the necessity for managing and treating patients in the best way. That is what we can conclude from that report.
  Fundholding is bureaucratic, two-tier and grossly unfair, and the quicker we abolish it the better.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Bob Dunn: Every Conservative Member should issue a press release headed, "Labour will destroy success". The commitment today from the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) that GP fundholding will be abolished by a future Labour Government, in the unlikely event of that ever occurring, has to be headline news in every constituency where fundholding has been successful.
  Last July and August, I undertook a survey in the communities of Longfield and New Barn in my constituency, where one of the first local practices to
  184
  receive fundholding status is situated. Three hundred and eighteen households replied by post saying that they supported fundholding and were happy with it. Only one household returned a form saying that it was not. That speaks volumes.
  Of course, it is incumbent on Opposition Members to say where they are coming from. Every speech from an Opposition Member has been from a two-tier opponent. They are elected here to represent their constituents, but 200 of them are sponsored by trade unions, including the hon. Member for Peckham and her number two, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), who is on the Front Bench now. They are sponsored by the health union, Unison.
  The Labour Front Bench receives between £200,000 and £300,000 a year to fund the party's health team from Unison, which is opposed to our reforms, as it has been since 1979. So, when Opposition Members speak, I have to speculate whether they are speaking for their constituents or for the health union that sponsors them.
  I am still waiting for the hon. Member for Peckham to honour her pledge that
  "the information will all be placed in the Register of Members' Interests"—
  meaning how much Labour receives from Unison. It was not placed on the Register in November or December or January, or, so far, in February. I know that the hon. Lady has been busy lately with one or two internal problems, but she ought to honour her commitment. There is no point in Labour Members looking at the ceiling for inspiration, because they will get none. Her commitment is in black and white.
  The Labour party is committed to abolishing NHS trusts, removing control of our hospitals and health service from a local level and taking powers from GPs, because, as ever, it wants to centralise NHS decision making. By removing powers from local doctors, it would create a wasteful and unnecessary tier of bureaucracy. It attacks NHS managers, while supporting the increase in bureaucracy that its own proposals would create.
  It is not only Conservative Members who are in favour of fundholding; doctors and patients also favour it. But let us return to what the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), said in The Observer of 19 March 1995. She said that the Labour party
  "remained firmly opposed to fundholding"
  For her, the abolition of fundholding was "not up for consultation". That was the case then, as it is now.
  Fundholding doctors are able to pioneer improvements in patient care locally. They demand improved performance from hospitals in their communities, and use their budgets more efficiently, ploughing savings back into improved patient care. The facts speak for themselves. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), I shall make sure that every GP in my community receives a copy of my speech and that of the hon. Member for Peckham, so that they will know once and for all that Labour will close down GP fundholding for ever. However, it will not get the chance.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: When the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) has calmed down and gathered his senses, perhaps he will read my speech and understand why I am opposed to the consequences of fundholding in my constituency.

  185
  I am pleased that the Minister for Health and the Secretary of State for Health are here, because they know full well that we have concrete evidence of a two-tier system at Pinderfields hospital, the main NHS provider in my area, that has arisen directly from fundholding. They know the simple reasons for that.
  Wakefield health authority has overspent its budget for patient services by £483,000, that being the last figure available. At the same time, up to the end of November, the last available public figure, GP fundholding shows an underspend of £749,000 on the hospital and community services budget. The Pinderfields trust contract from Wakefield health authority projected 5,100 more finished consultant episodes than the current contract—5,100 people who, rightly, have been treated at Pinderfields hospital against the existing overspend. Fundholders have 1,500 more than the contract—against an underspend.
  The policy of Pinderfields and Wakefield health authority is, rightly, treatment on the basis of patients' needs, but consultants at the hospital are, understandably, choosing to treat the patients they know that they will get paid for.
  I spoke yesterday, with my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), to a highly respected consultant, whom I have known for many years, and who has worked at Pinderfields for nearly 30 years. I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State are listening. He said that the consultants have the management figures, know the reality of the existing overspend and know where the money is coming from. He continued: "Most of them do private work. They wouldn't do that for nothing, and they won't do NHS work for nothing."
  If there are two budgets, and the patients have similar needs, consultants will pick the patient from the budget from which they know that they will get paid. They are picking the patients from fundholders because their budget is underspent. They can get paid for treating those patients. That is why in Wakefield—and elsewhere, including Winchester, Salisbury and other places represented by Tory Members—a two-tier system is arising directly from the existence of GP fundholding.
  We have been told that GPs are choosing fundholding. I have talked to GPs. I will give the Secretary of State the name of a non-fundholding GP who told me that he is being forced into fundholding because his patients are getting a second-rate deal because of the situation at Pinderfields hospital.
  I do not blame the hospital, the health authority or fundholding GPs. I blame the Government, because they have undermined fundamental principles that have underpinned the national health service since the 1940s— equity, fairness in treatment and the idea of treatment according to patients' needs. Fundholding completely undermines those principles. That is why I oppose the whole process.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. Henry McLeish: I have torn up the speech that I had intended to give because there has not been a debate in the House recently in which the Government have conceded so much to the Opposition in so short a time. [Interruption.] I understand the instinctive reaction of Conservative Members, but it has been truly extraordinary.
  186
  We are puzzled about why this debate was called. This is a Government debate on health, an unusual event in the House. They could pick the subject and the timing to try to defend, laughably, their record. We are still puzzled about what the true intention was. They can shake their heads and laugh in an agitated manner, but the Government have screwed up on a health debate for the second time in two weeks. The proper epitaph for the debate, as Oscar Wilde might have said, is, "To lose one debate, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness." That sums up the Government's predicament.
  I must be specific and make sure that when GPs and the public read about the debate, they know what the Government have conceded. It has not been a happy afternoon for the Secretary of State. He may have been cajoled into the debate by the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney). It is a political issue and it has blown up in their faces.
  First, the Secretary of State has conceded that there is a two-tier service under GP fundholding. He tried to wriggle out of every question that was posed to him about that, but the only logical conclusion was that he not only condoned GP fundholding and a two-tier service but was actively encouraging it.
  Secondly—this will be the issue for the 60 per cent. of GPs and the 60 per cent. of patients not covered by fundholding—the motion, despite the attempts to play around with its words, was deeply offensive, insulting, aggravating and provocative to nearly half the nation's GPs. It is offensive to me, but that is less important than the fact that it is offensive to GPs.
  The so-called one-nation Secretary of State for Health has conceded on the Floor of the House that fundholding is about not one nation but two nations—two types of GPs. GP fundholders are destined for the first division and the rest for the second division. The only distinction between the Government and us is that we want all GPs to be in the premier league. It seems inconceivable that we should have a Government who want to have two classes of patients and two classes of GPs. That is essentially what they have agreed this afternoon.
  The third issue for the Secretary of State, which was thrown up by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) earlier in the debate, was the headline "Dorrell backs private GPs" in Pulse on Saturday 18 November 1995. Where does the Secretary of State stand on some of those issues? He pretends that he is part of the right-wing rabble that has concocted some of the Government's health policies, but privately, in debates at the universities, he is a one-nation health spokesman. He cannot have it both ways. He must tell us why he wants to support private GPs. His statement that the
  "private sector will set a standard that the population of patients will very properly expect the NHS to match"
  was offensive to most GPs.
  Will the Secretary of State return to the Dispatch Box and tell GPs, as the Government are trying to tell teachers and schools, that they are all incompetent—that none of them fulfils the standards that the national health service has set? I suspect that he will not, because it is wrong to attack almost 50 per cent. of GPs along with 50 per cent. of GP fundholders, who do an excellent job on behalf of patients. The hallmarks of Tory health policy as it affects primary health care are that it is particular, exclusive, divisive and partisan.

  187
  The debate has defined the Government's position on primary health care; they have not moved on. All the contributions by Conservative Members, including the speech by the Secretary of State, were about right hon. and hon. Members who want to be stuck in time. The debate has moved on in the health service, in primary health care and in fundholding, and it has moved on politically.
  Mr. Dorrell: We are back in 1990.
  Mr. McLeish: The Secretary of State cannot have it like that, because the debate is moving on.
  Let me do some more defining. We are concerned about the challenges of today and tomorrow, but Conservative Members are still concerned with the problems of yesterday. They are prisoners of their political propaganda, and it is a tragedy.
  Ms Harman: No; it is not.
  Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend says that it is not, but I shall be more generous than she has been from a sedentary position.
  General practitioners seek leadership from the Government, but they get a Government who table a motion that merely congratulates 50 per cent. of GPs and excludes all other GPs in the primary health care service.
  Mr. Galbraith: It is a disgrace and a scandal.
  Mr. McLeish: It is. The Government cannot wriggle off the hook that they are now on because of their incompetent performance tonight.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham said earlier, we do not want to pick out GP fundholders or people involved in locality commissioning and set one against another. That would be destructive and wasteful, but it is the hallmark of the Government.
  When the Minister of State replies, why does he not congratulate Dr. Aneez Esmail, a commissioning GP in Manchester who has 70 per cent. generic prescribing, way above the average for fundholders, saving the NHS thousands of pounds? Dr. Esmail has set up
  "a practice based counselling, acupuncture and homeopathy service, a joint clinic with a consultant psychiatrist, a Tele-medicine link clinic with a dermatologist and a drug rehabilitation clinic."
  That shows that there is no monopoly of wisdom in fundholding in progress, innovation or ideas.
  Why are the Government so partisan and blinkered that they cannot lift their eyes above a policy that they adopted two or three years ago, which they are now trying to use to divide GPs and as a political stick to beat everyone else who might not whole heartedly endorse it?
  We know that the Minister of State will not praise in his speech anyone who is not a GP fundholder. The tragedy about 16 years of Conservative Government is that, once wedded to an argument, it is impossible to get them ungripped from it. It is a tragedy that we cannot make progress.
  188
  It has not always been like that. Take one of the Secretary of State's early speeches. As long ago as 30 July 1995, an article appeared entitled "Dorrell freezes Bottomley's NHS reforms"—God, some of them needed freezing. It stated:
  "In his speech to the Conservative Political Centre Summer School in Cambridge, Mr. Dorrell promised development of the family doctor service—the 'jewel in the crown' of the NHS—and stressed that the Government's favoured GP fundholding scheme 'was not the only model'."
  Well, well—saying one thing and doing another.
  Tonight the Secretary of State supported a partisan, particular, divisive motion. A few months ago, he said that fundholding was not the only model. The Secretary of State needs to convince us that there are other models and that he is thinking about them.
  Mr. Dorrell indicated dissent.
  Mr. McLeish: I was in the Chamber for the whole debate, and I did not hear much praise being lavished on non-fundholding GPs.
  I return to the speech of 29 July 1995, reported in the article of 30 July 1995. The Secretary of State said that there would be
  "no preconceptions, no closed minds, no rejections of ideas because they weren't invented here".
  He said those words far from the House, but some day he must be brought to account for suggesting one thing at a Conservative party summer school and then using completely opposite words in the House this afternoon. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, may I say that I have noticed an increasing tendency for a sub-debate to take place between the two Front Benches? I would prefer that to stop.
  Mr. McLeish: The Government debated GP fundholding and lavished praise on GP fundholders but, while definitive policies are being poured down everyone's throats, we find the following quotation from a speech by the Secretary of State in a press release entitled "Department of Health/Looking After Health in the New Millennium", issued on 8 January 1996, four weeks ago:
  "The time is now ripe to take this process further. I have therefore asked Gerry Malone to lead an examination of the options for the future of primary care within the NHS."
  We have not heard much about that in the House. Perhaps the Minister of State will elaborate. He has been charged with the responsibility of considering primary health care. It creates the impression that he may want to consider other options.
  Mr. Malone: Is it a crime?
  Mr. McLeish: I think it is a crime if those words are used in press releases issued by the Department and the Government pretend in the House that there is only one favoured option and that those who do not subscribe to it are second-class GPs and second-class patients. That is why we are angry about the sheer hypocrisy of the Government.

  189
  The Government want GPs to believe that the Conservative party stands for a one-nation health service. Every action, every comment in the House, undermines that idea. It is ridiculous that, in 1996, four years away from a new millennium, the Government are bogged down—becalmed. They do not know what to do because they are fixated with a one-party policy for the future of primary health care.
  In his reply, the Minister should convey to us that he is not fixated by one idea to the exclusion of others and he should try to convince us that he has moved on. If the Government do not move on, when Labour is in government in a few months' time we shall certainly have a one-nation primary health care system that treats all patients and all GPs with equal respect and fairness.
  6.47 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): That was pretty thin gruel from the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), trying to make a case out of very little.
  This has been an astonishing debate, in which the Opposition blamed Ministers for coming to the Dispatch Box to speak about Government policy. We have now reached the extraordinary position where an Opposition Front Bencher, from a sedentary position, was worried about what was happening to the national health service when Ministers were at the Dispatch Box, not running the health service from Richmond house. I am glad that Opposition Members believe that we are so effective from day to day, but the purpose of coming to the House was to concentrate on fundholding, a part of the Government's policy that has been criticised by the Opposition.
  Before the debate we did not know what the Labour party was saying about fundholding; now we do. The soft soap that we have heard Labour spokesmen deliver to GP fundholders when trying to cosy up to them to suggest that there will be no abolition—the soft words of change, and promises to restructure budgets—has now been replaced with the harsh words of abolition. If the debate did one favour to the public debate about fundholding and the health service, it was to clarify Labour's position.
  When the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) was out of the Chamber, the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) made wild commitments on her behalf. He shouted, "Hear, hear," and was on record as saying that abolition of fundholding would appear in the Labour party's manifesto before the next election. I wonder whether the hon. Lady will endorse those comments. She will not, so I do not know where that leaves the hon. Gentleman. If the Labour party's claims that it will abolish fundholding are not reflected in the manifesto that it will put before the public, what words will it use to describe this debate?
  The Labour party advanced three arguments to support its opposition to fundholding. The first was the absurd old chestnut that it is a two-tier system. It is not a two-tier system, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did not say that it was.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Malone: I have debated that subject with the hon. Gentleman before. Last time I challenged him to
  190
  produce evidence of two-tierism in his constituency and he said that he would name names and present cases. However, we have heard nothing about it. We examined one case that he presented and we found no basis to it.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I ask the Minister to look at the Wakefield situation. He knows as well as I do—as I said in my brief contribution to the debate—that it is a two-tier system. If he comes to Wakefield, I will introduce him to GPs and to consultants who will show him at first hand why there is a two-tier system, for the reasons that I gave a few moments ago.
  Mr. Malone: I should not have bothered giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I did so during the last debate and I asked him to write to me about specific cases. However, he did not bother to do that, so I shall treat his recent invitation in that light.
  The position is clearly set out in the 1991 guidance on fundholding, which I shall repeat for the benefit of the House. In 1991, guidance was agreed with the medical profession which, according to the Labour party, is unanimously opposed to the process. That guidance stated:
  "Common waiting lists should apply for all urgent cases and no hospital should offer contracts to one purchaser which would disadvantage patients of another".
  Labour Members persistently and obdurately refuse to understand the next point. The guidance continued:
  "However, hospitals can offer spare capacity to anyone who wishes to purchase it. If GP fundholders or health authorities choose to purchase some of the spare capacity so that patients may be seen more quickly, this does not disadvantage other non-urgent patients whose waiting times are unaffected".
  If GP fundholding and conventional purchasing are exercised in different ways, there will be different results. However, that does not undermine the equity of the national health service for one second.
  Ms Harman: Will the Minister admit that the 1991 executive letter expressly allows two-tier waiting lists for non-urgent cases? Will he repeal that circular and issue a fair waiting list circular so that, whether they are emergency, urgent or non-urgent cases, clinical need is the only determinant of priority in the national health service?
  Mr. Malone: The hon. Lady makes an absurd point. If there is any distinction in the way in which GPs purchase health care for their patients, there will be differences. People get their priority placing on waiting lists as a result of clinical need. I point out to the hon. Lady that if patients' conditions change while they are waiting for an operation, they are entitled to return to their general practitioner and be accorded priority. We have absolutely no truck with the Labour party's principal argument that a two-tier system is in place.
  We heard another old chestnut about massive bureaucracy. I shall give the House the facts. The management of GP fundholding costs 2 per cent. of the funds of which GPs ultimately have charge. They have been able to deliver consistent efficiencies of 3.5 to 4 per cent., which can be returned in patient care. Better resource management will lead to an increase in both patient care and the facilities in GPs' surgeries for the delivery of patient care. That is another nail in the coffin of the Labour party's argument.

  191
  Labour Members talked a lot about commissioning. I believe that commissioning has become the Labour party's comfort blanket. It sounds like a very comfortable compromise—and the way the Labour party put it forward, it certainly is. It is fudge and mudge. The Labour party confirmed that it is a step towards a national system.
  I pay tribute to the achievements of individual practitioners, be they fundholders, commissioning practitioners or non-commissioning practitioners—that happens occasionally across the system. The Labour party cannot ignore the fact that those achievements are driven by the power of fundholding and the power of budgets. On Friday, a fundholder told me—I think that this says it all—that one GP with a budget is worth 10 GPs sitting on a committee somewhere. The Labour party's model would return us to the old days of discussions around tables and no possibility of defining what would be done to benefit patients. It is an old argument which has failed in the past. The Labour party is now putting forward an out-of-date concept: it wants to return to the old national systems.
  Let us accept for a moment that perhaps the Labour party is right. Let us assume, for example, that there is some two-tierism in the national health service. A member of the public might say that, if there is a two-tier system and if we argue that fundholding is providing a better service than non-fundholding, it seems extraordinary to opt for a policy that abolishes the system that is delivering better care. The Opposition cannot get away from that fact. The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden said that there was no evidence to support that argument, but the matter is being researched and the evidence is growing.
  The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden referred to an article from the British Medical Journal. I have read that article, and I looked rather quizzical when he made his observations because I know the narrow base on which that research was founded. Further evidence will be published soon showing that the fundholding practitioners can make real savings from the prescribing budgets and that those savings will continue over time. Of course they will plateau; it would be unreasonable to assume that they could continue year after year.
  I wonder what the position of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is with regard to this debate. He argued precisely for what we are doing with the accountability framework. He said that he opposes fundholding in the way that we have introduced it. He is in favour of a little of what we do—his party opposed it before—and he also opposes what the Labour party proposes. It is the typical Liberal party "push me, pull you" approach. He is the custodian of a policy that his policy officers recently described as "barmy". He failed to take account of the fact that, in the accountability framework, when general practitioners are fundholders— either in the conventional sense or in the total sense— they must share their information with health authorities and they must discuss and agree their public plans, which are placed on the public agenda, before they are put in motion.
  At a time when the whole health profession is looking very positive about developing the arguments on future primary care, the Labour party has decided to take a step backwards. The Government are conducting a debate with the health service to define the boundaries of primary care and what new challenges it will face. We are interested in that debate, but the Labour party is not. We are taking the
  192
  debate forward not just with fundholders but with doctors and other health care professionals who are responsible for the delivery of primary care. That is the way forward.
  Tonight, the Labour party has chosen to demonstrate that it simply wants to abolish all that has been achieved. New Labour may have new policies in other areas, but the lesson we can take from the debate today is that new Labour does not want them in the health area; it wants to return to national systems in a determined effort to abandon all the progress that has been hard won by general practitioners who have been improving services up and down the country.
  When the Labour party started the debate against primary care reforms in the NHS and when it first decided that it was against fundholding, the situation was very different and only a small minority was engaged in fundholding. Now the Labour party is setting itself against the 50 per cent. of the population who receive primary care, and setting itself against a large proportion of GPs. The people and the GPs will have heard the message that the Labour party has delivered today.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 320.

  Division No. 43]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Allen, Graham

  Corbett, Robin

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Corston, Jean

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cousins, Jim

  Ashton, Joe

  Cox, Tom

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cummings, John

  Banks, Tony

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Barron, Kevin

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Battle, John

  Cummingham, Roseanna (Perth & Kinross)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Bell, Stuart

  Darling, Alistair

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Benton, Joe

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bermingham, Gerald

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

  Berry, Roger

  Denham, John

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Dewar, Donald

  Blunkett, David

  Dixon, Don

  Boateng, Paul

  Dobson, Frank

  Bradley, Keith

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dowd, Jim

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

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

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Burden, Richard

  Eastham, Ken

  Byers, Stephen

  Etherington, Bill

  Caborn, Richard

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fisher, Mark

  Cann, Jamie

  Flynn, Paul

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Church, Judith

  Foulkes, George

  Clapham, Michael

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Galloway, George

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Gapes, Mike

  Clelland, David

  George, Bruce

  Cohen, Harry

  Gerrard, Neil

  Connarty, Michael

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  193

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Miller, Andrew

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morley, Elliot

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Gunnell, John

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hail, Mike

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hanson, David

  Mudie, George

  Hardy, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Murphy, Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Heppell, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Olner, Bill

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hodge, Margaret

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hoey, Kate

  Pearson, Ian

  Hogg, Norman

  Pendry, Tom

  Home Robertson, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pike, Peter L

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

  Pope, Greg

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hutton, John

  Radice, Giles

  Illsley, Eric

  Randall, Stuart

  Ingram, Adam

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jamieson, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Janner, Greville

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Salmond, Alex

  Keen, Alan

  Sedgemore, Brian

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

  Sheerman, Barry

  Khabra, Piara S

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Short, Clare

  Litherland, Robert

  Simpson, Alan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

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

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Soley, Clive

  McCartney, Ian

  Spearing, Nigel

  Macdonald, Calum

  Spellar, John

  McFall, John

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McKelvey, William

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Stott, Roger

  McLeish, Henry

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McMaster, Gordon

  Straw, Jack

  MacShane, Denis

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  McWilliam, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Madden, Max

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mahon, Alice

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Touhig, Don

  Marek, Dr John

  Trickett, Jon

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Turner, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Walley, Joan

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Martlew, Eric

  Wareing, Robert N

  Maxton, John

  Watson, Mike

  Meacher, Michael

  Welsh, Andrew

  Meale, Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Michael, Alun

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Milburn, Alan

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  194

  Wilson, Brian

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Winnick, David

  Wise, Audrey

  Worthington, Tony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Ms Ann Coffey.

  Wright, Dr Tony

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

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

  Alexander, Richard

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

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

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Amess, David

  Day, Stephen

  Ancram, Michael

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Arbuthnot, James

  Devlin, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dicks, Terry

  Ashby, David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Dover, Den

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Duncan, Alan

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Duncan-Smith, lain

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Dunn, Bob

  Baldry, Tony

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Elletson, Harold

  Bates, Michael

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Beggs, Roy

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Evennett, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Faber, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Booth, Hartley

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Boswell, Tim

  Forman, Nigel

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Forth, Eric

  Bowis, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brazier, Julian

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  French, Douglas

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gallie, Phil

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gamier, Edward

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  Bums, Simon

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Burt, Alistair

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Butler, Peter

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Butterfill, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Cash, William

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Churchill, Mr

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Clappison, James

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  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

  Hawkins, Nick

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Heald, Oliver

  Couchman, James

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Cran, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  195

  Hendry, Charles

  Maclennan, Robert

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Maddock, Diana

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Horam, John

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Malone, Gerald

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Marland, Paul

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Mates, Michael

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hunter, Andrew

  Merchant, Piers

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Jack, Michael

  Mills, Iain

  Jenkin, Bemard

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Jessel, Toby

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Norris, Steve

  Key, Robert

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Ottaway, Richard

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Page, Richard

  Knapman, Roger

  Paice, James

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

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

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Knox, Sir David

  Pawsey, James

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Pickles, Eric

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Rathbone, Tim

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  Redwood, Rt Hon ohn

  Lidington, David

  Rendel, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Richards, Rod

  Lord, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Luff, Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  196

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Sackville, Tom

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Tracey, Richard

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Tredinnick, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Trend, Michael

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Trimble, David

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Trotter, Neville

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Tyler, Paul

  Sims, Roger

  Viggers, Peter

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Walden, George

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Wallace, James

  Soames, Nicholas

  Waller, Gary

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Ward, John

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Watts, John

  Spring, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Sproat, Iain

  Squire, Robin (Homchurch)

  Whitney, Ray

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Whittingdale, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stephen, Michael

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Stern, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Stewart, Allan

  Willetts, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Wilshire, David

  Sumberg, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Sykes, John

  Wolfson, Mark

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

  Thomason, Roy

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House pays tribute to the role that GP fundholders have played in kick-starting and developing innovative practice in both primary care and the acute sector; welcomes the advances that fundholding has brought to many patients; accepts that fundholding has acted as a lever to improve services; and consequently remains committed to the further development of GP fundholding.

  Terms and Conditions of Employment
  [Relevant document: The Minutes of Evidence and Memoranda relating to this instrument contained in the Fifth Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (House of Commons Paper No. 34-v.]
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
  That the Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 2587), dated 2nd October 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be revoked.
  I cannot let this moment pass without remarking on the fact that the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs is the first Department of Trade and Industry Minister to reply on an industrial relations issue since 1915, when the Ministry for Labour and National Service, as I believe it was then called, was set up. I have no doubt that he will revel in being a historical anachronism. However, his anomalous position may turn out to be short-lived.
  The origins of the regulations are the acquired rights directive of 1977, which was transposed into UK law by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, and the 1975 directive on collective redundancies, which was transposed into UK law by the Employment Protection Act 1975 and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation Act) 1992.
  However, in a ruling in June 1994, the European Court found that UK law did not properly implement the two directives in three respects. It imposed a requirement to inform and consult worker representatives only when the employer chose to recognise a trade union for collective bargaining purposes. It did not require consultation with worker representatives on prospective transfers to be conducted with a view to seeking agreement. It did not provide what the European Court called an "effective, proportionate and dissuasive" penalty for employers who failed to inform and consult.
  The Government, therefore, had to issue new regulations to comply with European Union law. As a result of consultations with the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry and others, leading to amendments to the draft proposals issued in April 1995, the second and third points have been largely addressed. But the issue in tonight's debate is the manner in which the Government have decided to address the first point.
  The Government now propose to require the employer, at his choice, to consult either a recognised trade union or elected representatives of the affected employees before making redundancies or transferring his business. At the same time, the Government have used the necessity for the new regulations to exempt employers if there are fewer than 20 redundancies over a 90-day period. They have also weakened the previous requirement to consult at the earliest opportunity by saying, in the new regulations, that consultation must start in good time. That is the background, which is clear and straightforward.
  We strongly object to the new regulations on four main grounds. First, the Government have manipulated the requirement to comply with European Union law in such a way as to promote their campaign to achieve trade union derecognition by the back door. The European Court
  198
  ruling was designed to extend consultation to workplaces where there was no recognised trade union; we all accept that that is perfectly fair and right. The Department of Trade and Industry has undermined consultation with trade unions even in workplaces where there is a recognised trade union.
  What was objectionable in United Kingdom law prior to the European Court judgment was that consultation excluded non-trade union organised workplaces, so that employers could avoid consultation simply by failing to recognise a trade union. The intention of the European Court judgment—I hope that the Minister will be able to disagree—was to universalise consultation. It was clearly not intended to undermine existing systems of industrial relations or to encourage employers to derecognise unions. Yet there is absolutely nothing in the regulations to stop an employer who intends to make collective redundancies consulting an ad hoc group that he had a hand in setting up precisely to circumvent a recognised trade union.
  The Government have been far more concerned with hijacking the regulations to satisfy their own anti-union prejudices than ensuring that employees are properly consulted before redundancies are made. That is the central thrust of our objection. The Government have gone out of their way to undermine the concept of social partnership, which is widely accepted on the continent and provides a far more successful and productive model of industrial relations than anything in Britain during the 1980s or 1990s.
  The Government never wanted to introduce the regulations and they have finally done so in a thoroughly curmudgeonly and resentful manner. As it was so aptly and nicely put in another place, it is as though the Minister were to begin his speech tonight by saying, "I move these regulations in the spirit of a wine waiter asked to serve a coke."
  The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): That was Lord Tebbit.
  Mr. Meacher: It was indeed Lord Tebbit. I am only too grateful to attribute the source of that remark, as it applies aptly to the Government's attitude tonight.
  Our second charge against the regulations is that there is no test of the independence of elected employee representatives. They can be men and women of straw who are beholden to the will of the employer and that defeats the entire purpose of the European Court ruling. There cannot be much dispute about the criteria that should govern the choice of employee representatives. They should be chosen freely without interference from the employer or his agents. The electoral procedures should be impartial and fair and certainly not subject to influence from the employer. Many Conservative Members will agree that employee representatives should be chosen by secret ballot and should have the ability and the resources to reach an agreement with the employer and to carry it through, yet not one of those requirements is written into the regulations.
  Mr. Taylor: Although it is quite true that the selection procedures are not prescribed, the onus of fairness is made perfectly clear. Any employer who did not act fairly in those circumstances would risk an adverse finding and

  199
  possibly a compensation award against him at either an industrial tribunal or an employment appeal tribunal. It is made perfectly clear that the emergent elected representative should have paid time off, access to facilities, lists of names of workers and so on. Any employer who did not honour the spirit and outline of those requirements would find himself at severe risk in the appropriate tribunal.
  Mr. Meacher: My answer is extremely simple. If that is what the Minister and Government intended, why did not they write it into the regulations? It is extremely simple. It is not as though the Government have failed to prescribe in great detail what the trade unions should do, but when it comes to what the employer should do, that is left to his good faith and the onus on him to behave properly.
  Mr. Taylor: I am quite prepared to read Hansard tomorrow and check what I said in my last intervention. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me twice, but he will find that everything that I said in my last intervention is on the face of the regulations.
  Mr. Meacher: I do not believe that it appears anywhere in the regulations. I have a copy of the regulations and regulation 3(2) covers those matters. If the Minister can show me where it states how the electoral procedure should be operated to ensure that there are proper constraints on the employer so that he cannot use his influence and put forward his own candidate, I shall withdraw my remarks, but in the absence of that, I insist that those crucial matters are not in the regulations.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Not only are the operation of electoral procedures and the ability of employees to appoint workers' representatives not in the regulations, but employees cannot take the matter to an industrial tribunal unless there is a breach of the regulations. An implied breach of the European Union directive is not admissible at the tribunal. That is the problem. The fact that those matters are not included in the regulations makes it extremely difficult for individual employees successfully to take their employer to a tribunal.
  Mr. Meacher: The regulations also contain other gratuitous deregulation measures, which have nothing to do with the European Court, to restore the two-year waiting period, but that is another matter. My hon. Friend makes a critical point. Even if a dispute reaches the industrial tribunal, it is impossible for an employee to win the case unless the regulations contain a clear and detailed prescription of the duties on the employer and they do not.
  According to evidence to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is such a distinguished Chairman:
  "The Regulations do not prescribe any particular means by which this should be done, they merely state that the employer may consult at his choice either the representatives of the trade unions or the elected representatives. If he has not done either of those things there are certain sanctions".
  However, if an employer chooses to consult elected workers' representatives, the manner in which they are chosen is crucial. I repeat, as it is a critical point, that the regulations contain nothing that prescribes that in detail.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: The Speaker's Counsel advised the Committee to examine that in great detail because it is at the heart of the matter. If an employee goes to an industrial tribunal, on what judicial authority would the tribunal rely? According to Stephen Mason, the Speaker's Counsel, there is no judicial authority.
  Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is forcibly repeating the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish has already made. I hope that the Minister will provide an answer. What he told me across the Dispatch Box is not validated by the regulations. We want an explicit answer on that critical point.
  There are elementary requirements that even the Government should have considered necessary. Unless it was a slip, one Minister did. Lord Inglewood, as Minister of the now defunct Department of Employment, said in another place on 20 March last year that workers' representatives
  "must clearly have appropriate guarantees of independence".— [Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 1995; Vol. 562, c. 1095.].
  I ask again, as my hon. Friends have asked—it is a general demand from Opposition Ministers—where in the regulations are those guarantees?
  Mr. David Blunkett: There is none.
  Mr. Meacher: If the Minister wishes to intervene, he can freely do so. I take the fact that he has not done so as a silent assent to my point. Let us clear it up as we go along. If the Minister wishes to refute that, perhaps he will do so. Perhaps he could quote to me the regulations which are relevant to this point.
  Mr. Taylor: I am quite content with what I have said in my two previous interventions to the hon. Gentleman's speech. I am grateful to him for giving way to me again, although I am not sure that I asked him to. I will stick by what I said, and I am more than happy to return to the point when I address the House or, with the leave of the House, when I speak again towards the close of the debate. I shall select one of those two opportunities to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Mr. Meacher: I do not know why the Minister is so coy or, if he is able to tell us, why he does not tell us now. We shall certainly be looking forward to a precise quotation. I have in front of me regulation 3, which is headed "Duty to consult representatives". That is the critical point. I have read it through in detail—it is quite lengthy—and there is absolutely nothing to justify what the Minister has said. The truth is that giving preference in the elections to the employer's chosen candidate or fixing the electoral machinery in such a way as to benefit some candidates and not others will not stop an employer from discriminating.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: Let me complete this. All that the regulations say, at 3(2)(1B), is:
  "employee representatives elected by them, or … representatives of the trade union … as the employer chooses."

  201
  Those are the critical words in the regulations, and it is to those that I expect the Minister will respond.
  Mr. Stephen: The hon. Gentleman has suggested that an employer might seek to fix the election. If he is suggesting that the employer might act fraudulently, surely he will accept that that is a matter that clearly will be overruled by the courts.
  Mr. Meacher: When I said "fix" I was not suggesting anything illegal. I am simply saying that the employer can structure it—if the hon. Gentleman prefers a more neutral phrase—in such a way as to produce a given result. That is perfectly legal, and it is compatible with the regulations.
  Mr. Stephen: How?
  Mr. Meacher: Perfectly easily: the employer can ensure that particular candidates are offered the opportunity to stand for election; he can ensure that those candidates receive the benefit of his and other people's support; and he can arrange the consultation mechanism and the electoral preparations in a manner that benefits them. It is perfectly possible to do those things. That directly contradicts what the Advocate-General in Brussels has said. The Government have been fond of repeatedly quoting what he said because it supported their case. However, in this case, he said in his report:
  "the designation of representatives ought not to depend on the free choice of the employer".
  I believe that those words are directly contradicted by the letter and the spirit of these regulations.
  I think that there is more than a whiff of humbug in all this. The Government have gone to great pains during the past decade, in several Acts of Parliament, to prescribe in the minutest detail exactly how a trade union should operate and precisely what it can and cannot do. On the crucial test of independence, for example, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 states of an independent trade union:
  "(a) is not under the domination or control of an employer or group of employers …
  (b) is not liable to interference by an employer … arising out of the provision of financial or material support."
  Why are not similar rules now applied here to employee-elected representatives? Why should trade unions be strictly independent, yet elected employee representatives—whom the employer can choose as an equal alternative—are allowed to be under his thumb? How can it be right for the employer to decide which employees will be eligible for election, whether they will be elected directly or indirectly and whether the ballot will be by a show of hands or by secret ballot? Why should the employer be able to decide who counts the votes, whether there should be an independent monitor or how any complaints should be handled? Under these regulations, those are the sole and untrammelled prerogative of the employer, and that is what we object to.
  It is obviously not the first time under this Government that there has been one law for the unions and another for the employers. In the Government's eyes, trade unions are dangerous animals whose activities have to be ensnared in comprehensive bureaucratic detail, while employers are
  202
  very laudable chaps who can be trusted and allowed to get on and do whatever they like. That fantasy may have been the politics of the 1980s, but I suggest to the House that it is wide of the mark today, when job insecurity is rife almost everywhere, like a plague afflicting workplaces up and down the country.
  Mr. Piers Merchant: I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's description of Conservative Members' views on trade unions and companies. It certainly does not represent my views. On this point, does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a major difference between a trade union that is charged with a series of responsibilities during a long period, and the much narrower responsibility of the people who are elected to represent a specific and probably small group of employees during a specific period in relation to redundancy?
  Mr. Meacher: Even in relation to the specific question of electing those who will hold authority for a particular purpose—whether it is carrying through redundancies or as elected members of the executives of trade unions— how the election will be conducted is laid down and prescribed in much greater detail for the trade union side. There is not even an attempt to do so for the employer; it is simply left completely open. If the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that description, after six—or is it eight— trade unions Acts, he should examine himself and his party more closely in the mirror.
  Our third charge against the regulations is that the Government have unilaterally decided to put such a high threshold on their application as to largely nullify their purpose. Employers are exempted from consultation under the regulations in cases in which there are fewer than 20 redundancies during a 90-day period. A very important point is that that has nothing to do with the European Court judgment of June 1994. It did not require that threshold in any respect. In revising the regulations, the Government have gratuitously added that exemption, entirely on their own account. It need not have done so because it was not in any way required by Brussels.
  The effect of the new threshold will of course be dramatic, and the Government intend it to be so. The threshold seriously erodes the existing rights of consultation, and it will automatically exclude nearly 6 million workers in small firms and a great many people in larger firms. The Government have openly boasted that it will result in no less than 96 per cent of employers being free to implement redundancies without any consultation with their work forces.
  Mr. Stephen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: This will be the last time.
  Mr. Stephen: Surely the hon. Gentleman will accept that what he is suggesting is over-bureaucratic and, frankly, rather silly. If there are fewer than 20 people involved, the employer could consult them directly. He could get them all together in the canteen, if there is one, or in his own office, if there is not.
  Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that the purpose of the exemption was to enable the employer to pull employees in one by one

  203
  to discuss their forthcoming redundancy with them individually, I must say that he is more ingenuous than I thought.
  The significant point is that the regulations, instead of extending consultation rights—which was clearly the European Court's purpose—reduce them. There are many areas in both the private sector and public services where the impact will be damaging. In the education service, more than 8,000 teachers have been made redundant in the past three years, of which I think 1,300 were compulsory redundancies. But in a great many other cases, consultation has prevented redundancies or has reduced the numbers to be made redundant. It has certainly ensured that the procedures are properly followed.
  Under the regulations, consultations may well be minimal—in the case of education, they will almost certainly be minimal because no school will make 20 or more teachers redundant. Therefore, consultation will not take place in the education service. That will also be true in many public services and throughout great swathes of the private sector.
  Why have the Government inserted the huge exemption loophole? The answer is clear from a letter of 19 July last year, which was written by the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs' predecessor before they carried out a job swap.
  "The Government believes that it is important to alleviate any unreasonable burden on employers which would otherwise result from the extension of the consultation requirements."
  The meaning of that letter was made clear in the Department of Trade and Industry's press notice of 5 October, which stated:
  "This measure will remove the statutory obligation to consult through representatives from some 96 per cent. of businesses and has been estimated to save up to £85 million per year."
  There we have it.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way any more. The hon. Gentleman can make a speech, but I should draw my remarks to a close.
  The Government are prepared to sell off the consultation rights of millions of workers as long as they save £85 million for employers. One notes that Ministers have been up in arms over the past few weeks about being fully consulted in advance of the Scott report next week, when they think that their own jobs may be at risk. When it comes to other people, they are quite prepared to sacrifice any right to consultation for 13 shekels of silver. I do not wish to be unkind, but some people might call that the politics of hypocrisy.
  Our fourth charge against the regulations follows from everything that I have said. In several respects, they breach the spirit of the European Court's ruling and they may well be ultra vires. Employee representatives will be ad hoc; there is no prescribed method for their election; only those affected by the proposal can nominate representatives; and there is no way of ensuring their independence from the employer. All those factors suggest that the regulations are wide open to a legal challenge. In addition, as I have said, in some respects they actually weaken existing protection—something that
  204
  is not generally approved by European directives. I realise that the Minister may not be unduly worried by the Opposition's case, however convincing it seems, because he has in his pocket a block vote from the whipped majority of the Conservative party. But when, as I understand it will, the matter comes up for judicial review in the High Court shortly, it may be a different story.
  The Labour party would extend consultation rights, as the European Court intended and would not use them to undermine or derecognise existing unions. We would require a proper test of independence for elected employee representatives and proper procedures for their election. We would not exempt 96 per cent. of all employers by a threshold that includes cases where there are fewer than 20 redundancies.
  The regulations are deeply flawed; they are inconsistent with natural justice. They breach both the letter and the spirit of the European Court judgment. On those grounds, we demand that they be withdrawn.
  7.43 pm
  The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): There will inevitably be disagreements between myself and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who opened the debate, but I cannot fault him in one respect: his deployment of the history of the subject, which derives from the collective redundancies directive of 1975 and the acquired rights directive of 1977. All hon. Members who take an interest in such matters can trace the acquired rights directive, via the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, to the infraction proceedings, and the collective redundancies directive, via the Employment Protection Act 1975 and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, to the two cases that were heard in parallel in the European Court of Justice. It is our contention that the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 put right all but one of the deficiencies that were raised in those proceedings. On 8 June 1994, the European Court gave its judgments following those proceedings. The Government contend that the measures before the House regularise the one outstanding matter to which the Government should give their attention: the obligation to consult.
  Conservative Members may like to be reassured that the measures are four times blessed. First, they are deregulatory. It is true that the infraction found against the Government by the European Court of Justice has provided the Government with an opportunity to take the gold plate off their response. Conservative Members are pleased to take the gold plate off regulations and directives.
  The second virtue of the measures is that they set the law right in the case of Milligan and Bailey. I shall not dwell on that case because it is a bit of a side show. In fairness to the hon. Member for Oldham, West, I should say that he was right to concentrate on the subject of consultation—which seems to be the point of argument between us—rather than Milligan and Bailey. I think, however, that reference was made to that case in the judicial review proceedings—which the hon. Gentleman also mentioned—where matters will come before the divisional court and where the Government will be quietly confident that their arguments will be sustained.
  The third virtue of the measures is that they clarify uncertainties for everyone's benefit. At present, the position is uncertain because the United Kingdom

  205
  has been found against in both cases. Both matters were originally brought to the English statute book by Labour Governments. I shall not make a meal out of the fact that those Labour Governments brought them to the English statute book in the wrong form, but I shall defend the fact that we are putting them into the correct form. We reached a point of considerable uncertainty where it looked as though an employer had to consult in cases of collective redundancy only if there were a recognised trade union. If there were no recognised trade union, the employer was apparently under no obligation to consult anyone, which cannot be right. The European Court of Justice must be supported in its judgment. Tonight we are trying to ensure that, in the case of collective redundancies, everyone is consulted, either through a recognised trade union or through an election.
  The hon. Gentleman challenged me twice on a certain subject and, at the risk of saying it for the third time, I repeat that I am well content with the words that I previously used from the Dispatch Box, although I shall look at the report in Hansard tomorrow. Provisions relating to the details of election procedure would not be easy to implement, but elections are necessary. One difficulty is that the regulations refer to much base legislation elsewhere.
  The absence of express provisions concerning elections and the rights of organisers does not mean that access to employees and the use of facilities need not be extended to the organisers of elections. Regulations place a strict duty on the employer to consult appropriate representatives. If the employee 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. An employer will run a serious risk of an adverse finding if he fails to take such steps as allowing organisers access to the affected employees or providing a list of their names, and in appropriate cases allowing time off and access to facilities. That is almost a paraphrase of what I said earlier. It is necessary to read together paragraphs 4 and 10 and paragraph 3, sub-paragraph 5. Between them, they provide for complaints to be made by an employee, an elected representative or a recognised trade union if there has not been consultation or if the employer has not taken sufficient action to ensure that consultation with appropriate representatives could take place.
  I am sorry to have dealt with that at length, but it is necessary to make it quite clear.
  Mr. Bennett: The Minister read out those requirements, but they are not in the regulations. Only a general wish is contained in the regulations. The specifics that he just read out are not in the regulations, are they?
  Mr. Taylor: I think that I have been faithful to the debate. I have answered the House correctly, consistently and in good faith.
  I want to say one other thing in connection with a complaint made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who asked why the Government have introduced a loophole—the threshold of fewer than 20 employees.
  206
  Perhaps I should say, the 20 threshold that introduces the collective redundancy concept. The loophole to which he refers is in the directive that was agreed by the Labour Government in 1975.
  Ms Joan Walley: On the previous point about clarifying the uncertainty, the Minister told the House that he is putting right an omission from previous legislation. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) about how the draft regulations do not contain what is needed. If what the Minister says is not on the face of the regulations, what opportunity will he have to put that right?
  Mr. Taylor: That is a hypothetical question. So far, I have broadly dealt with interventions, and I think that I have dealt with that point. I should like now to make some progress, because there is an important Government case to be deployed in defence of the regulations.
  Mr. Meacher: Before the Minister moves on, let me say that I do not think that he has satisfied either me or any of my hon. Friends. He read a carefully scripted statement, the essence of which he had memorised and repeated earlier. It is true that paragraphs 4 and 10 of the regulations, and paragraph 3, sub-paragraph 5, deal with complaints, and it is true that complaints may, if people are determined, reach an industrial tribunal. He has not answered the key point: when the case reaches the tribunal, how can one make it stick against an employer who has carried out an election that the employee considers improper in terms of its procedure when there is no prescription in the regulations on the form of that election? One may believe it to be unfair, and it may be unfair, but it is not unfair in terms of the strict rules of the regulations.
  Mr. Taylor: I have faced many challenges in my life, but managing to persuade the hon. Gentleman may be a bridge too far. He demeans the ability of employers and employees to arrive at a system of election that will be fair. Nothing is more English or more culturally part of our inheritance than fairness. An industrial tribunal, which is after all a judicial body—[Interruption.] I am sorry if the hon. Member for Oldham, West thinks that this is not merely unpersuasive but amusing.
  Mr. Meacher: It is not amusing.
  Mr. Taylor: I agree that it is not amusing. For the Government to try to lay down in a codified way in the myriad of workplaces how an election should be held is to demean the good sense of our fellow citizens—the employer and employee between them—who are quite capable of setting up an election. If it is not a fair election, an industrial tribunal will be as good a forum as any in spotting that.
  Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Taylor: I give way to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).
  Mr. Prentice: There are employers who run sweatshop operations, perhaps recruiting Asian women, to take

  207
  one example, whose knowledge of English may be rudimentary. In those circumstances, someone from the work force could emerge and act as the group's spokesperson. If the matter were challenged and it reached an industrial tribunal, the Minister told the House earlier that the employer would be at
  "serious risk of an adverse finding".
  An employer being at risk of an adverse finding is very different from an employer acting unlawfully. That is why it is central to the case for matters to be on the face of the regulations. If they are not, we cannot leave it to a tribunal.
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman helps me in his own appreciation of the eclectic nature of the workplaces of this country. If a group of employees felt that the procedures that were going on around them were oppressive, there could not be a freer country than this one in which they could pursue their grievance. They can take advice if they wish. After all, there are plenty of solicitors in most of our urban centres who will give advice on legal aid green form, which is two hours of advice for free, and that could be extended if the local legal aid authority so wishes. Furthermore—this may be more congenial to the hon. Gentleman—they could, if they wanted to, take advice from the local office of one of the trade unions, perhaps the Transport and General Workers Union. Most of those great unions have offices in our big towns and cities, certainly in our cities.
  Mr. Bennett rose—
  Mr. Taylor: I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman. This might be the last intervention, but I shall give him the benefit of it.
  Mr. Bennett: The Minister says that it is important that the process is fair. Which is fairer to elect a works representative: a single transferable vote or first past the post?
  Mr. Taylor: I did not know that we would get down that road. I have always preferred an exhaustive eliminator, but that is very much a personal preference, and it is not Government policy, I hasten to add. In that sense, I speak only on behalf of myself, the hon. Member for Solihull.
  Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend not think it strange this evening that the Labour party is criticising small firms for not wishing to comply voluntarily with the regulations—if small firms wished to comply with them they could, but the Labour party wants to force them— whereas the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), who I think is the Labour Front-Bench spokesman for small business, has a letter in The Times today praising small businesses as the backbone of the country? I wonder what we are listening to tonight—new Labour, old Labour or a mix. Labour Members obviously do not know what they really mean.
  Mr. Taylor: That intervention has completely wrong-footed me: I simply cannot handle it. I think that, as a matter of courtesy, my hon. Friend—for, after all, he is my hon. Friend—should have given me notice of it. If he had, I might have been able to cope with it in a
  208
  satisfactory way, rather than being left floundering at the Dispatch Box. Perhaps, given my flummox and fluster, I should press on.
  We are debating the Government's response, in the form of the regulations, to two judgments of the European Court of Justice made on 8 June 1994. Much has been said about what the regulations do or do not require, and a good deal of that has been based on a misrepresentation of their provision or a failure to understand how they are intended to work. I hope to set the record straight on some of those matters, but on some of them our approach is, and will always be, fundamentally different from that of Opposition Members. We believe in encouraging enterprise and job growth through flexibility, whereas Opposition Members would destroy it with excessive regulation.
  The regulations were laid before the House on 5 October, and came into effect on 26 October. They have two purposes. First, they give effect to judgments of the European Court of Justice concerning the implementation in the United Kingdom of the 1975 collective redundancies directive and the 1977 acquired rights directive. Secondly, they deal with the separate matter of the judgment of the employment appeals tribunal in the case of Milligan and Bailey v. Securicor Cleaning Ltd. In that case, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—generally referred to as the TUPE regulations—were interpreted in a way that Parliament had not intended. Regulation 8 of these regulations reverses the effect of that judgment.
  The regulations were made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, as they deal with matters that are for the purpose of implementing—or are related to our implementation of—our Community obligations. Let me deal first with the main purpose of the regulations, which concerns information and consultation about collective redundancies and business transfers. Both directives require an employer to consult workers' representatives in relevant circumstances, who are defined as
  "the workers' representatives provided for by the laws or practices of the Member States".
  In implementing the collective redundancies directive in 1975, the then Labour Government required an employer to consult only where there was a recognised trade union. In 1981, in implementing the acquired rights directive, the present Government adopted the same approach. It is interesting to note that Opposition Members did not question that approach at the time.
  In 1994, the European Court ruled that, by failing to designate workers' representatives to be consulted when an employer did not recognise a trade union, the United Kingdom had not met its obligations under the directives. The regulations now provide for consultation by an employer, whether or not the employer voluntarily recognises a trade union. They bring UK law into line with the directives as interpreted by the European Court of Justice.
  When we framed the regulations, uppermost in our mind was the need to give proper effect to the directives in a way that gave employers flexibility in deciding how to meet their obligations. That has always been our intention: it was spelt out in our consultation paper last year, and we have acted accordingly. As the Government have said before and will continue to say, we believe in

  209
  flexibility—in setting a framework, but leaving the details to the good sense of employers and employees. That is what gives our businesses the edge that enables them to compete in global markets.
  The regulations require an employer to inform and consult either a recognised trade union, or representatives elected by the employees themselves. To those who argue that the regulations do not provide a sufficient guarantee of independence for such represenuatives, let me repeat that they must be elected by the employees.
  Ms Walley: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Taylor: I will give way in a moment, although I have already given way to more hon. Members than I intended. I believe that others wish to speak.
  As I was saying, the representatives must be elected by the employees. They must not be placemen, nor must they be nominated by the employer. If, in practice, the arrangements made for particular elections are such that the employer has not properly consulted those who are representative of the affected employees, the matter may be considered by an industrial tribunal, which may make an award of compensation.
  An employer may choose whether to consult a union or elected representatives, but he cannot choose not to consult anyone at all. There are, of course, those who argue—as the TUC has argued—that an employer who recognises a union should not be free to consult anyone other than that union. Why should that be so? The extent and nature of union recognition has changed substantially over the past decade, and we are likely to see further changes as employers and unions must adapt to ever more competitive markets and changing employment patterns. Why should an employer who recognises a union for one purpose necessarily be bound to do so for all purposes? We do not believe that that should be the case, and we have therefore removed the existing statutory monopoly that recognised unions have enjoyed in such matters.
  Most employers who recognise a trade union may well wish to continue to consult that union about redundancies and business transfers, but that is properly a matter for them to judge. The regulations provide no obstacle. Unions that are confident that they speak for the majority of the work force and act responsibly in the best interests of both their members and the business should normally have nothing to fear from the measure; but they must also recognise that some employers have developed other channels for consultation with their employees, whether or not they recognise a union or unions. It must surely be right for employers to be able to use such machinery where it exists.
  Ms Walley: What does the Minister think the European Court of Justice intended? Does he think that it intended to undermine trade union representation?
  Mr. Taylor: I do not wish to place any interpretation on the judgment of the European Court of Justice, other
  210
  than its reported judgment, which I have in my hand. I shall not try to paraphrase or interpret that now, but I am sure that there are copies in the Library.
  Mr. Meacher: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Taylor: Yes, but this will be the last time.
  Mr. Meacher: Before the Minister leaves that important point, will he tell us whether he believes that the European Court intended consultation rights to be extended rather than reduced, and that the Court never intended the regulations to be used to undermine or "derecognise" existing trade unions?
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is treating the Court as though it were some kind of political body. I do not need to look behind the judgment to find out what the intention was, because I accept the judgment.
  As I was saying, it must be right for employers to be able to use such machinery where it exists. Not only must that be right in principle; there may be sound practical reasons why an employer would wish to consult elected representatives. For example, an employer who recognises a union for some groups of employees but not others may well feel that it would be simpler and more appropriate to consult elected representatives for all the employees affected by a proposal, rather than a mixture of union and elected representatives. Employers will need to judge carefully the longer-term consequences of such a decision in terms of their relations with the union or unions, and given the prospect of subsequent reference to an industrial tribunal. Again, however, that is properly a decision for employers to take rather than for Governments to prescribe.
  Some commentators have criticised the regulations because they do not set out detailed rules for the conduct of elections or require standing machinery to be established. Their criticisms have been echoed by the hon. Members for Oldham, West and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). We chose not to set detailed rules for good reason. The circumstances in which the obligation to consult arises will vary considerably. Complex statutory rules, designed to cover all possible circumstances, cannot possibly benefit either employers or employees. Employers with acceptable existing machinery should not have to adapt it simply to meet rigid bureaucratic requirements.
  Nor could it possibly be right for an employer to have to establish machinery that he may never have to use. Many employers will never, or will rarely, be faced with having to make collective redundancies or be involved in a business transfer. It would be absurd for us to require those employers to establish and maintain some machinery that might never be used. That may be what Opposition Members want, but it is not the sort of bureaucracy in which we wish to indulge.
  Mr. Meacher: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Taylor: No. I have given way generously, within the spirit of the House's affairs. Other hon. Members wish to speak and I will not delay the House much longer.
  Although ad hoc arrangements are acceptable under the directives, an employer cannot leave it to the last moment to begin consultation. It must begin in good time and,

  211
  in the case of redundancies, in a specified minimum time before the first dismissal takes effect. Regulation 3(8) provides that, where there is no standing machinery and the employer invites employees to elect representatives, sufficient time must be allowed for them to do so and for the consultations to take place. A similar provision is made in respect of business transfers by regulation 9(10). It is clear that, if an employer does not take seriously his obligation to consult appropriate representatives, he will be at risk of an adverse finding by an industrial tribunal.
  The regulations provide protection for elected representatives against dismissal or detriment short of dismissal because of their status or activities as a representative—that will be regarded as a discrimination. Those protections have been drafted to provide protection not only to people who are currently representatives, but to people who have ceased to operate in that capacity and to candidates for election.
  The regulations provide a right to time off with pay to undertake representative duties and a right to appropriate access to the affected employees and to facilities such as telephones. They amend the provisions on who may bring a complaint to an industrial tribunal so that they are extended to include not only elected representatives, but, in appropriate cases, individual employees who have been affected by the proposal. Those are substantial rights and protections and I am sure that hon. Members will recognise their importance.
  Although we have provided additional obligations, rights and protections, following these changes it would have been wrong of us not to consider whether it was appropriate for the new arrangements to apply in all the circumstances covered previously. Clearly, there is a balance to be struck between the rights of people in work and the need to ensure that our businesses are not fettered by regulations that divert them from competing, growing and providing jobs for this country's people. It is only by our ability to compete that we are able to create jobs.
  In drawing up this package of measures, we believed that it was right to look for ways of balancing the additional obligations and costs that would be imposed on employers. We have therefore limited the statutory obligation to consult through representatives to collective redundancies. That is where the employer proposes 20 or more redundancies at one establishment within a 90-day period. That is one of the options provided for in the relevant directive, which, I remind the House, is called the collective redundancies directive.
  The directive imposes specific and detailed requirements on an employer and, in setting a threshold below which those requirements do not apply, the Council of Ministers implicitly recognised that those requirements would not necessarily be appropriate to small firms or to small redundancy exercises.
  We make no apology for removing the gold plating that previously existed. As the hon. Member for Oldham, West rightly said, this measure will remove more than 90 per cent. of businesses from the obligation to consult through representatives about redundancies. We have estimated the value of this deregulatory measure at some £85 million per annum, more than offsetting the additional cost to employers of the other measures contained in the regulations. It will provide substantial relief for small and medium employers in particular.
  212
  I make it clear, however, that the measure does not absolve employers from the obligation to act fairly and reasonably in handling individual redundancies. That includes informing and consulting employees individually, as appropriate. There is ample case law showing the importance that industrial tribunals attach to such matters in considering whether a dismissal is fair. It is simply not true, as some people have suggested, that the regulations give employers a free hand to dismiss without any consultation or any fear of sanction.
  The change made by regulation 8 concerns the right to bring a claim of unfair dismissal in connection with a business transfer. When the draft TUPE regulations were debated in the House in 1981, the then Under-Secretary of State for Employment said:
  "The normal provisions governing unfair dismissal, qualifying periods, and so forth, continue to apply in cases where employees are dismissed because of the transfer."—[Official Report, 7 December 1981; Vol. 14, c. 680.]
  That is how the regulations were understood to operate until last year, when the employment appeals tribunal held in the case of Milligan and Bailey v. Securicor Cleaning Ltd. that the 1981 regulations did not prevent an employee with less than the normal qualifying service from bringing such a claim. The tribunal noted that member states were entitled, under the acquired rights directive, to exclude categories of employees who do not qualify for dismissal protection, but it held that, as drafted, the regulations did not exclude such employees from bringing a claim.
  The effect of that judgment will be to give employees greater rights against their new employer than they enjoyed against their previous employer. That is not consistent with the purpose of the directive, which is to transfer employees' rights, as they stand at the time of the transfer, to their new employment. It is not to improve rights on employees' way to their new employment. Nor, following what was said in the 1981 debate in the House, would the effect of the judgment have been consistent with Parliament's wishes. No appeal, however, was lodged by the employer in the Milligan and Bailey case. Although a higher court may in a different case effectively reverse the judgment's effect, that will take time. In the interim, there will inevitably be uncertainty about the correct position. Such uncertainty can be damaging and we therefore believe it right to make the position clear beyond doubt. Regulation 8 therefore clarifies that the normal qualifying conditions for unfair dismissal apply in these circumstances.
  Whatever the views of the people who would want a return to the disastrous days of compulsory trade union recognition or to impose some still more burdensome provision on business in this country, the Government have no doubt that the regulations provide a proper and coherent response to the European Court judgments on 8 June 1994. It may be one that Opposition Members do not like, but it provides for the maximum flexibility of approach consistent with an employer's overriding obligation to consult. It is a response that demonstrates our continuing commitment to removing unnecessary regulation and to providing our businesses with the right environment in which they can compete with others in the European Union and elsewhere. As I have said, the measures are four times blessed: they are deregulatory, they put the law right, they clarify uncertainties for everyone's benefit and they allow industrial relations to evolve and develop in a flexible way. I commend the regulations to the House.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I start by declaring an interest, as a sponsored member of the Graphical, Paper and Media Union, and later in my speech I hope to explain how the regulations will affect employees in the printing industry. Before doing so, however, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on the objective and lucid way in which he outlined our objections to the regulations.
  I wish that the Minister who responded had spoken in a similar fashion—and perhaps also more succinctly than he did. I have a fond regard for the Minister, but I am afraid that his previous job has followed him here in two respects. Professionally he is a lawyer, and in this place he also dealt with the law. He responded to my hon. Friend's arguments much in the manner of a lawyer—a lawyer who simply wanted to understand what the judgment was, rather than finding out what its consequences might be.
  I timed the Minister's speech: it took 36 minutes. That is not bad for a lawyer, I suppose, especially one who is not being paid the going rate. [Interruption.] Another lawyer, in the person of the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen), speaks. I had thought that the Minister would respond to my hon. Friend point by point, but he spent the first 17 minutes talking about nothing. Then, probably as a result of looking at the civil servants' Box, he decided that he had a speech to read. For the next 19 minutes he sounded like a lawyer not summing up the case but giving the introduction to it—head down, bolting along and allowing no interruptions.
  I remain unconvinced by the Government's case. The Minister used the phrase "four times blessed", both in his preamble and in his set speech. Yet every time he used it, he gave examples that made the same case as my hon. Friend made on our behalf. He reinforced the deregulation question, but described that as "removing gold plating".
  I forget the exact figure, but more than £80 million was to be saved per year. What will that cost in stress to the workers, and in increased fears and uncertainty in the workplace as a result of the deregulation? I guess that in the long term it will cost more than £83 million per year. To refer to that as gold plating constitutes a sneer at ordinary working people who, because of the nature of their employment, happen to work for an employer with fewer than 20 employees.
  The Minister failed to understand our objections to the election process and method. If the regulations extend consultation to include workers' representatives, I accept that, but we must ensure that the method of election is fair, and is seen to be fair. There is no guarantee of that in the regulations or in what the Minister said. We want neutrality on the part of the employer, who should not seek to influence the election. Despite what we heard about references to the courts, there is no guarantee that that will be so.
  Now that I have got that off my chest, I shall make a few points on behalf of my union and myself. The Minister failed to acknowledge that some concessions have been made on the details of the regulations—as a consequence, I presume, of representations from the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress. I especially welcome the stronger protection against discrimination against employee representatives, which also extends to candidates in elections.
  214
  If the Minister for Science and Technology, who has replaced the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs on the Government Front Bench, is listening to me—I see that he is making notes, for which I am grateful—I urge him if possible to extend that protection to former representatives, too. A rogue employer may still seek to exact retribution from someone who is no longer a representative, simply because he or she used to serve in that capacity.
  That change, among others, is to be welcomed. But it does not remove my fundamental opposition to the regulations as they stand. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West cited three criteria on which they fail. I will summarise under two main headings the reasons for my opposition.
  The first reason is that the regulations undoubtedly strengthen the position of employers in comparison with that of trade unions. Despite the bluster from the Minister who spoke, that represents a continuation of the knock, knock, knock policy that the Government have pursued against trade unions over the past 16 to 17 years. The regulations have been used to make a further attempt to undermine the unions' position.
  Secondly, as a consequence of removing the gold plating, deregulation removed from millions of workers the right to consultation prior to redundancy or the transfer of their undertakings. I find it unbelievable—or rather, as it comes from this Government, unacceptable rather than unbelievable—that an employer should have the unilateral choice whether to consult representatives of a recognised trade union or representatives simply elected by the employees. If there is to be such a choice, I should have thought that the employees should be consulted, rather than the employer making a unilateral decision.
  Whether that is deliberate or unintentional—I agree with my hon. Friend's opinion that it is probably deliberate—one result of it would be to undermine established industrial relations machinery throughout British industry. That must be bad, irrespective of one's views on the function and role of trade unions in our society.
  Moreover, the employer's ability to set the date for the elections and to specify the arrangements for them, could—I am tempted to say "will"—undermine the position of employees in the consultation process. The ad hoc arrangements for the election of employee representatives will mean that there is no guarantee that the person elected will have had any training or preparation for the role. How can such an arrangement ensure any degree of equity in negotiations between such a person—on behalf of his fellow workers—and his employers? Clearly the relationship is inequitable.
  On the other hand, the vagueness of the obligation on employers to call elections—I believe that the phrase used is "long enough" before the time that the consultation should start—may be used to thwart the consultative process.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West speaks for all of us when he says that he opposes the deregulation measures in the regulations. There is no argument from the Government; they applaud the fact that it could well mean that millions of workers have no rights to be consulted about their continued employment or the transfer of their undertaking to an alternative place.

  215
  I should like to adumbrate what the regulations mean to the printing industry. The effect on the printing industry will be quite dramatic. As hon. Members probably know, the industry has a large number of small companies—approximately 19,500—of which about 17,000 employ fewer than 20 people. In a nutshell, the regulations mean that almost 90 per cent. of companies in the printing industry will not have to consult their work forces in any way on redundancies and business transfers. Almost 90 per cent. of firms will be able to shut down or move, and their employees will have no right to know about it whatever. That is unfair, inequitable and needs to be opposed.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Michael Stephen: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). However, it struck me that he said that he spoke on behalf of the trade union that he represents, not on behalf of his constituents. He actually said so. That should not surprise us, I suppose, because the trade unions created the Labour party and the Labour party is still the creature of the trade unions.
  The regulations stem from the European collective redundancies directive of 1975, which was agreed to by the then Labour Government. I fear that the directive is a very good example of the kind of pettifogging European interference in the affairs of this country that so annoys so many of our constituents. We do not need Europeans to tell us how to regulate relations between employers and employees; we are perfectly well able to do that ourselves. It is about time that the Council of Ministers reviewed the matter and removed the directive altogether under the principle of subsidiarity.
  We have to compete in a global market and, to put it simply, the more the regulation, the fewer the jobs. I am interested in securing jobs for the people of this country. I am glad that, as a result of our relatively relaxed and deregulatory approach compared with that of our continental friends, our unemployment rate is far below the European average—about 8 per cent. at the moment, compared with 13 per cent. or more in France.
  Opposition Members suggest that employers should be obliged to consult only trade union representatives, but why should the employees not elect representatives of their own? It is suggested that employees might elect unsuitable representatives. Coming from the workers' friends on the Opposition Benches, that is a pretty poor view of the British worker's intelligence. British workers have more common sense than their representatives on the Opposition Benches give them credit for.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was saying that where there is not a recognised trade union, there should be an obligation for the elected representatives to be elected fairly. The hon. Gentleman has skated over that point.
  Mr. Stephen: As I understand it, Opposition Members were saying that where there is a recognised trade union, there should be no option but that the representatives of that trade union should be the persons consulted, and that there should be no option for the employees to elect representatives of their own.
  It is suggested that the employer could fix the elections. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) accepted that he was not suggesting fraud on the part of
  216
  the employer—clearly that would be justiciable in itself. He was suggesting that by measures short of fraud, the employer might somehow procure an election result that was to his liking; the employer might put forward candidates and support them, with the intention that they should be elected. However, I suspect that that would be counter-productive in most workplaces. I should have thought that in a redundancy situation the last person for whom the employees would wish to vote would be someone who was seen to have the approval of the employer.
  If the employer were to succeed by measures short of fraud in rigging the election result, Opposition Members have asked for the juridical basis on which a complaint to an industrial tribunal might be made about that procedure. They will find the juridical basis in regulation 3(1B)(a) on page 3 of the regulations, coupled with regulation 3(2)(1) on page 2 of the regulations.
  Clearly, if the employer had rigged the election, it is perfectly arguable—and would be argued—that the persons elected were not representatives elected by the work force. In those circumstances, an industrial tribunal would have no hesitation in saying that the employer had not complied with the regulations.
  Mr. Bennett: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could answer the question that the Minister failed to answer. How does the employer decide between first-past-the-post elections, a single transferable vote system or some sort of exhaustive ballot? How would the employer demonstrate to a tribunal that elections had been conducted fairly?
  Mr. Stephen: We can all disagree about what types of election produce a better result, but almost any system of election that might be put forward—first past the post, single transferable vote or whatever—might be said to be fair. If in the circumstances the election could be shown to be manifestly unfair, as I have said, the employer would be in danger of being found by an industrial tribunal to have breached the regulations to which I referred.
  Let us be quite clear what we are talking about since it has not yet been defined. We are not talking about the election of persons whose agreement to the redundancy has to be obtained. We are talking about the election of persons to put forward the views of the employees about the prospective redundancy. We are talking about the election of persons to whose views the employer must listen.
  Why should the employer want to fix the election of those persons? Why should he not be interested in listening to any constructive or reasonable point of view that his work force may wish to put forward? The work force may not dissuade him from the unenviable task before him of dispensing with the services of some of his employees—some might be very valued employees—but why should he not be prepared to listen? Why, as has been suggested, might he even go so far as to intimidate those representatives? I have not heard so much nonsense in this place since this morning.
  It has been suggested that the person elected will be less likely to be representative of the views of the employees concerned than a trade union representative might be. It has also been suggested that a trade union representative will always be a faithful representative of the interests of

  217
  the particular workers concerned, while the elected person may not. I would suggest that both categories could conceivably not be true and faithful representatives of the workers concerned. As the workers concerned are those facing redundancy, it could well be that the trade union representative will attach greater weight to the interests of the rest of the employees in the company than to those few who have been selected for potential redundancy.
  It has been suggested that Conservative Members are anti-trade unions, but very few of us are today. Most of us used to be, because the trade unions used to behave in a thoroughly reprehensible and irresponsible manner and did enormous damage to labour relations and the competitiveness of this country. By and large, the unions do not do that any more. I have no confidence, however, that if Labour ever formed a Government and gave the unions back the powers of intimidation that they once enjoyed, we would not see the old trade union movement resurrecting itself like a phoenix from the ashes to do the kind of damage in the future that we are all well aware that it did in the past. For the time being, however, the trade unions are acting responsibly, and no Conservative Member has any objection to them performing the role for which they were formed and which their members expect them to perform.
  The regulations exempt companies where 20 or fewer redundancies in a 90-day period are envisaged. The first point to make about that is that the exemption is provided for in the regulations themselves. If—like the hon. Member for Leicester, South—Opposition Members object to that, why did the Labour Government in 1975 sign up to the directive that contained the exemption? These regulations will merely give effect to that directive.
  As I pointed out in an intervention on the hon. Member for Oldham, West, it is rather bureaucratic—and, frankly, rather silly—to say that an elaborate system of collective representation is needed in situations where there are fewer than 20 people involved. The employer could get all the workers concerned together in a small room. Even the printing industry has such rooms where 20 people could gather together to be collectively consulted by their employers. It is fatuous to suggest that fewer than 20 people need such an elaborate system of representation.
  Where employees elect a representative for the purpose of giving their employer their views about potential redundancies, there is no prohibition upon the employees or the employees' representatives consulting trade union officials. Indeed, employees could actually elect a trade union official to be their representative if he worked in the same company. If trade union representation is as desirable as Opposition Members seem to think it is, I would expect employees to elect trade union representatives.
  I dealt earlier with the suggestion that the elected representative may be intimidated. In addition, the regulations state clearly that those representatives are protected against discrimination. They are also entitled to time off and to the necessary facilities to discharge their duties to those who elected them.
  Regulation 8 rightly reverses the decision of the Milligan and Bailey case, which resulted in employees whose firms were being transferred being put in a
  218
  different position from those whose firms were not being transferred. The effect of these regulations is to provide the same qualifying period whether there is a transfer of the undertaking or not.
  Finally, the hon. Member for Oldham, West said that the regulations might be subject to proceedings for judicial review and, for all I know, they may be already. This is a very worrying trend. Some people think that if central or local government do something that they do not like, all they have to do is get a judge to overrule it. That is a very dangerous trend and could lead to constitutional implications that Opposition Members may not have considered.
  Our constitution—although it is unwritten—has, over many centuries, developed a fairly clear division between the responsibilities of the judiciary on the one hand and the elected representatives of the people in this House and Members of the other place on the other. I fear that, of late, judges have trespassed too much into areas that the people have entrusted to their elected representatives. No one has elected the judges, and most of them accept that fact and conduct themselves accordingly: they do not get involved in politics. Indeed, Lord Denning always made a point of not getting involved in political issues in the other place while he was still sitting as a judge.
  I am afraid that today many judges do not have so much regard for those self-imposed constraints as they should. Clearly, judges are there to make sure that the Executive do not stray outside the legal powers that Parliament has given to them, but we have had a number of cases of late where there has been no clear breach of the law by a Minister. Cases have arisen where a Minister might be considered, by one interpretation, to have trespassed outside an Act or regulation, while another perfectly reasonable interpretation of that legislation might produce a different result.
  A good example was the criminal injuries compensation scheme where, from memory, about half of the judges who considered the case thought that the Secretary of State was right, while the other half thought that he was wrong. The decision went against the Secretary of State because the majority in the supreme court of the land—the House of Lords in its judicial capacity—thought that he was wrong. That does not negate the fact that about half of the judges who directed their minds to the case thought that the Act could perfectly reasonably be interpreted in another way.
  In my respectful submission, where regulations or an Act of Parliament can be interpreted either way, it is the duty of the judges to give Ministers the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, they are interfering in the political process, taking sides on political issues and bringing the judiciary into disrepute. [Interruption.] I notice that the hon. Member for Oldham, West is laughing, but I do not consider this a laughing matter.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) down the path of praising or castigating judges, but I do want to say who I am speaking for. The hon. Gentleman criticised my hon. Friend the Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) for speaking on behalf of his trade union. I wish to make it quite clear that I am speaking for the employers in my constituency, who are—to run two cliches together—at the cutting edge of the global market.

  219
  Those employers require two things—good trade unions in the works they run, and certainty in the law. In the years that I have been representing Stockport and Tameside, I have been amazed at the number of times that employers have praised the trade unions and shop stewards within their workplaces. They understand the vast advantages to running a business of good negotiations within it. They go further, and point out the number of occasions when companies have announced redundancies, but some other solution, such as short-time working, has been found after negotiations with the trade union, which has avoided that necessity. Some months later, the management will say how thankful they are that they did not put people through the door because they will need their skilled work force once orders pick up.
  I must make it clear that there is no advantage in wearing away or reducing this sort of regulation. There is every advantage in having them in place.
  Mr. Stephen: Of course, when a company is blessed with good trade union officials, in which the employer has the sort of confidence to which the hon. Gentleman referred, there is nothing in the regulations to prevent the employer from consulting such trade unionists. One would expect the employer to do so.
  Mr. Bennett: I am sure that he would do so. I am pointing out that it is in everyone's interests to set up good situations, in which trade unions are respected by the employer and an effective negotiating process is in place, in as many companies as possible.
  On the question of certainty, employers do not want to have to face the prospect of being castigated by an industrial tribunal. They do not want to have to go to the courts. They want to be able to look at the regulations and be confident that they are carrying them out correctly, and that they will not be challenged through an industrial tribunal or the courts in some other way. I came here to point out that I fear that the regulations fail on that question of certainty.
  Hon. Members will notice on the Order Paper a note to the effect that an extract from the fifth report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is relevant. I chair that Committee, and in November we were advised by Speaker's Counsel that it appeared from the regulations that the Government had failed properly to implement the European directive. Speaker's Counsel suggested that it would be reasonable to ask the Department for a memorandum, which is published in the extract mentioned.
  As a result, Speaker's Counsel made it clear to the Committee—made up of Members of this House and of the Lords—that the directive had not been fully implemented. At our meeting just before Christmas, it was clear that the Committee would not be able to produce a unanimous report, as we normally attempt to do. We therefore decided that we would take oral evidence in the first week after the Christmas recess.
  Following that oral evidence, which is printed in extract from the report, it was clearly the view of the Speaker's Counsel that the Government had failed to implement the European directive fully. That is a pretty serious warning to the Government. Obviously, Speaker's Counsel is most
  220
  experienced when it comes to considering such regulations, and does not lightly suggest to a Committee that the Government have failed to implement a directive.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is a danger that the regulations will be referred back to Europe at some stage, and that our Government will be found to have been negligent?
  Mr. Bennett: Speaker's Counsel certainly suggested that that was a possibility. Since the Government have already been found wanting by the court, this time round they could face a substantial fine. Clearly, the system does not work if Governments keep failing to implement directives.
  The Joint Committee was given a clear indication that everything was not right with the regulations. Most of the time, the Committee manages to pass reports unanimously, and there is no party political pressure. On that occasion, regrettably, it was obvious from the way in which the Committee voted that Conservative Members were determined to defend the Government, and were not prepared to accept the criticism. That is why hon. Members have the memorandum, but not a recommendation, from the Joint Committee that the regulations demonstrate that there has been a failure to implement the European directive.
  Uusually, the Government majority can carry them through, both in Committee and in the House. I must warn the Minister, however, that, once someone as respected as Speaker's Counsel suggests that the Government are failing to implement a directive properly, there is a great possibility that someone outside this place will decide to challenge them and take the matter back to the European Court. Even at this late stage, I suggest that the Government should have second thoughts and look carefully into fully implementing the directive.
  I am particularly concerned about the lack of facilities for people who want to organise an election to put representatives in place. There is the question of a room being made available. It does not happen often, but one does get companies that do not recognise a trade union and are irresponsible. They might feel that they want to negotiate with a particular worker, perhaps to come up with an alternative scheme to make one group of people redundant as opposed to another. The company will offer that individual a room within the factory or the workplace in which to negotiate with his or her fellow employees, while someone else whom the management do not view so sympathetically will be told that they can negotiate outside the factory gate or in the yard.
  We want the regulations to spell out clearly the right of individuals to have the time to negotiate and to get a list of the people involved so that there can be a proper ballot. Without an electoral register, it is difficult to guarantee a fair vote. From the point of view of the employer, I should have thought that it was important to have a check list to enable him to say, "These are the things I have done. I am safe. I cannot lose in an industrial tribunal."
  The Minister says that he wants it all in regulations, but he wants finally to leave matters to the good sense of the people involved. It is that good sense that it is almost impossible to challenge in an industrial tribunal. I think that the Government will be in difficulty.
  On behalf of the Joint Committee, I must also point out that we are in a mess with statutory instruments resulting from European directives. In many ways, the directives

  221
  do little more than the long title of a Bill—perhaps, one could say that they go a little further and that one gets the first explanatory clause as well. A great deal of the material that would normally form legislation now goes into statutory instruments, which cannot be amended. We must consider carefully whether new procedures are necessary to deal with regulations that come from European directives. I suggest that the Government could study regulations such as these to try to find some new procedure.
  I must point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who is to reply on behalf of the Opposition, that I am concerned, when we get a Labour Government, which is not far away, that the House will have a limited amount of time for primary legislation. There is a premium, therefore, on ensuring that, in the first 100 days of a Labour Government, we get on with doing things by regulation.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say that he has examined the regulations—he now has a long list of all their defects—and will quickly be able to come forward with a replacement regulation that would put back the things that are missing from the present regulations. I hope that he can give me that assurance, and say that we are doing the work to make sure that we have regulations ready to remedy the mistakes about which we have criticised the Government over the past few years.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Piers Merchant: I am mainly concerned about the law on redundancy, of which these regulations are part, because, sadly, there are going to be a number of redundancies—perhaps a large number— at the biggest employer in Beckenham. The House will remember how, last year, the large pharmaceutical company Glaxo took over Wellcome. The biggest employer in Beckenham is the Wellcome research laboratories at Langley Park. As part of the rationalisation that followed the takeover, Glaxo decided to close the laboratory, with the loss of some 1,600—or perhaps slightly more—jobs.
  My first concern was for what would happen to the work force—whether those people would be made redundant or offered other jobs, and, if made redundant, what help they would be given. Like any hon. Member in the circumstances, I talked to the company and to trade union representatives. I also talked to other people in the work force who were not members of a trade union, so that I could get the view from all angles.
  I am pleased to be able to report that, at the moment, in so far as anything good can come from such a situation, the matter has been well handled by all those involved. Glaxo is a large, responsible company, which abides by its social obligations, and is doing the best it can to look after the workers who will no longer have jobs in Beckenham.
  A large number of workers have been transferred elsewhere. There has been thorough consultation over that—not only through official union and other channels, but individually, with every member of the work force— to try to find out what is best for them: whether it is best for them to be transferred, made redundant or to take early retirement, and, if they are to be made redundant, whether
  222
  some help can be given to them in, for example, setting up in business or retraining and moving to a different sort of job.
  That happens in the majority of cases where there are redundancies. Companies, perhaps sadly, are used to handling them, and go out of their way to ensure that there is thorough consultation. They accept their responsibilities to their former employees. They try to keep the number of redundancies to a minimum, and find alternatives for those who are made redundant.
  The truth, perhaps also sadly, is that there is a limited amount that can be done during consultation once redundancies are inevitable. Obviously, as much consultation as possible should occur; I thoroughly support that. However, we would be fooling ourselves if we imagined that that would cure the fundamental problem that resulted in the redundancies in the first place. Often, all the discussions can do is try to ease the passage and explain to those involved, if they did not already realise it, why the situation has come about.
  I speak as someone who has been a trade union convenor, and twice been in such a situation. I have also been on the other side of the fence, and realise what it is like to manage and the difficulties involved when the work force must be rationalised. I also speak as someone who has been made redundant twice—once in industry and once in 1987, when I was made redundant from this place. I might add that the people who made me redundant, my then constituents, did not consult me until election day.
  Sir Michael Grylls: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend. Is it not the case that, the more Parliament or Europe imposes complicated social regulations—the intentions of which are good—on companies, the more redundancies may result? Firms find it difficult to compete when there is so much paperwork and bureaucracy. Their main competitors on the other side of the world do not have such difficulties. We are making a major own goal.
  Mr. Merchant: My hon. Friend is correct, except that I would say that it is not that such regulations "may" make more redundancies, but that they will. They would certainly prevent jobs from being created in the first place. Perhaps the most important thing when redundancy occurs is that there should be alternative jobs available to try to soak up those made redundant.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) stereotyped Conservative Members' opinions by suggesting that we all supported companies, which we believed never did any wrong, and that we regarded trade unions as beasts, which were entirely evil. That was the impact of what he tried to say.
  I reject that, as I said in my intervention. I believe, and have always believed, that trade unions have played, and play, a very important role in industry. I felt wholeheartedly that the law needed reform, but even before that reform, I recognised that trade unions played an important role, which is why I was an active member of a trade union.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West is stuck in the groove of the 1970s. That may make him feel nostalgic, and I hope he is happy in the groove, but it does not reflect today's world. He portrays an era when there was

  223
  perpetual confrontation in industrial relations. The main thrust of his speech related to a confrontation between a wicked employer who was trying to do down the work force that he was about to make redundant.
  In the vast majority of cases, that is not the position; employers desire full and proper consultation. In the worst case, they do so because it is in their interests to do so, to make the process easier, but in the best cases they do so because they recognise their responsibilities.
  The hon. Gentleman implies that company bosses would conspire to fix the consultation process by fixing the election of representatives of the work force. Why should they go to the trouble of doing so? In a sensitive redundancy position, the last thing any sensible employer wants is to stir up the animosity of the work force. I can imagine no better way of annoying the work force and making the redundancy more difficult than blatantly trying to fix the representatives' voice.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke of derecognition. Why should an employer who had recognised a trade union suddenly derecognise it during a difficult period in industrial relations, with impending redundancies? The suggestion is absurd. An employer who did not want to recognise trade unions would have derecognised the union long before that critical point was reached. The hon. Gentleman sinks into paranoia when he suggests that that is not so.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke as though, under the regulations, the company had the power to appoint the representative of the work force. As he well knows, that is not so—there must be elections. I do not understand how the employer could control the result of the free election that the regulations require.
  I believe that the hon. Gentleman wrongly interprets the impact of the regulations. I accept that, in unusual cases, an employer may choose to bypass trade union representation. Those cases are as follows.
  First, the employer may choose to bypass trade union representation when the trade union—or representatives of the trade union—obviously does not represent the employees. That happens occasionally, as the hon. Gentleman knows. In those circumstances, the regulations will help employees, by ensuring an alternative means of consultation.
  Secondly, the recognised trade union may represent only part of the work force. The employer may, on receiving representations from employees who are not members, decide that it is better to have an elected representative of the entire work force, instead of a representative of the trade union portion of it.
  Finally, there may have been severe confrontation between the employer and the trade union. The hon. Member for Oldham, West appeared to believe that severe confrontation was universal. In my opinion, it is rare. In such circumstances, the only way to achieve meaningful and positive consultation may be to bypass the trade union apparatus completely and hold an election of representatives from the part of the work force affected, purely for the purpose of consulting on redundancies. In those circumstances, the regulations would effectively protect employees' interests should that prove necessary.
  Finally, I refer to the question of independence, which the hon. Member for Oldham, West made great play of. I believe that the regulations contain sufficient
  224
  requirements to ensure that independent elections take place. My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen)—who has left the Chamber temporarily— quoted the regulations chapter and verse, but he did not refer to three very important aspects—the right not to suffer detriment, which is extended to all those who are elected to represent the work force; the time-off provisions; and the granting of provisions, such as telephones and office space, to elected representatives.
  Those measures will ensure that elected representatives are independent and that they cannot be intimidated or denied the means with which to represent the work force. That proves that the hon. Gentleman did not represent the situation fairly.
  The regulations are constructed in a flexible way, in accordance with the real industrial relations situation in Britain today. They represent a light touch in regulation terms, but why should we have more regulation than is necessary? That is not in anyone's interests. I think that the regulations generally strike the right balance, and I am therefore very happy to give them my full support.
  9.11pm
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: I have asked myself why we are having this debate this evening, and I have concluded that it is the product of an almost unprecedented vote in the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, the Committee usually operates on a consensual basis, trying to find common ground wherever possible. However, it divided on this issue—which is not a trivial matter. It was not maliciously invented by the Opposition, but flows from the considered advice provided by Speaker's Counsel.
  I shall begin by addressing the point that Conservative Members make incessantly. They recite the deregulation mantra: the Government have cut the red tape and freed small businesses from oppressive burdens. We hear that week in week out, month in month out, and year in year out.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: It is true.
  Mr. Prentice: I have considered the number of statutory instruments—like the one that we are considering this evening—that have passed through this place and I discovered that, in 1987, there were about 2,300 statutory instruments and in 1995 there were 3,300. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish for providing those figures. There has been an explosion in the number of statutory instruments, yet Conservative Members claim that they want to cut red tape. The much-trumpeted deregulation initiative is a damp squib; it is a mouse.
  I am serving on the Committee that is considering the Finance Bill, including the provisions relating to landfill tax. Much of that tax will be implemented by regulations and the Committee has received submissions from the Institute of Chartered Accountants—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I am sure that the Committee has received submissions from all sorts of people, but that is not terribly relevant to the debate this evening.
  Mr. Prentice: I shall move on, but I just wanted to make that point about the difference between reality and the rhetoric from the Conservative party.

  225
  We are here because of the advice that we received in the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments from Speaker's Counsel. That advice was unequivocal. Mr. Mason told us that, in respect of the two judgments of the European Court, United Kingdom law—in a non-recognition situation—allowed an employer to frustrate the protection offered by the directives. That is not my understanding; it is from Speaker's Counsel.
  Speaker's Counsel had reservations on a whole raft of matters, and he was very critical. He was concerned about the duties on employers to organise the elections and he was also concerned about the absence of any duties on employers to those organising the elections. The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs talked eloquently about the rights that are conferred by the statutory instrument on elected representatives. However, the elected representatives do not materialise out of the ether. They must be elected. Who organises the elections? There is no duty imposed on employers to make time or rooms available or to give facilities to the people who organise the elections that produce the elected representatives. That may seem a very arcane point, but it is right at the heart of the debate.
  Another point that I wish to make was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish. As he said, there is no certainty with the regulations. There is no judicial authority to which a tribunal can turn. The Minister was pressed on that point by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), but he was incapable of citing the judicial authority to which tribunal members could turn. When we quizzed the civil servants at that extraordinary meeting of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, they could not point to a judicial authority either. Speaker's Counsel could not point to any judicial authority. It will be left to the members of the industrial tribunal to lick their fingers and stick them in the air to determine whether an employer in a given situation may have acted unreasonably. There is no authority to guide the tribunal, and that is a very serious matter.
  The statutory instrument is another example of the deep antipathy that the Government have towards organised labour. It is frankly astonishing that the regulations should build in an either/or provision that, where there is a recognised trade union on site, the employer is allowed to set aside all the previous relationships that he has had with that recognised trade union and may consult a representative of the work force. That is absolutely bizarre.
  There is a massive chasm between the Government and the Opposition. The Government trumpet the virtues of non-recognition, but we would give everyone the right to be represented at the workplace by a recognised trade union.
  The consultation period is very short. For undertakings that employ fewer than 100 employees, it is only 30 days. That is no time at all, as anyone who has had experience of organising an election knows. That is a serious matter which has not been properly addressed.
  I address my next remarks to the hon. Members for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen), who is not in his place at the moment, and for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), who touched on this point as well. Both hon. Members relied
  226
  on the virtues of sensible employers and could not imagine employers acting in a way that would get them hauled up before an industrial tribunal. In the magical, fantasy world they painted, employers would always behave reasonably. Real life is not like that and life outside the Bar of England is not like that.
  There are rogue employers; some in my constituency pay people derisory sums, such as £1 to £1.50 an hour. They employ, as I said earlier, people who are illiterate, people who are not at home with the English language and people who have hitherto lived a cosseted existence, such as Asian women. There are rogue employers and people need to be protected from them. Who must do the protecting? It must be Parliament. If we pass that responsibility to an industrial tribunal, which will have no guidance, we are not doing our job.
  9.20 pm
  Sir Michael Grylls: This debate has been valuable, and I hope that it will be widely reported because it lifts the veil—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where were you?"] I have heard a good deal of the debate which, once again, lifts the veil and reveals that we are dealing not with a reconstructed Labour party but with a Labour party that has the same old boring, irrelevant prejudices.
  Although the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is an agreeable parliamentarian, I have to take him to task: he is not in the real world and he does not appear to represent the new Labour party; he is going back over the old stuff again. The debate also lifts the veil on what we could expect in the unlikely event of a Labour Government being elected. My hon. Friends may well roar with laughter; the prospect is such an absurdity that it is not worth spending 30 seconds discussing it. However, the country is entitled to know Labour's views, because people will have to make judgments.
  Horrors would come from the social chapter. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) rightly talked about the fact that there was far too much legislation; I am with him on that. However, this Government are at least trying to deregulate. They may not be as successful as they should be, and I would like to them to do even more, but at least they are trying. A Labour Government would flood us with legislation and we would be up to here in paper and red tape. That may not matter too much in the House of Commons, because we are up to here anyway in paper and bumph, but it does matter in business. Hard-working firms throughout the country battle to win export orders and to compete against firms in countries outside the European Union that are not shackled by the social chapter, which shackles so many companies on the continent and from which our Government have, happily, saved Great Britain.
  The debate has lifted the veil. The statutory instrument is, of course, important, but the debate is even more important in showing what could happen. The statutory instrument is a sensible reaction to the two European Court of Justice decisions, and I am glad that there are exemptions for cases in which a small number of employees are made redundant. That will help smaller firms which, if they are to survive and to maintain work for the remaining employees, need to be quick on their feet—
  Mr. Meacher: In getting rid of their employees.
  Sir Michael Grylls: The hon. Gentleman has lifted a bit more of the veil—this is fascinating—by saying that firms would get rid of people.
  In the real world, if a firm suffers a setback and loses an order, it may have to reduce its work force. If it does not, it goes bust and all the employees lose their jobs. That is something that Labour has never understood and that is why the reforms carried out at the beginning of the 1980s by Lord Prior, when he was Secretary of State for Employment, were so important. They freed businesses— particularly small and medium-sized firms that need to be able to take people on and lay them off according to prevailing circumstances. It has been proved that, ultimately, flexibility leads to more, not fewer, jobs. Sometimes one has to take some medicine in order to get better.
  The House has had many debates about British Leyland. I remember when it had to get rid of people, but when it became Rover and was more efficient, it started taking people on. That is the real world of business, so we must not shackle people as Labour would do.
  We have had a valuable debate, because it has lifted the veil and showed British people what would happen if a Labour Government were elected. I end on an optimistic note, as nobody in the House or outside really believes that that will happen, but it is as well that we are warned.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Ian McCartney: I must place it on record that the hon. Member for North-West Surrey (Sir M. Grylls) made a speech based on the debate in the House, but he was not in the Chamber throughout the debate. He criticised the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), yet he was not present to hear it. He said that Labour would flood the country with regulations on companies. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have done the House the courtesy of reading out a list of his own remunerations. He is flooded with directorships and other little earners outside the House, representing, I assume, some of the people who will benefit from the proposed regulations.
  The Minister's speech was more reminiscent of the Old Bailey than of the House. He ploughed on regardless of evidence and continued representing his client in the certain knowledge that his client was as guilty as hell.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: I am enjoying the spirit that the hon. Gentleman brings to the debate, but I must tell him that I have no right of audience at the Old Bailey.
  Mr. McCartney: Perhaps a Labour Government will deregulate and make sure that the hon. Gentleman has that right. It would give him something to do after the next election.
  The Minister said that his deregulation formula was four times blessed. One could take that seriously if one had not seen the Government's record on burdens on business. They have produced record levels of bankruptcy among small businesses. The Deputy Prime Minister practised late payment of bills, as he boasted recently, and that can lead to companies going bust. The Government refused to take action on bank charges, although the banks have ripped hundreds of millions of pounds out of the system at the expense of businesses. The Government have done nothing about the crippling record increases in
  228
  unified business rates and have lumbered small businesses with the costs of implementing statutory sick pay legislation. The Government are no friend of small business and nor are the regulations, as I shall explain.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) made some telling points about the printing industry and the necessity for the regulations to set out a fair method of electing workers' representatives—an issue that has been avoided. He made another fair point, on which the Minister failed to give any assurance, concerning the employer's neutrality during the process of a ballot. The Minister failed to respond to points raised by the Speaker's Counsel and other serious complaints about the flaws in the regulations.
  The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) is not in his place. I am not surprised that he took part in the debate, as he may be made redundant at the next election. I am surprised, however, that he did not remain to hear the end of the debate, as he made allegations about employment and trade union rights. He missed the point that we are debating not trade union rights but employees' rights that can be facilitated, if they wish, through a trade union of their choice. The regulations try to prevent that from happening.
  The hon. Gentleman made another amazing contribution—perhaps it had something to do with the fact that the Conservative party has been in power for 17 years. He argued that the Government had the right to be above the law. He argued—cogently in his terms—that the legal profession and the courts had no right to determine whether the Government were acting within the law in respect of the legislation before the House. That was an incredible attack—after 17 years of Conservative Government, it is not the first one from a Conservative Member. Conservative Members are so arrogant about power that they believe in dismantling our constitution, under which the judiciary is independent. That independence should be jealously guarded and attacks on it, whether from wild Back Benchers or from Ministers, should be rejected. We utterly reject the notion that this Government or any other Government can be above the law.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made telling points on behalf of his constituents, particularly employers. He put the employers' case for social partnership and made an important point about the deficiencies in the regulations. He spoke of the uncertainty for employers, even those who want to act reasonably and to co-operate. The regulations fail to give them the appropriate guidance.
  My hon. Friend made the most damning attack on the Government in relation to the Speaker's Counsel's opinion and he made a sensible suggestion which I hope the Minister will take up with his colleagues. My hon. Friend suggested that we should look at regulations and how we introduce them in the House. Many hon. Members are frustrated by the system which sometimes undermines Members' rights to scrutinise legislation.
  My hon. Friend also asked about what we, as an Opposition, would do. I can assure him that we are working seven days—and seven nights—a week preparing for government. We are considering all types of legislation, including primary legislation, to ensure that an incoming Labour Government are not only prepared to govern but understand the priorities for government in terms of social partnership, and the sort of legislation to

  229
  introduce to ensure minimum standards at work and the co-operation needed between employers and employees in developing the economy, both here and in Europe.
  The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) made an interesting contribution about the effects in his constituency of the merger mania which has become a plague in substantial parts of the United Kingdom economy. As a consequence of that merger mania, thousands of well-paid, well-established jobs have been stripped out as part of short-term measures to pay for the acquisition costs in different sectors of the economy.
  One of the most telling points that the hon. Gentleman made involved the consultation programme introduced by a company in his constituency. In consultation with trade union representatives, it set up a retraining programme, a relocation programme, a self-employment programme and an early retirement programme that ensured that anyone retiring early would not find himself or herself in abject poverty. That is precisely what the court ruling in Europe was supposed to be about—it was supposed to facilitate such a process, not as a one-off but as a matter of course to deal with all aspects of redundancy negotiations. Although he did not intend to do so, the hon. Gentleman's contribution supported the arguments so eloquently set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West.
  The Minister failed to give a detailed response to the opinion of the Speaker's Counsel and others about flaws in the regulations; instead, he ploughed on, on the basis that the Government are likely to have to return to the court on this subject. They are prepared to defend themselves in court—that is not an unusual practice for a Government who regularly find themselves before the European Court or courts in this country owing to their failure to act within the law. The hon. Member for Shoreham, although a radical, right-wing Back Bencher, made comments on that subject with which Ministers agree and in which they believe. They believe that they are above the law, so they are not prepared to take the advice of those who advise the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, those who advise the European Commissioner, or, indeed, European Court judgments.
  The Minister is arrogant in another way: he decided that the consultation process on the introduction of the regulations would be private. He decided that it was not to be reported to the House or to individual Members of Parliament. Indeed, he wrote to me and refused me access to the consultation process. One thing that he could not refuse me was access to the organisations that participated. I contacted them by letter and telephone, and the overwhelming majority were astonished to learn that the consultation was not public. They thought that the reason for giving a view—whether it was pro-Government, anti-Government or a mixture—was to give Members of Parliament an understanding of what the situation should be in the workplace regarding the European ruling. They were amazed and astonished that the Minister had refused me access. No one refused me a copy of the submissions, and when I received them it became clear why the consultation was not made public.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
  Mr. McCartney: Of course the Minister does not, because he does not understand his job. That was clear from his speech earlier.
  The Minister signed the letter. Perhaps he was ill advised in not providing information. It was a personal letter. He took time out from his busy day to ensure that neither the House nor I could have access to the consultation process. I shall give two examples to give hon. Members the flavour of the independent advice that the Minister and his Department failed to put before the House, and which they did not want the House to see.
  The first letter is from the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, which is an independent body, a tripartite organisation, protected by law, and which represents employers and employees. It was set up by statute of the House to advise the Government and industry on procedures to improve industrial relations and to resolve industrial relations problems. It wrote to the Minister on 2 May 1995, and said:
  "The Council views with some concern the requirement ߪ of the proposal for employers to consult, at their choice ߪ 'either a recognised independent trade union or elected representative of the affected employees.' The Council felt that allowing employers such freedom of choice might well result in established and accepted procedures being overturned. In ACAS's experience such a consequence would not be conducive to good industrial relations."
  That was the independent advice that the Government had sought and received. They not only decided to ignore it. as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said, but tried to suppress the information by not giving it to the House.
  Secondly, I received a letter—a very nice letter—from the Engineering Employers Federation, the voice of engineering, which responded to me immediately. This is what it said of the Government's position:
  "It is our view that proposed changes to the law do pose a number of new practical problems for many employers."
  So much for deregulation. The letter continued:
  "The Regulations will need to be clear and sufficient time will need to be given after the details of the Regulations are known but before they are brought into force to enable companies to understand the changes and to plan how they intend to comply with the new requirements."
  The Government did not do that, either. The letter stated:
  "Unless the Regulations are carefully drafted, they may result not only in increased litigation but also may adversely complicate and undermine existing employee relations practices."
  We cannot get any clearer than that.
  The EEF went on to say that the regulations should include a process to ensure that the balloting procedure is independent and can take place, to ensure that effective voting arrangements are available to employers and employees, to ensure that it is clear who can vote and to ensure the rights and duties of elected representatives in ballots.
  That is the suggestion of an employers' organisation, but it has not been included in the regulations. It has been ignored. Ministers, however, still parrot the fallacy that the regulations are, in fact, about deregulation—about removing burdens from industry. They are nothing of the sort; they are simply an ideological attack on organised labour and the right of individuals to be represented by that organised labour.
  The regulations have not secured the wholehearted support of industry, and on that basis I ask the Minister to withdraw them. Why did he reject the advice of ACAS

  231
  and the Engineering Employers Federation? Are not the regulations concerned with the deregulation of the United Kingdom's labour market, with a sweatshop Europe, with dragging down standards—imposing minimum standards as regards rights at work—with increased working hours, with low pay and with insecurity? Is all that not part and parcel of proposals that, over the past 10 years, have led us into three recessions?
  The Minister refused to appear before the Joint Committee considering the statutory instrument, choosing instead to hide behind his officials and let them face the music. They could not respond, either in principle or in detail, to the allegations and complaints made by the Committee; they simply said that, in all circumstances, an industrial tribunal would be available to individuals wishing to seek redress.
  We know that the tribunal system is experiencing a crisis. Tens of thousands of cases are awaiting consideration; in some areas, people may wait for six months. Equal access to tribunals does not exist, because there is no right to legal aid. Is the Minister suggesting that industrial tribunals should be the sole recourse for employees who wish to resolve a grievance? Will he return to the matter later, and announce financial provision to make that possible? If people are not represented by trade unions, they will have to meet the cost of tribunals from their own pockets—and they may already be in receipt of benefit, because their redundancies may already have taken effect.
  Is the Minister going to tell us, clearly and specifically, that the Government will change their policy and provide legal aid? I do not think that he will. If I am right, the issue of access to tribunals was no more than a smokescreen to get the legislation past the Joint Committee. The Government, however, could not get past either the members of the Committee or the cogent legal argument that their proposals were flawed.
  It is interesting to note that nearly 8.5 million people have been unemployed at least once since the last general election. Since the election of the present Prime Minister in November 1990, 11 million people in England alone have been unemployed at least once. The Government see unemployment and redundancy as a key element of their economic strategy. The regulations are intended to do no more than facilitate the continuation of that strategy, and their proposals for deregulation.
  The Government will not get away with this. Either they will be forced to go back to court and defend their position, and lose—as they are likely to—or it will be up to an incoming Labour Government to resolve the issue, as we shall. No intellectual, moral, economic or social case can be made to exempt 96 per cent. of employers in Britain from allowing employees access to consultation— allowing them their minimum rights—in the event of redundancy. It flies in the face of the European Court ruling and puts up two fingers to that court.
  The threshold in the Government's proposal negates the court's proposals, which contained the simple proposition that, when a redundancy situation exists, employees are entitled to a minimum standard of representation, and that that representation and consultation are about an amelioration of the redundancies to take place. They also aimed to put in place an agreement with employees to facilitate a reduction in redundancies, retraining or
  232
  relocation—all the things that the hon. Member for Beckenham set out in his speech on behalf of the Government.
  The Government's proposal negates that responsibility. As a consequence, they will again face being a lawbreaker instead of a lawmaker. Whether it be the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for Trade and Industry, for Social Security or for Scotland, Cabinet members end up before the courts as lawbreakers. They have brought the House into contempt.
  An incoming Labour Government will rectify that position at the next general election. If the Government will not give people appropriate opportunities to have discussions on redundancies, at the next general election, it will be Conservative Members who will be made redundant. We will have a Government in place who not only give people basic rights but have an economic policy that gets rid of redundancies and starts producing jobs.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. John M. Taylor: With the leave of the House, in a breathless and breathtaking winding-up speech, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) asked me why I had not slavishly followed some selected employer representative. He then hopelessly exaggerated the improving process times of industrial tribunals. He gave us a clear glance of old Labour in all its bitter fulmination and then asked me about the consultation process. A copy of the Department's consultation paper was placed in the Library of the House. Perhaps he cannot find the Library. The replies informed the Government in drafting the regulations—that was the purpose of the consultation. As a matter of courtesy to the people consulted, I did not send him copies of their responses, but of course he could have approached them and asked them for a copy. I am entirely happy that he should have done so.
  Hon. Members have referred to the advice of the Speaker's Counsel. Whatever advice the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments may have received, it has not drawn that advice to the House's attention. The courts will decide whether the regulations implement the judgments. We are confident that they will decide in our favour.
  The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) asked about judicial authority. If by judicial authority he means case law, there can be no case law—certainly not yet— because this is new law on employee representatives. If he means legal authority, the text of the regulations is sufficient, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) ably explained. They clearly provide that the employer must consult representatives and include sanctions if he does not.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Surrey (Sir M. Grylls) wanted more deregulation and, separately, more glimpses of old Labour so that the electorate would not be beguiled. In short, he wanted to save small firms and save England too. Even so, he concluded optimistically and reassuringly, at least in my opinion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) spoke cogently—as he always does—and vividly about his qualifications to speak on these matters. He lent to the debate special authority, sympathy and insight in his sharply focused approval of the Government's proposals.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) implied that he thought that former representatives do not have protection. I must tell him that former

  233
  representatives are protected under the regulations. I am sure that if he looks carefully at the wording of regulations 12 and 14, he will see that protection against dismissal and detriment short of dismissal applies not only to candidates and representatives, but to former candidates and representatives, if their dismissal or the detriment suffered relates to their status or activities while acting as representatives.
  The hon. Members for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and for Leicester, South both asked me to summarise for them the gist of the European Court judgments. The main point arising from those judgments is that there should be consultation of employees' representatives regardless of whether there is a recognised trade union. Most hon. Members who take an interest know that at present the only consultation required is consultation with a recognised trade union, if there is one. If there is none, there is no current obligation to consult at all. That is the deficiency in our law—laws that were put on the statute book by the Labour party. The Government are now putting that right.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham developed his arguments lucidly, as always, not least on the subject of judicial review. His remarks will merit rereading tomorrow, and what he said about the right of employees to challenge the way in which an election was conducted, was exactly correct.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has played a particular part in the deliberations outside the Chamber, not least in the Joint Committee. Tonight he spoke about employers in his constituency, and described how careful and well-conducted industrial relations had often resulted in short-term working rather than lay-offs, and how both employers and employees had benefited from that mature form of industrial relations. He took me with him there, and I understand and respect what he said.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke in favour of certainty. So do I, but there our convergence falters. We agree that there was uncertainty, but on behalf of the Government I say that the regulations before us properly remove that uncertainty.
  It has been said both in the debate and outside the Chamber that the Government oppose trade unions. That is not the case. We are neither for nor against unions. Just as we believe that every individual employee must have the right to choose freely whether to be a union member, so we believe that every employer should be free to decide whether to deal with trade unions. That was not so under the Labour Government's legislation, which both permitted and encouraged the closed shop, and enabled unions to compel employers to recognise them. That remains an area in which there are clear differences between the policies of the Government and those of the Opposition.
  Since 1980 we have implemented a series of reforms to industrial relations and trade union law to correct the previous imbalance of power between unions and employers, and between unions and their own members.
  I remind hon. Members that it is as a result of the Government's reforms that workers are free to choose whether to join a union; that secondary industrial action and flying pickets are unlawful; that trade union
  234
  members have the right to vote in postal ballots on industrial action, the election of leaders and the establishment or maintenance of political funds; that trade unions rather than their officers are legally accountable for their actions and can be sued if they act unlawfully; and that employers can no longer be forced to recognise trade unions if they do not believe that it is in the interests of their business to do so. At every stage those reforms were bitterly opposed by the Labour party and the union movement.
  I am happy to say that strikes, whether official or unofficial, no longer dog our economy as they did in the 1960s and 1970s. The Government's trade union reforms have transformed industrial relations, and I make no apology for quoting some more statistics. The average number of working days lost for every 1,000 employees between 1975 and 1979 was 512. Between 1990 and 1994, it was 37—a reduction of 93 per cent. There were only 205 recorded strikes in 1994—the lowest annual total since records began more than 100 years ago.
  That transformation in our industrial relations has generated greater confidence in the economy. That has attracted inward investment, which has of course brought jobs and opportunities. During last year alone, almost 37,000 new jobs were created through inward investment, while more than 51,000 jobs were safeguarded. Better industrial relations and the positive climate for growth and enterprise that we have created have brought more work and better opportunities for the people of this country— whether they are trade union members or not—and strengthened the economy.
  I should not need to add that the Labour party has voted against every reform that we have introduced, just as it will vote to revoke the regulations. It was no more right about the other issues than it is about this one.
  We have had an interesting and instructive debate— for some of the time. It has been interesting not only because of what has been said, but for what was not said by the hon. Member for Makerfield and other Opposition Members. We have heard no more than might have been predicted in a Trades Union Congress brief on the issue.
  As I said, I would not expect any meeting of minds on some points for we approach such matters from fundamentally different standpoints. I would not expect Opposition Members to welcome a provision that allows an employer freedom of choice on whether to consult through a trade union or through representatives elected by employees themselves. I did not expect Opposition Members to approve measures designed to minimise the statutory burdens on UK businesses to enable them to remain competitive and create jobs.
  Nor did I expect to hear—although I challenge him to tell us now—how the hon. Member for Makerfield would give effect to the judgments. Would the hon. Gentleman return to the practices of the past? Is he a representative of old Labour? Looking down the bench below the Gangway, I see that there are rather a lot of old Labour members in the Chamber. Where the others? Where is new Labour? Where are the stakeholders? We have the old stakeposts here tonight, and I think that they will win the battle for the heart and soul of the Labour party.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 295.

  Division No. 44]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Ainger, Nick

  Eastham, Ken

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Etherington, Bill

  Allen, Graham

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Faulds, Andrew

  Ashton, Joe

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Flynn, Paul

  Barron, Kevin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Battle, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Foulkes, George

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Fyfe, Maria

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Galbraith, Sam

  Bell, Stuart

  Galloway, George

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Gapes, Mike

  Bennett, Andrew F

  George, Bruce

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Gerrard, Neil

  Berry, Roger

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Blunkett, David

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Boateng, Paul

  Godsiff, Roger

  Bradley, Keith

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Grant Bernie (Tottenham)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

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

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Burden, Richard

  Gunnell, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Hall, Mike

  Caborn, Richard

  Hanson, David

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Harvey, Nick

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Henderson, Doug

  Canavan, Dennis

  Heppell, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Chidgey, David

  Hodge, Margaret

  Church, Judith

  Hoey, Kate

  Clapham, Michael

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

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

  Clelland, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Coffey, Ann

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoyle, Doug

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hutton, John

  Corston, Jean

  Illsley, Eric

  Cousins, Jim

  Ingram, Adam

  Cox, Tom

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cummings, John

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jamieson, David

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Janner, Greville

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

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

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Keen, Alan

  Denham, John

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

  Dewar, Donald

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dixon, Don

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dobson, Frank

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Dowd, Jim

  Litherland, Robert

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Livingstone, Ken

  236

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Radice, Giles

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Randall, Stuart

  Loyden, Eddie

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Reid, Dr John

  McAllion, John

  Rendel, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  McCartney, Ian

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McFall, John

  Rogers, Allan

  McKelvey, William

  Rooker, Jeff

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  McLeish, Henry

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Rowlands, Ted

  MacShane, Denis

  Ruddock, Joan

  McWilliam, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Madden, Max

  Sheerman, Barry

  Maddock, Diana

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mahon, Alice

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mandelson, Peter

  Short, Clare

  Marek, Dr John

  Simpson, Alan

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

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

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Maxton, John

  Soley, Clive

  Meacher, Michael

  Spellar, John

  Meale, Alan

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Michael, Alun

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Stott, Roger

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Milburn, Alan

  Straw, Jack

  Miller, Andrew

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Morley, Elliot

  Touhig, Don

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Trickett, Jon

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Turner, Dennis

  Mudie, George

  Wallace, James

  Mullin, Chris

  Walley, Joan

  Murphy, Paul

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wareing, Robert N

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Watson, Mike

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  O'Hara, Edward

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Olner, Bill

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wilson, Brian

  Parry, Robert

  Winnick, David

  Pearson, Ian

  Wise, Audrey

  Pickthall, Colin

  Worthington, Tony

  Pike, Peter L

  Wray, Jimmy

  Pope, Greg

  Wright Dr Tony

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Purchase, Ken

  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm and Mr. Joe Benton.

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bates, Michael

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Batiste, Spencer

  Alexander, Richard

  Beggs, Roy

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Ancram, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Arbuthnot, James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Ashby, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Boswell, Tim

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Baldry, Tony

  Bowis, John

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  237

  Brazier, Julian

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Garnier, Edward

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Burt, Alistair

  Gorst, Sir John

  Butcher, John

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Butler, Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Cash, William

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Churchill, Mr

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Clappison, James

  Hannam, Sir John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Harris, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hawkins, Nick

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hawksley, Warren

  Colvin, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Congdon, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Conway, Derek

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hendry, Charles

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Couchman, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Cran, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

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

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Horam, John

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Day, Stephen

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Dicks, Terry

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dover, Den

  Jack, Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Jenkin, Bemard

  Duncan-Smith, lain

  Jessel, Toby

  Dunn, Bob

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Elletson, Harold

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Key, Robert

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Knapman, Roger

  Evennett, David

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Faber, David

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Fabricant, Michael

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

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Knox, Sir David

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Forman, Nigel

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stilling)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Forth, Eric

  Leigh, Edward

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

  French, Douglas

  Lidington, David

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Gallie, Phil

  Lord, Michael

  238

  Luff, Peter

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Soames, Nicholas

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Spring, Richard

  Malone, Gerald

  Sproat, Iain

  Mans, Keith

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Marland, Paul

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Steen, Anthony

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Stephen, Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stern, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Stewart, Allan

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Streeter, Gary

  Merchant, Piers

  Sumberg, David

  Mills, Iain

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Sykes, John

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thomason, Roy

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Norris, Steve

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Thurnharn, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Page, Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Paice, James

  Tredinnick, David

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Trend, Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Trotter, Neville

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Pawsey, James

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Viggers, Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Walden, George

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Ward, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Richards, Rod

  Watts, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Wells, Bowen

  Robathan, Andrew

  Whitney, Ray

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Whittingdale, John

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wilkinson, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Willetts, David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Wilshire, David

  Sackville, Tom

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'Id)

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Yeo, Tim

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sims, Roger

  Mr. Simon Burns and Dr. Liam Fox.

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Question accordingly negatived.

  Frances Withers Home, Sutton Coldfield
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Knapman.]
  10.15 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: The previous Adjournment debate that I initiated was about the Good Hope hospital in my constituency. I criticised the position at the hospital and argued, among other things, that more beds needed to be opened there. I am glad to report that that has been done, and almost everyone in the community has welcomed that—the sole exception being the Labour party's health spokesman, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman).
  I hope that the hon. Member for Peckham will take note of the issue that I draw attention to tonight—the future of a 40-bed residential home for elderly people, the Frances Withers home which, contrary to strong local feeling, the Labour-controlled Birmingham city council intends to close. It is a case, not of reducing beds, but of cancelling them and withdrawing care. Once that policy, which is in its last stages, has been implemented, no facilities will remain at the Frances Withers home for the elderly people who are there, or for any future residents from Sutton Coldfield and the rest of Birmingham.
  I was Secretary of State for Social Services for six years, and this is one of the most extraordinary cases that I have come across. The media are rightly used to becoming passionate about the health service. I hope that the television companies which frequently visit Good Hope hospital will visit the Frances Withers home and confirm what I am about to say. The impression has been given that the Frances Withers home is decrepit and run down, requiring hundreds of thousands of pounds to bring it up to standard. In fact it is a modern, purpose-built home, providing single rooms for all 26 current residents and with other single rooms available to bring it up to capacity. The home is below capacity only because new entrants are being refused.
  On entering for the first time, any visitor receives an impression of space. There are lounges on both floors and the atmosphere is self-evidently happy. The home, situated in a quiet part of Sutton Coldfield, is surrounded by gardens and has a good view of Sutton park. In other words, it is an ideal spot for a residential home for elderly people and, in the opinion of some people who have visited all the homes in Birmingham, it is one of the best homes in the city, if not the best. That makes the proposal to close that excellent home, with all the consequences that it will bring, all the more extraordinary. In my opinion, it is a policy of social vandalism.
  What does the closure of Frances Withers mean? First and foremost, residents who have lived there for several years will be moved from what they rightly describe as their home. They are very elderly men and women, almost all of whom are in their 80s and 90s. There is Alice who is 96, Mary who is 91 and Gregory and Jessie who are both 90. No one should doubt the trauma involved in moving people of that age.
  My mother died before Christmas, aged 93. She spent the last years of her life in residential and then in nursing care. As far as she was concerned, stability was essential. She would have been devastated had she been shuffled
  240
  about at that stage of her life. Fortunately, she was not, but the 26 people now staying at Frances Withers face that traumatic prospect.
  No one should doubt the strength of feeling of the relatives who are witnessing what is happening at Frances Withers. One wrote to me in the following terms:
  "I believe this to be a mean and heartless measure on the Council's part. For many of the pensioners residing at Frances Withers this is the only home they have known for several years and to move them elsewhere would be a sad and traumatic experience."
  The policy means distress for residents and relatives as the council breaks up an established home. It will also mean splitting up the excellent team of staff who work at Frances Withers, some of whom have been employed there since it opened in the early 1970s. The closure of Frances Withers is opposed by me and my team of Conservative councillors—Alan Rudge and John Hood. David Roy, the Lord Mayor, obviously steers clear of controversy, but he has also kept himself informed about that issue. The closure is also opposed by Unison, the union which represents the staff, and by a number of Labour councillors. In other words, the policy has very few friends.
  If the closure of the nursing home goes ahead, the supply of much-needed residential accommodation for elderly people in north Birmingham and the surrounding area will be permanently diminished. Apologists for the closure quietly suggest that demand for places in residential care is diminishing and that that is likely to continue, but that argument flies in the face both of present experience and of the estimates of future demand.
  Last Friday at my advice bureau I met relatives of Frances Withers residents who are deeply anxious about the future. I pay tribute to the way in which they have put their case. My next appointment was with another resident of Sutton Coldfield who was concerned about her mother who is almost 80. At the end of October her mother fell and broke her hip and she was admitted to Good Hope hospital on the same day. It was decided that she could not return home—her daughter had cared for her for the past 18 years—as she now needed a greater degree of care. It took no fewer than 95 days to find her an alternative place—during which time she waited in the same bed, in the same ward, at Good Hope hospital. I acknowledge that that was an exceptional case, but we would be foolish to ignore the warning.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: Yes, I will, although the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of Sutton Coldfield and Birmingham is not exactly encyclopaedic.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not claim that it is. Has not the local authority said that it has to make so many closures because it does not have the resources to keep the facilities going?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I shall come to that point and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be persuaded by what I have to say about it. I hope that he will not rely on that point, however, because it is a dud and invalid point.
  I was making a serious point. If the Frances Withers home is closed, the same will happen as happened to my constituent: beds in the local hospital at Good Hope will

  241
  be used for people who should be in residential care. That lady was kept in Good Hope hospital for no fewer than 95 days in a bed that could have been used for other patients. That is a disgrace. Doubtless, that is an exception and I do not claim that it is common, but the risk inherent in the council's policy is that such cases will become more and more common.
  I will deal now with the argument that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) raised. What arguments have been used to defend a policy which, frankly, I believe is indefensible? Money, of course, is one of the arguments used. Birmingham has a budget of £1.2 billion a year. In 1996–97, some £188 million will be available to spend on social services. That is an increase of £11.5 million over 1995–96, and an increase of almost £83 million on 1990–91.I simply cannot believe that, in that vast budget of Birmingham council, the only decision that can be taken to save money is to close a purpose-built—I emphasise purpose-built—20-year-old old people's home. If that is the case, the council should pack up and go home.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I will not give way. The hon. Lady was not here at the beginning of the debate. If she wants to have an Adjournment debate on the situation in her area, she has opportunities to do so.
  When the press has asked about the policy, another argument has been advanced by the council spokesman. The press has been told about an estimated £530,000 that needs to be spent on refurbishments to meet the "1998 regulations". It has been suggested that they are European regulations—not so. It has been suggested that they are Government regulations—again, not so. Indeed, they are not regulations at all but a policy and a time scale that Birmingham council has itself decided to follow to make improvements to the home. It is, of course, sensible to improve physical standards in any home, and that should be done steadily year by year—councils should not allow spending to pile up so that they need to make a big investment all at once and have an enormous single bill— but there is no reason to set down an inflexible timetable.
  The Government's policy was set out in the ministerial introduction to "Home Life":
  "It will be for registration authorities individually to ensure that the code is applied positively and sensitively in a way that makes sense in local circumstances".
  Personally, I endorse those words entirely as I wrote them in conjunction with Lord Crickhowell, then Secretary of State for Wales. No one ever envisaged in a million years that a local authority would misuse guidance on best practice as an excuse for closing down a modern residential home.
  I am not talking about an ancient, decrepit building. The home was purpose built. No requirement has been laid down by the Government or anybody else that certain standards should be met by 1998. That is a rod that the council has devised for its own back. If the net result is to close down a modern building, that is bureaucracy gone mad. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health will confirm that there is nothing in Government regulations that would force the spending of £530,000 by 1998.
  242
  I do not think any more of the further argument that has been made—that residential provision for the elderly is above average in the Sutton Coldfield and Erdington areas. That is a fascinating statistic, but it is next to meaningless because the people there do not always come from Sutton Coldfield and Erdington—certainly, as I well know, their relatives come from all over Birmingham.
  I believe that the policy is wrong because of the potentially disastrous impact that it will have on present residents. I believe that it is wrong because of the effect that it will have on future residents. I believe that it is wrong because it is bound to have the effect of increasing the pressure on local hospitals. And it is wrong because many of the reasons that have been given as justification for it are misleading.
  We now know that alternative uses for Frances Withers are being actively considered. A letter from the head of acquisitions and valuation services to the social services department says:
  "I should be grateful if you could kindly let me have some indication of when vacant possession of the premises is likely to be obtained and your thoughts on their future use, particularly with regard to the need to satisfy your committee's policy regarding the disposal of surplus homes."
  Another letter at the end of October from the social services department notes that the North Birmingham Mental Health trust, in partnership with MIND— the National Association for Mental Health—is among the organisations that have expressed interest in alternative uses for Frances Withers. In other words, we can take it that the policy of closure is being pursued vigorously.
  The question is what can be done. I am highly critical of the policy and I do not withdraw one word of what I have said about it. I hope that there are now sufficient people of good will in all parties who do not want to see an excellent home closed down and residents moved against their will. One solution is obviously for the council to reverse its policy and to continue to run the home. If that is not to be the case, it needs to be said now that all other options should be explored to see how the home can go on running and how its residents can be cared for.
  It may be that some new partnership arrangement can be reached with the council. It may be that a voluntary organisation will be able to help or even that a new voluntary organisation can be formed. However, I make it clear that it must be a voluntary organisation that wants to preserve the home for the elderly people who are there and does not want to dedicate it to some other use. Perhaps some form of private sector organisation may be interested.
  If the council is not to run the home, the aim must be to continue to run Frances Withers as a residential home for elderly people. Clearly, options for the future cannot be explored sensibly with an axe poised over the home. What is now required is a minimum six months' stay of execution so that all the options can be explored. I very much hope that the council will agree to this, and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to confirm my understanding of the requirements that govern the home and to confirm that what I propose is an option that is open to the council. Above all, the aim must be to develop new policies that will give fresh hope to the elderly residents of Frances Withers home.
  10.32 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) for raising the issue this evening and for bringing it to my attention, to that of the House and to that of the decision makers in the city of Birmingham. As a distinguished and long-serving former Secretary of State for Social Services, my right hon. Friend brings great personal experience and expertise to the subject, so much so that I am almost tempted to sit down and let him answer the debate. However, I will not do that tonight.
  I know, too, that my right hon. Friend will acknowledge that we have built on his years of achievement, and have gone on advancing the provision of care for elderly people, especially since the introduction of the community care reforms in 1993.I also welcome his reference to the progress that has been made in the NHS in Birmingham, where, as he has acknowledged, work has started on two new operating theatres with emergency facilities at the Good Hope hospital, at a cost of £1.4 million. A further £1.4 million is to be spent on work at the City hospital NHS trust for refurbishment of the accident and emergency department.
  At both national and local level, care for the elderly has, rightly, become one of the highest-profile and closely followed aspects of health and social services. In this place before Christmas, we had a debate on care of the elderly in Lancashire. A couple of weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) examined the regulation and inspection of homes. Last week, I was able to give evidence to the Select Committee on Health on the future of long-term care.
  I very much welcome the attention that my right hon. and hon. Friends have given to this area of policy implementation, and the scrutiny that they have given to the decisions by local councils, so many of which are currently in the hands of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. Tonight is no exception.
  The introduction of community care represented a major step forward in the delivery of services to the elderly. By the end of 1996–97, local authorities will have been given an additional £2.2 billion for their new responsibilities, representing a massive injection of resources at a time of tight restraint in public spending, and a total of well over £5 billion for community care. To take Birmingham as a example, the local authority's total personal social services resources will have risen by 46 per cent. in real terms since 1990–91. Its total social service resources in 1996–97 will represent an increase of 9 per cent. over the 1995–96 figures, as my right hon. Friend said.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Minister acknowledge that Birmingham already spends well in excess of the standard spending assessment for social services? The council may be Labour-controlled, but the Government impose budget constraints. The Government grant has increased by about 0.5 per cent., and overall expenditure has risen by 2.5 per cent., so Birmingham faces cuts of about £41 million.
  Mr. Bowis: The hon. Lady is quite right. Birmingham has to manage with the generous resources that it receives from the taxpayer. As my right hon. Friend pointed out,
  244
  the increase in resources to social services from £105 million in 1990–91 to £187.8 million in 1996–97 is fair funding indeed, and Birmingham should be able to provide good and efficient services. Perhaps it needs to be more efficient.
  Important as investment has been, we are committed to developing services that increase user and carer choice and control—choice in the services they receive and the way in which those services are delivered. Our reforms are about putting people first, and my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, first and foremost, local councils should be looking at what is best for the residents of the Frances Withers home. He mentioned Alice, Mary, Gregory, Jessie and the other residents. As he says, they are at perhaps the most vulnerable stage of their lives, and they deserve utmost consideration from those entrusted with their care.
  My right hon. Friend would be among the first to recognise that improving care for the elderly is not a task that central Government can approach by seeking to intervene and interfere in every local decision. Good-quality local care can be delivered only if the elected leaders of local authorities take responsibility for the planning, commissioning, inspection and, in some cases, management of services.
  The Government have set out a clear policy framework within which local authorities can discharge their statutory duties. In addition to the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, we have in recent years issued guidance to local authorities on the procedures they should follow in making service changes, such as closing homes.
  We have supported the development of guidelines for standards in residential care homes. My right hon. Friend will no doubt recall endorsing the "Home Life" report of 1984, to which he referred. He will be reassured to know that we have not endorsed the draft "Home Life II" report which has been circulating in recent weeks and caused such dismay as a result of its intrusive and politically correct content and tone. We have introduced a statutory direction on choice that gives anyone entering residential care, following an assessment by the local authority, the right to choose the home in which they wish to live, subject only to availability, appropriateness and reasonableness in terms of cost.
  We have continued to develop the role of the social services inspectorate in overseeing standards and the local inspection of those standards. The Audit Commission is developing its work, and we have a Bill before Parliament to develop that further.
  Within that framework, we want to allow local authorities as much scope as possible to carry out their functions, enabling them to diversify and, in partnership with providers, users of services and carers, to determine appropriate provision for the local population. The people of Birmingham elect their councillors to do exactly that job. They will be looking to them for solutions to problems such as those that my right hon. Friend raised this evening, and in due course they will hold them to account.
  Local authorities around the country are increasingly providing residential care through contracts with independent sector providers rather than running directly managed homes many of which do not meet the registration standards required of independent sector

  245
  homes. There is no requirement on local councils to provide directly managed homes, and that has been clarified by a recent judgment in the House of Lords. Their duty is to arrange for appropriate and good-quality care to be provided by residential and domiciliary care providers, no matter in which sector they are.
  The key current responsibilities of local authorities towards their local populations are to assess needs and to make arrangements as necessary for residential and other forms of care. Their prime function is that of purchasers of care, but we make no requirements on them to reduce, or divest themselves of, their own homes. We certainly do not include the sort of requirements to which my right hon. Friend referred. Local needs and priorities must drive local decisions.
  I stress that, even if a local authority decides that it is not best placed to run its own homes, there are alternatives to closure that should be considered. Many local authorities have transferred the ownership or management of their homes to the independent sector—private or voluntary—as my right hon. Friend suggested. Such transfers can take place without any disruption to the lives of the residents themselves, while giving better value for money for residents and ratepayers alike.
  When a decision is being made to close a local authority-run home, we have made it clear in guidance—and it has been confirmed in judicial reviews—that local authorities have a duty to inform and consult existing residents. They should take fully into account the welfare and wishes of both residents and staff of the home involved.
  Factors to take into consideration should include the availability of other homes in the area and any deficiencies in the existing buildings. Residents of a home should be informed of any proposal to close as quickly and sensitively as possible; they should be fully consulted about the range of alternative homes in which they can and might wish to be accommodated. When doing that, local authorities are expected to make every effort to enable residents to preserve friendships that they may have built up in the home, so that the move is carried out with the minimum of disruption.
  There are two avenues that can be pursued where anyone is not satisfied that a closure has been carried out with due regard to such considerations: the first is judicial review, which I believe has recently happened in terms of another home closure in Birmingham; secondly, there is the local authority complaints procedure, with eventual recourse to the local authority ombudsman. I know that my right hon. Friend will understand when I tell him that Ministers cannot and have no power to intervene in individual cases. To do so would undermine one of the strengths of community care—that it puts local people in charge of local decisions.
  With regard to the Frances Withers home in Sutton Coldfield, I can understand why feelings run so high on such a sensitive issue, which affects very elderly and vulnerable people. I understand that the director of social
  246
  services has given an assurance that the council will not undertake any precipitous action. He has stated that the decision to close the home was taken after due consultation and consideration of the options available. I understand that his officers in the social services department have sought to engage residents in discussions about alternative accommodation, although there remains a group of people who have so far declined to engage in such discussions.
  I know that, in arriving at its decision, the social services committee claims to have considered a number of factors, including the overall level of provision in the area—to which my right hon. Friend referred—and the extent to which the services are provided by the council. I believe that the council's provision is higher than the national average.
  Other factors include the occupancy levels, which I am told have been less high in Frances Withers than in other nearby homes. That may be partly due to the uncertainty over the home's future. Some 23 of the home's 40 beds are currently occupied. The council claims to have concerns about the levels of staffing and the maintenance of good-quality care. It also claims to have taken into account the number of admissions, which suggested that the home was not being used as much as neighbouring homes, particularly for respite care.
  There was also the question of the cost of refurbishment, to which my right hon. Friend referred. That is certainly not due to any Government requirement.
  Sir Norman Fowler: My hon. Friend is making an important point. Will he confirm and underline the fact that there is no Government requirement that £530,000 should be spent on Frances Withers home, by any regulation propagated by Government, by the year 1998?
  Mr. Bowis: I can give that assurance. There is no such requirement to do so, by 1998 or any other date.
  I have listened carefully to the points made by my right hon. Friend. I was particularly concerned to hear about the wait endured by the lady who was finally admitted to a home. If he would like to let me have further details of that case, I shall certainly look into it. I shall be asking the social services inspectorate to keep a close watch on the position in Birmingham and to report back to me as appropriate.
  The council in Birmingham, the social services and we in government need to ensure that there is a coherent strategy in place that is flexible enough to take account of the wishes of local people, particularly the residents of local care homes. I hope that Birmingham councillors will consider carefully the fact that, if they cannot continue to run the home—for whatever reason—they must adequately consider the option of inviting the independent sector to take it on and keep it going. I think that that is what my right hon. Friend is asking for on behalf of his constituents. It seems to be a perfectly reasonable option, which should be considered by the city council.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the level of public funds granted in the last five years in legal aid to(a) people living abroad and (b) foreigners living in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement as to what checks are made by the Legal Aid Board as to the verifying the accuracy of financial statements made by (a) and (b) and their financial position in their own countries. [13499]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Information on legal aid expenditure granted to people living abroad is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information on the nationality of applicants for legal aid is not separately recorded. It is therefore not possible to say how much legal aid was paid in respect of foreign nationals.

  Applications from people living abroad and foreigners living in the United Kingdom are subject to the same tests as applications from British citizens resident in England and Wales.

WALES

  Community Hospital Project (Porthmadog)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress on the community hospital project, to be based at Porthmadog, since the meeting on 26 January between representatives of the Gwynedd community health trust and Welsh Office.officials. [12884]

  Mr. Hague
  The trust is finalising its outline business case for the proposed hospital in light of comments made by my officials. Producing a satisfactory business case is a matter for the trust in discussion with its main purchasers.

  Arts Projects
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters he has received(a) from organizations and individuals in Wales and (b) from hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies concerning adverse effects following on the failure to secure millennium fund backing for the national opera house/Lyric theatre in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [12902]

  Mr. Hague
  The numbers of letters received in each category are:

  (a) fewer than a dozen;

  (b) two.

  Exel Logistics
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultation he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority concerning changes to the specification of the materials management contract awarded to Exel Logistics in the course of the market testing of the authority, subsequent to the publication of the specification and exclusively for Exel Logistics and without informing other bidders. [13794]

  Mr. Hague
  None. There have been no changes to the specification.

  Cardiff Bay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 624, and the letter to the hon. Member by the chief executive of the Cardiff Bay development corporation of 29 January, under what statutory authority the Land Authority for Wales uses its compulsory purchase powers on behalf of another non-departmental public body. [13907]

  Mr. Hague
  The Land Authority for Wales compulsory purchase powers are provided subject to my authorisation, under section 104 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

  Internet
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to eliminate his predecessor's name and text from the Welsh Office Internet entry; if he will update the contents in the Welsh Office Internet box; and if he will make a statement. [13982]

  Mr. Hague
  I have no immediate plans to remove the text of my Department's brochures from the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency's Government information service.

  Medical Staff (Suspensions)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) consultants, (b) junior doctors and (c) general practitioners have been suspended on full pay in each of the last three years. [13983]

  Mr. Hague
  This information is not available centrally. However, with effect from 1 April 1995 employing authorities/trusts must notify the Department when a consultant has been suspended on full pay for six months. There have been no such notifications since then.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Saudi Arabia (Arms Deals)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of Andrew Green in respect of arms deals with Saudi Arabia during his terms of office there; and if he will make a statement. [13097]

  Mr. Hanley
  All senior Foreign Office officials are required to promote British exports. Mr. Green was engaged in such work during a posting to Riyadh as deputy head of mission from 1985 to 1988.I am confident
  99
  that he will continue to uphold British interests admirably during his forthcoming posting as our ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of David Gore-Booth in respect of arms deals with Saudi Arabia during his term of office in that country; and if he will make a statement. [13075]

  Mr. Hanley
  All heads of mission are required to promote British exports. Ambassador Gore-Booth has done so extremely effectively.

  Gedhun Chokyi Nyima
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to(a) the Chinese Government and (b) the Dalai Lama on his visit to London in July in respect of the whereabouts of Gedhun Chokyi Nyima. [13171]

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary raised a range of human rights issues with the Chinese during his visit to Peking in January. In particular, he expressed our concerns about reports of abuses in Tibet. The whereabouts of Gedhun Chokyi Nyima and his tutor was raised during the recent EU-China human rights dialogue which took place in Peking from 21 to 24 January. The Dalai Lama has also expressed his concerns.

  Law of the Sea Convention
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the necessary procedures in respect of ratifying the agreement of, and acceding to, the United Nations law of the sea convention described in his answer of 20 July 1994,Official Report, column 236, will be completed; and when it is Her Majesty's Government's intention to ratify and accede. [13572]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The legislation we intend to have in place before accession will be complete when the orders on privileges and immunities for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the International Sea-Bed Authority, and the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution) Order 1995, have been made. These were approved by Parliament on 24 and 25 January. A number of other necessary procedures are outstanding. Once these are complete, we will be in position to accede to the UN convention on the law of the sea and to ratify the part XI implementation agreement.

  Sudan
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions Her Majesty's Government have initiated with(a) the European Union, (b) the Commonwealth and (c) the United Nations regarding moves to achieve peace in Sudan. [13632]

  Mr. Hanley
  Moves to achieve peace in Sudan have centred on the initiative launched in 1994 by the Inter-Governmental Authority on Drought and Development, including Kenya and Uganda, which we have fully supported. The UK has also played an active part in stimulating a critical dialogue between the EU and 100
  Sudan. At the UN, the UK has been active in securing the passing of resolutions critical of Sudan's human rights record.

  Kosovo
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what account is being taken of the situation in Kosovo in determining diplomatic recognition of Serbia by the European Union. [13444]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Member states of the European Union, in considering recognition of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, are taking full account of the situation in Kosovo. The development of good relations between the FRY and the EU and the FRY's position within the international community after recognition would depend, inter alia, on full respect for human rights, including minority rights, and the granting of a large degree of autonomy for Kosvo within the FRY.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received on and what is his policy regarding the establishment of an international criminal court. [13631]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have received a wide range of representations on this subject.

  Following the ad hoc committee meetings to discuss this issue, a preparatory committee has been set up to undertake work in March and in August on a draft statute for an international criminal court. We have made it clear that our support for the establishment of a court is dependent, among other things, on its being a court of last resort for certain serious crimes where states are unable or unwilling to act and also on its being generally accepted by the international community.

  The final decision as to whether to become party to the statute establishing such a court will only be taken once we know what the statute will look like.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of current relations between India and Pakistan concerning Kashmir; and if he will make a statement. [12462]

  Mr. Hanley
  We remain concerned that the issue of Kashmir damages relations between India and Pakistan. We continue to urge both parties to show restraint and resolve their differences through peaceful negotiation. We are disappointed that the talks between India and Pakistan in Islamabad in January 1994 have yet to be continued.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of the 24 January,Official Report, column 227, how many people have been killed in Karachi and Sindh between 1 January and the latest available date. [12485]
  101
  Mr. Hanley
  The official Pakistani police figures for killings in Sindh and Karachi from 1 January, up to and including 30 January, are:

  Sindh (including Karachi): 178

  Karachi: 86

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Government of Pakistan about child bonded labour in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [13368]

  Mr. Hanley
  We regularly express our concerns to the Government of Pakistan about child and bonded labour. We welcome recent steps they have taken to improve the situation, such as widening access to schooling and the establishment of rehabilitation centres. However, we recognise that much remains to be done.

  China
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he raised the cases of(a) Wei Jingsheng, (b) Tong Yi and (c) Dai Xuezhong during his visit to China; and if he will make a statement. [13220]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 5 February 1996]: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary raised our concerns about a range of human rights issues during his recent visit to Peking. In particular, he mentioned the case of Mr. Wei Jingsheng and urged his early release. He also asked for a response to the list of individual cases handed over during Foreign Minister Qian's visit to the UK in October 1995; Tong Yi was included in that list.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Pay
  Mr. Tracy
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to review the arrangements for the pay of hon. Members and Ministers. [14237]

  Mr. Newton
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has today written to Sir Michael Perry, the chairman of the Senior Salaries Review Body, in the following terms:"As you know, changes in the structure of civil servants' pay mean that new arrangements need to be found for determining Members' pay from 1997 onwards.
  I would be grateful if you and your colleagues on the Senior Salaries Review Body, under your standing terms of reference, undertake a comprehensive review, with the following remit.
  'The Senior Salaries Review Body is asked to undertake a comprehensive review of the level and structure of Parliamentary pay and allowances and to make recommendations for the future. The review should cover each of the following terms:

  (i) the salary of Members of the House of Commons;

  (ii) the salaries of Ministers and other office-holders;

  (iii) all allowances, comprising the Office Costs Allowance, Motor Mileage Allowance, Additional Cost Allowance and the London Supplement;

  (iv) the severance pay and pension arrangements for MPs and Ministers;

  102

  (v) the rates of Peers' expenses allowances and the Secretarial Allowance for Ministers and other paid office-holders in the House of Lords; and

  (iv) a linkage to provide the basis for annual uprating in future years without the need for Parliamentary decision.'

  I realise that such a review will be time consuming and needs to be fitted in with your other work. Nonetheless, I would be grateful if it could be completed in time for you to make recommendations, if at all possible, by the end of June."

ENVIRONMENT

  Land (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much land in Leeds, and Yorkshire and Humberside is currently recorded on the land registers; and how much has been sold since the inception of the land registers(a) in total and (b) on his direction. [10423]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Since October 1989 local authorities and certain other public bodies have been required to compile and maintain registers of unused and underused land in their ownership. Local authorities have been asked to submit annually to the Department aggregated information from their registers.

  The latest complete information on land held by local authorities in Yorkshire and Humberside is for March 1994. Information on land sold between 1989 and 1994 is incomplete. No directions have been issued over this period.

  Land recorded on land register at 31 March 1994 Hectare

  Land sold between October 1989 and 31 March 1994 Hectare

  Leeds

  241.1

  250

  Yorkshire and Humberside (including Leeds)

  2,799.1

  1,030.3

  Gritting Lorries
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authority gritting lorries there were in(a) 1992, (b) 1993, (c) 1994 and (d) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [13168]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is not held centrally.

  Sewerage Pipes
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the sewerage undertakers which have decided to exclude plastic as an approved material for waste-water pipework; [13186]

  (2) when he last met the representatives of (a) the pipe making industry, (b) the British Standards Institution and (c) the European Commission to discuss the specification for sewerage pipes. [13185]

  Mr. Clappison
  The specification for sewerage pipes is a matter for the sewerage undertakers.

  Antarctic Ice Shelves
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what talks he has had with his EU counterparts regarding the disintegration of Antarctic ice shelves. [13271]

  Mr. Clappison
  British Antarctic Survey scientists, reporting recently in the scientific journal Nature, Vol. 379, about the disintegration of Antarctic ice shelves, were unable to determine whether this was a result of global climate change due to greenhouse gases or part of a long-term natural oscillation.

  The Council of Environment Ministers at their last meeting in December noted that the recent findings of the intergovernmental panel on climate change concerning the threat of damage from climate change underline the necessity for urgent action at the widest possible level. If the disintegration of Antarctic ice shelves should prove to be due to greenhouse gas warming, the Council would need to consider what further action to take.

  Water Abstraction (Conservation Areas)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he has given the National Rivers Authority on the review of extant abstraction licences which may affect sites designated as special protection areas under the birds directive or as candidate special areas of conservation under the habitats directive. [13666]

  Mr. Clappison
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) on 23 January 1996,Official Report, column 198.

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many jobs have been advertised in each grade in his Department during the last three months for which records are available; and how many people have applied for each such job. [13832]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department of the Environment, central, has advertised the following permanent administrative and specialist jobs during the last three months:

  Type of Posts

  Number applied

  Senior planning officer x 2

  62

  Senior professional and technological officer x 3

  97

  Administrative officer, Hemel Hempstead x 1

  26

  My Department is currently advertising for two assistant librarians.

  Water Companies (Profits)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the formula used by the water industry regulator to determine how much profit is given as returns to shareholders. [13909]
  104
  Mr. Clappison
  The price cap system of economic regulation of the water industry places a limit on prices, rather than controlling profits or dividends. The regulator monitors the dividends paid by the regulated businesses to their group companies. It is for the group companies to decide on the level of dividends paid to shareholders.

  Wind Turbines
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what response he has made to the Countryside Commission's call of 15 January for a review of planning policy guidance 22 in relation to the location of wind turbines; [13702]

  (2) what representations his Department has received about the proposed location of 16 wind turbines on Gunson Height in Furness, Cumbria. [13703]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency has met and written to the chairman of the Countryside Commission explaining how the contents of PPG22 already deal with the environmental concerns raised by the commission in relation to wind turbines.

  A planning application together with an environmental assessment for 16 wind turbines on Gunson Height has been made to South Lakeland district council, which is carrying out the usual consultations. So far as is known, no representations have been made direct to my Department at this stage.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) the local authorities which will benefit from the area cost adjustment in 1996–97 and (b) the amount by which each such authority will benefit in that year. [13944]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A table listing the contribution to SSAs from the area cost adjustment has been placed in the Library.

  The contribution of the area cost adjustment is not the same as the amount an authority would gain or lose if there was not an area cost adjustment in the standard spending assessment system. If the area cost adjustment were removed, it would be necessary to revise the analyses on which the SSA formulae are based, and we would wish to consult the local authority associations on what would then be the most appropriate formulae.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the planned yield from council tax in England for the financial year from 1995–96 to 1998–99 based on the view of local authority behaviour taken in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97" expressed in(a) millions of pounds, (b) in pounds divided by the band D council tax base used for 1995–96 tax setting and (c) in pounds divided by the total number of chargeable dwellings in England in 1995–96; [13972]

  (2) what is (a) the Treasury's estimate of the likely increase in the total yield of council tax in England in 1996–97, expressed in pound million and as a percentage based on the view of local authority behaviour taken in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97", (b) the detailed worked mathematical calculation that

  105
  informs that estimate, (c) the Treasury's estimate of the increase in aggregate budgets as adjusted for the purposes of 1996–97 capping, expressed in millions of pounds and as a percentage based on the view of local authority behaviour taken in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97" and (d) the planned increase in aggregate Government total external support for local authorities in England in 1996–97, compared to 1995–96 total external support adjusted for 1995–96 community care special transitional grant and further changes in local authority responsibilities, expressed in millions of pounds and as a percentage. [13973]

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government do not set plans for the yield of council tax, which depends upon decisions made by individual authorities. The figures in chapter 4 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", HC 30, which relate to 1996–97 and preceding years only, show an estimate of the contribution of council tax, net of council tax benefit, to the total of general Government revenues.

  The costs of council tax benefit fall largely to the Exchequer. In order to reduce the chance that local authorities' budgeting decisions will have an adverse effect on the public finances. Estimates of council tax growth are set on the pessimistic side.

  The table shows the calculation of gross council tax yield for England consistent with chapter 4 of HC 30. The calculation takes account of estimates of the council tax base, the assumed average level of council taxes and the average council tax collection rate.

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Estimated council tax base before collection rate adjustment (million band D equivalents)

  16.50

  16.55

  Assumed average band D council tax level, £

  609

  656

  Percentage estimate of assumed collection rate

  97.2

  97.4

  Estimated yield gross of council tax benefit, £ million

  9,780

  10,574

  Estimated increase in gross yield £ million

  —

  794

  Per cent.

  —

  8.1

  Gross yield divided by 1995–96 tax setting tax base, £

  —

  659

  Gross yield divided by 1995–96 chargeable dwellings, £

  —

  538

  No separate estimate is made of the increase in aggregate budgeted local authority revenue expenditure in England.

  Aggregate external finance has been increased by £549 million (1.6 per cent.) above the 1995–96 level, adjusted for community care special grant and other changes in local authority responsibilities.

  Nuclear Electric plc
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new discharge authorisations will be required following the separation of Nuclear Electric plc from Nuclear Electric Ltd. from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution; how many have been granted; and what is the timetable for the remainder. [13292]
  106
  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 2 February 1996]: Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has received the following applications for new discharge authorisations submitted on behalf of the AGR and PWR Co. Ltd:

  Number of authorisations applied for

  Power station

  Type

  waste gases, miss and dusts

  Liquid waste

  Combustible wastes

  Dungeness B

  AGR

  1

  1

  0

  Hartlepool

  AGR

  1

  1

  1

  Heysham 1

  AGR

  1

  1

  1

  Heysham 2

  AGR

  1

  1

  1

  Hinkley Point B

  AGR

  1

  1

  1

  Sizewell B

  PWR

  1

  1

  1

  AGR=Advanced gas-cooled reactor.

  PWR=Pressure water reactor.

  None of the authorisations has so far been granted. HMIP aims to publish its decision on each of the applications early in March 1996. Before the decision is published, the applicant has the right to appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment under section 26 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, or request a hearing from the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under section 28 of the Act, with respect to a refusal of an authorisation or any limitations and conditions imposed. In addition, such local authorities or other persons whom the Secretary of State and the Minister consider appropriate may be afforded a hearing. No firm timetable for publishing the decision can therefore be given.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Knives (Sheffield)
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many knives were handed in in(a) the Sheffield area and (b) the Hallam constituency during the recent knives amnesty; and if he will make a statement; [13072]

  (2) how many offences were committed in the Sheffield area for each of the last three years involving knives; and if he will make a statement. [13073]

  Mr. Maclean
  The running of the recent knives amnesty was an operational responsibility for chief officers of police and the information was collected by police force areas. The number of knives and potentially dangerous weapons handed in in the Sheffield area was 225. The information requested on the numbers of offences involving knives is not collected centrally.

  Reconvictions
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the percentage of offenders convicted of offences carrying a discretionary life sentence who are reconvicted of a second offence of similar seriousness; what is the average sentence imposed on those reconvicted of offences carrying a discretionary life sentence; what is the average time served by those reconvicted for (i) all categories of such offences, (ii) manslaughter, (iii) rape, (iv) robbery, (v) buggery,
  107
  (vi) assault causing grievious bodily harm, (vii) aggravated burglary, (viii) firearms offences carrying life sentence as a maximum penalty and (ix) other offences carrying a maximum life sentence. [12909]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not collected routinely. A sample of those convicted of indictable offences in five weeks in 1993–94 included 600 offenders convicted of sexual or violent offences carrying a discretionary life sentence, 198–33 per cent.—of whom had previous convictions for such offences. A total of 169 of the offenders with previous convictions for such offences were given a custodial sentence, five of whom were sentenced to life imprisonment. The table shows the average sentence imposed, excluding life sentences, by offence group. Information is not available on sentences actually served by the offenders included in the sample.

  Offence

  Number sentenced to immediate custody on second or greater occasion

  Average custodial sentence imposed (months)

  Manslaughter

  5

  45

  Rape

  8

  81

  Robbery

  92

  42

  Buggery

  4

  75

  Wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm

  31

  49

  Aggravated burglary

  3

  74

  Firearms offences

  1

  48

  Other offences

  20

  34

  Total

  164

  46

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average sentence served by(a) burglars and (b) drug dealers imprisoned for a third such sentence; [12911]

  (2) what percentage of (a) burglars and (b) drug dealers receive a prison sentence on their third conviction for a similar offence. [12910]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not collected routinely. The results from a sample of those convicted of indictable offences in three weeks of 1993 are given in the table which shows the average sentence imposed. Information is not available on sentences actually served by the offenders included in the sample.

  Sentencing of burglars and drug dealers1 convicted for the third or greater time

  Offence

  Number convicted on a third or greater occasion

  Percentage sentenced to immediate custody

  Average custodial sentence imposed (months)

  Burglary

  1,135

  43

  11

  Drug dealing1

  8

  75

  30

  1 Based on drug trafficking offences monitored and reported in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Statistics of Drugs Seizures and Offenders dealt with, United Kingdom, 1994". These are offences of unlawful production of drugs other than cannabis, unlawful supply, possession with intent to supply unlawfully and unlawful import or export.

  Police Authorities (Funding)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) capital funding and (b) supplementary credit approvals awarded to police authorities for 1996–97. [12930]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is listed in the table.

  Police capital programme 1996–97

  Police force

  Total funding £ million

  Supplementary credit approval

  Avon and Somerset1

  4.610

  1.427

  Bedfordshire

  2.288

  0.708

  Cambridgeshire

  1.233

  0.298

  Cheshire

  1.885

  0.584

  City of London

  0.825

  0.255

  Cleveland

  1.451

  0.449

  Cumbria

  1.147

  0.315

  Derbyshire

  2.200

  0.616

  Devon and Cornwall

  3.739

  0.773

  Dorset

  1.305

  0.404

  Durham

  1.706

  0.528

  Dyfed Powys

  0.936

  0.290

  Essex

  7.310

  2.079

  Gloucestershire

  1.991

  0.595

  Greater Manchester

  8.404

  2.602

  Gwent

  1.334

  0.367

  Hampshire

  5.707

  1.530

  Hertfordshire

  2.697

  0.835

  Humberside

  3.123

  0.967

  Kent1

  8.006

  2.495

  Lancashire

  3.331

  1.031

  Leicestershire

  3.886

  1.203

  Lincolnshire

  2.873

  0.890

  Merseyside1

  6.812

  1.981

  Norfolk

  2.515

  0.773

  Northamptonshire

  1.718

  0.532

  Northumbria

  8.499

  2.620

  North Wales

  2.115

  0.559

  North Yorkshire1

  2.780

  0.926

  Nottinghamshire

  5.965

  1.847

  South Wales1

  7.146

  2.146

  South Yorkshire

  5.472

  1.694

  Staffordshire

  3.505

  0.815

  Suffolk

  1.195

  0.337

  Surrey

  5.923

  1.834

  Sussex

  7.345

  2.252

  Thames Valley

  6.883

  2.058

  Warwickshire

  1.022

  0.311

  West Mercia

  3.993

  1.070

  West Midlands1

  9.409

  2.900

  West Yorkshire

  7.682

  2.290

  Wiltshire

  1.464

  0.417

  Metropolitan Police

  54.410

  16.459

  Grand total

  217.790

  65.060

  1 Includes allocation for Regional Crime Squads.

  Prisons (Capital Expenditure)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what capital expenditure for the financial year 1996–97 for prisons in England and Wales will be dropped or revised as a result of the recent cost reductions; and what proportion this represents of total capital expenditure. [13278]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  109
  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. George Howarth, dated 6 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about what capital expenditure for the financial year 1996–97 for prisons in England and Wales will be dropped or revised as a result of the recent cost reductions; and what proportion this represents of total capital expenditure.
  The provisional capital budget for 1996–97 was £204 million. The final settlement was £117 million, representing a fall of 43% from the provisional budget. The Prison Service is currently deciding which projects to start in 1996–97 within its capital allocation and which capital projects can be started under the Private Finance Initiative.

  "Prevention of Illegal Working"
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of all the submissions he has received as a result of his consultation exercise on his document "Prevention of Illegal Working". [13346]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have made available to the House a list of those who have responded in writing to the consultation document and a summary of the main points made in those responses. It is for those who responded to decide whether to make their submissions public.

  Police (Publicity Costs)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost to his Department of the communications directorate campaign to publicise successful police operations. [13272]

  Mr. Howard
  The Department has no specific campaign to publicise successful police operations. Examples of good police work are included in press releases, articles and speeches to demonstrate successes in the fight against crime. The minimal costs involved cannot be identified separately.

  Keith Mann
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what considerations led to Keith Mann being given category A status. [13383]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 6 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about what considerations led to Keith Mann being given category A status.
  Category A is applied to those prisoners whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public or the police or the security of the state no matter how unlikely that escape might be; and for whom the aim must be to make escape impossible.
  Keith Mann was convicted of arson in June 1993. He escaped from prison custody while awaiting sentence and was unlawfully at large until his re-arrest in April 1994. On arrest he was found to be in possession of what was reported by police to be material which could be used for making explosives and incendiary devices. He was
  110
  subsequently charged with a number of offences including attempted arson, incitement to commit arson and having explosive substance under suspicious circumstances.
  In accordance with procedures laid down in the Prison Service Manual on Security, Keith Mann was, on his reception into prison custody, reported to Prison Service headquarters as a potential category A prisoner. Having regard to the nature and circumstances of the alleged offence, information received from the police and in the light of an assessment provided by a specialist police adviser, it was decided that Mr. Mann should be provisionally classified category A pending conviction and sentence.
  On 19 December 1994 at the Central Criminal Court, Mr. Mann was sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment for damaging property, attempted incitement to commit arson, attempted incitement to commit criminal damage, attempted incitement to steal and having explosive substance under suspicious circumstances. A review of his security category was completed by the Prison Service Category A committee in September 1995. It was decided that Mr. Mann should remain a category A prisoner but this decision was further reviewed following the outcome of his appeal against sentence. It was subsequently decided that Mr. Mann's security category could be downgraded to category B.

  Traffic Police (Training)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Home Department if he will list the number of staff employed by the police(a) full time and (b) as part of the other duties to train traffic police in (a) tachograph and (b) construction and use regulations relevant to heavy goods vehicles. [13276]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Juvenile Crime (Seaham and Peterlee)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juveniles were convicted of(a) theft and (b) burglary in the Seaham and Peterlee courts each year since 1991. [13199]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information regarding cases heard at individual court buildings within a petty sessional division is not collected centrally. Data from 1991 to 1994—latest available—are given for the Easington petty sessional division in the table.

  Number of persons aged 10 to under 18 years convicted in the Easington Petty Sessional Division of indictable offences of theft and handling stolen goods and burglary, 1991–1994

  Offence

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  23

  31

  43

  60

  Burglary

  36

  28

  39

  58

  Firearms (Durham)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many legally held firearms are held in the Peterlee sub-division of the Durham constabulary; of which type; and if he will list the figures for each of the last five years. [13229]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information received from the Durham constabulary indicates that a total of 1,495 firearms were covered by certificates in force on 31 January 1996 in the Peterlee sub-division—356 firearms, which includes rifles, pistols, revolvers, large magazine smooth bore guns and specially dangerous air weapons, and 1,139 shot guns.
  111
  Information for earlier years is not available apart from that contained in the answer given to the hon. Member's similar question on 21 January 1993, Official Report, column 332.

  Stalking
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the law on stalking. [13269]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government have recently completed an examination of the anti-stalking laws passed in the United States, Australia and Canada and are currently considering whether workable and effective legislation to combat stalkers can be introduced in the United Kingdom.

  Entry Clearance Applications
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many entry clearance applications have been delayed because papers have been lost in transit between posts abroad and the immigration service in each of the last three years. [13478]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is not held and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Police (Ethnic Minorities)
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total staff establishment from ethnic minorities for the police service in England and Wales by each grade or rank in(a) 1989 and (b) 1995; [13462]

  (2) how many police officers in England and Wales were from an ethnic minority in (a) 1989 and (b) 1995. [13461]

  Mr. Maclean
  There were 1,306 police officers from an ethnic minority in England and Wales at the end of 1989. Records of the ranks held by these officers were not kept centrally. On 30 September 1995, there were 2,223 police officers from an ethnic minority in England and Wales, made up of 2,020 constables, 158 sergeants, 36 inspectors, eight chief inspectors and one superintendent.

  Police Cautions (Burglary)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to his answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 708, on how many occasions since the publication of Home Office circular 18/1994, the police have sought the opinion of the Crown Prosecution Service as to whether a prosecution should be brought or a caution given in a particular case; [13429]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 30 January, Official Report, column 708, on how many occasions each year the views of victims have been sought, in accordance with the guidance given at paragraph 7 of circular 18/1994, prior to or in contemplation of, the police issuing a caution to the perpetrator of an offence instead of initiating a prosecution. [13428]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not collected.
  112
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 708, how many times a caution was administered in respect of a most serious offence triable only on indictment in each year since 1992. [13433]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is given in the table.

  Number of persons cautioned for indictable only (excluding triable either way) offences in the Metropolitan Police Area and England and Wales, 1992–1994.

  Area

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Metropolitan Polices

  186

  236

  222

  England and Wales

  1,735

  1,599

  1,542

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 708, what monitoring has been given to the correctness of issuing cautions for less grave offences, in accordance with paragraph 6 of circular 18/1994, since the publication of that circular; and if he will make a statement. [13430]

  Mr. Maclean
  There are no national arrangements for monitoring decisions to administer a caution, but in the course of examining forces' cautioning policy Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary looks, where appropriate, at sampled cases in order to determine whether the policy is being observed. Moreover, a number of forces have established monitoring arrangements on a local basis.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 708, how many times cautions have been given for crimes of (a) attempted murder and (b) rape, since the publication of circular 18/1994. [13432]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is given in the table.

  Number of persons cautioned for (a) attempted murder and (b) rape following the publication of the Home Office Circular 18/19941 in England and Wales 1994

  Offence

  1994 January-March

  1994 April-December

  Total 1994

  Attempted murder

  —

  1

  1

  Rape

  9

  10

  19

  Man having unlawful intercourse with a woman who is a defective

  2

  3

  5

  Substantive rape

  7

  6

  13

  Attempted rape

  —

  1

  1

  1 The Home Office Circular 18/1994 'The Cautioning of Offenders' was issued on 15 March 1994. Cautioning data held centrally only identify the month of the caution, not the date.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 708, (1) what action has been taken since the publication of Home Office circular 18/1994 to reduce the inconsistency between police forces about circumstances in which they consider it appropriate to administer a caution, that is referred to at paragraph 4 of that circular; [13424]

  (2) what action has been taken since the publication of Home Office circular 18/1994 to minimise the differing

  113
  perceptions between police forces as to the boundary between (a) informal warnings and formal cautions and (b) formal cautions and prosecutions; and if he will make a statement. [13427]

  Mr. Maclean
  Improving consistency between police forces in their disposal of cases was one of the main purposes of the circular. In March 1995, the Association of Chief Police Officers issued guidelines as to the weight which it was suggested should be attached to a range of offences. The guidance has been adopted by a substantial number of forces. It is too early to determine how far it has helped to improve consistency of decision making.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 708, to what extent all cautions are accurately recorded in accordance with paragraph 11 of Home Office circular 18/1994. [13426]

  Mr. Maclean
  Up to 1 November 1995 records of caution were generally kept only by the force that issued them. Since that date, records of all cautions for reportable offences have been entered by forces on to the Phoenix database of the police national computer.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 708, what monitoring of results in accordance with paragraph 4 of circular 18/1994 has been given to caution plus schemes. [13425]

  Mr. Maclean
  Most of the 24 forces which operate some form of caution plus scheme have established monitoring arrangements. The results are being evaluated as part of a research study which is now in progress.

  Opposed Measures
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a list of all the measures approved by Parliament since 1979 on law and order, prison sentences, illegal drugs use and terrorism which were opposed(a) on Second or Third Reading, (b) in Committee and (c) on Report by Her Majesty's Opposition. [13120]

  Mr. Howard
  The list of measures which the Opposition have voted against on Second Reading includes:

  1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which strengthened police powers to stop and search suspects;

  1986 Public Order Act, which gave the police more powers to deal with street disorder;

  1988 Criminal Justice Act, which raised the maximum sentences for a number of serious crimes and gave the Attorney-General a right of appeal against over lenient sentences;

  1991 Criminal Justice Act, which made parents more responsible for their children's actions and ensured that all prisoners serve at least half of their sentence in custody;

  Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, which introduced new measures to deal with bogus asylum seekers; and

  annual renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act every year since 1983.

  114
  A full list of all the measures approved by Parliament since 1979 on law and order at Second and Third Reading, in Committee or on Report by Her Majesty's Opposition is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  details of votes cast in parliamentary Divisions are a matter of public record, published in the Official Report.

  Asylum Seekers
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information is exchanged between the Governments of all European Union states on asylum seekers; and what rules of confidentiality are applied. [13159]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  General information on asylum matters is exchanged through the Centre for Information, Reflection and Exchange on Asylum working group, established by the Council of the European Union. CIREA's discussions are normally confidential and do not include individual cases.

  Discounts for Guilty Pleas
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards magistrates courts offering discounts for guilty pleas. [13118]

  Mr. Maclean
  In common with the Crown court, magistrates courts are required by section 48 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to take account, when passing sentence, of the timing and other circumstances of a plea of guilty; and, where a discount is given, to indicate the fact This provision gave statutory force to existing practice; the principle that an early plea of guilty should attract a discount on sentence has long been reflected in the sentencing guidelines issued by the Magistrates Association.

  The Government hope that this provision will help to make defendants who are guilty aware of the advantages of pleading guilty at an early stage.

  Under-age Alcohol Sales
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licence holders have been prosecuted in the Peterlee and Seaham courts for selling alcoholic liquor to persons who were under age in each year since 1991. [13465]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  [holding answer 2 February 1996]: Information regarding cases heard at individual court buildings within a petty sessional division is not collected centrally.

  Data for the Easington petty sessional division show no prosecutions for the offence of a licence holder selling or supplying intoxicating liquor to persons under 18— section 1 of the Licensing Act 1964—from 1991 to 1994.

  Secure Training Centres
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the contracts for the secure training centres are being resubmitted to his Department. [13753]
  115
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 5 January 1996]: Tender proposals for the provision of the first two secure training centres at Gringley, Nottinghamshire and Cookham Wood, Kent, were received on 14 June 1995. Negotiations are continuing with the tenderers and as part of this process tenderers are being asked to revise certain aspects of their bids prior to the final assessment and selection of preferred bidders. Contracts will be signed as soon as possible once the terms of the contractual agreement have been finalised.

  Visas (El Salvador)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State. for the Home Department how many visas were granted to representatives of the army and police of El Salvador to visit the United Kingdom in 1995. [13197]

  Mr.Hanley
  I have been asked to reply.

  One.

TREASURY

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many workers(a) in total, (b) who are single, (c) who are married and (d) with children do not claim the full value of their tax allowances due to low earnings; and if he will estimate the value of the unclaimed allowances. [9936]

  Mr. Jack
  The table shows the number of individuals in 1995–96 with some earnings from employment or self-employment, including individuals under 18 and pensioners, who have no income tax liability. Some of the people in the table have gross earnings in excess of the basic tax allowance but have no tax liability due to tax reliefs and deductions which can be set against taxable income. About 1.8 million of the 2.9 million non-taxpaying married individuals have taxpaying spouses.

  Individual's marital status

  Number millions

  Single with no children

  0.8

  Single with children

  0.3

  Married with no children

  1.3

  Married with children

  1.6

  Total

  4.0

  The estimates are based on information projected from the 1993 family expenditure survey and are therefore provisional.

  It is not possible to provide a meaningful total of unused allowances without a specification of the method to be used for combining allowances available at the marginal tax rate and those available at 15 per cent.

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the number and percentage of(a) basic rate and (b) higher rate taxpayers in each English county for the most recent year for which figures are available. [12604]

  Mr. Jack
  The table provides estimates for 1993–94, the latest available year for which information can be provided below the United Kingdom level.

  Basic and higher rate taxpayers, 1993–94

  Taxpayers liable at basic rate but not higher rate

  Taxpayers liable at higher rate

  Thousands

  Percentage1

  Thousands

  Percentage1

  Cleveland

  155

  72.5

  11

  5.1

  Cumbria

  146

  67.9

  13

  5.9

  Durham

  176

  73.1

  11

  4.4

  Northumberland

  100

  70.6

  8

  5.6

  Tyne and Wear

  276

  68.6

  15

  3.7

  Humberside

  265

  73.3

  17

  4.6

  North Yorkshire

  258

  74.5

  25

  7.2

  South Yorkshire

  359

  73.5

  20

  4.2

  West Yorkshire

  614

  72.4

  41

  4.8

  Cheshire

  302

  70.7

  36

  8.3

  Greater Manchester

  751

  71.3

  45

  4.3

  Lancashire

  413

  73

  25

  4.5

  Merseyside

  356

  71.4

  22

  4.3

  118

  Basic and higher rate taxpayers, 1993–94

  Taxpayers liable at basic rate but not higher rate

  Taxpayers liable at higher rate

  Thousands

  Percentage1

  Thousands

  Percentage1

  Derbyshire

  300

  73.8

  20

  5.0

  Leicestershire

  309

  74.8

  17

  4.0

  Lincolnshire

  208

  70.6

  15

  5.0

  Northamptonshire

  203

  78.9

  18

  7.0

  Nottinghamshire

  324

  69.7

  25

  5.3

  Hereford and Worcester

  222

  73.6

  21

  6.9

  Shropshire

  147

  73.7

  14

  6.8

  Staffordshire

  311

  77.1

  22

  5.5

  Warwickshire

  162

  70.1

  21

  8.9

  West Midlands

  753

  75.6

  36

  3.6

  Cambridgeshire

  225

  73.4

  25

  8.2

  Norfolk

  236

  74.1

  16

  4.9

  Suffolk

  197

  70.6

  23

  8.1

  Bedfordshire

  198

  78.0

  18

  7.2

  Berkshire

  270

  69.8

  49

  12.7

  Buckinghamshire

  217

  70.8

  49

  15.9

  East Sussex

  198

  64.5

  22

  7.1

  Essex

  549

  72.3

  64

  8.5

  Greater London

  2,140

  72.2

  341

  11.5

  Hampshire

  531

  71.3

  57

  7.7

  Hertfordshire

  333

  70.0

  54

  11.4

  Kent

  489

  72.6

  51

  7.6

  Oxfordshire

  212

  72.5

  31

  10.5

  Surrey

  335

  64.3

  82

  15.7

  West Sussex

  261

  75.7

  30

  8.7

  Isle of Wight

  41

  66.1

  2

  3.0

  Avon

  348

  74.9

  25

  5.4

  Cornwall

  123

  61.9

  7

  3.6

  Devon

  357

  72.1

  19

  3.8

  Dorset

  218

  73.1

  15

  5.0

  Gloucestershire

  183

  70.8

  21

  8.0

  Somerset

  164

  75.2

  10

  4.5

  Wiltshire

  224

  75.0

  21

  7.0

  1Of total numbers of taxpayers including those liable to only the lower rate of tax.

  Employment Statistics (Lancashire)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the average(a) weekly earnings, (b) total hours and (c) average hourly pay rates for all part-time (i) male and (ii) female workers in each borough in Lancashire. [12840]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  It is not possible to provide data for county boroughs.

  Earnings for part-time women workers in Lancashire are shown in the table. There are not enough part-time men workers in the sample to provide a reliable estimate.

  Part-time women workers on adult rates, pay not affected by absence: April 1995

  Lancashire

  Average gross weekly earnings

  £104.66

  Hourly earnings excluding overtime

  £5.08

  Average total hours worked

  19.6

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list on the basis of (i) the Government's unemployment benefit count and (ii) the labour force survey(a) the number in employment in the United Kingdom, (b) the number unemployed, (c) the number economically inactive and (d) the unemployment rates in the United Kingdom, for each quarter between 1979 and the end of 1984. [13076]
  119
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Estimates available from the labour force survey are shown in the table.

  Economic activity in the United Kingdom

  In Unemployment

  Unemployed1

  Economically inactive

  Unemployment rates (percentage)

  Spring 1979

  24,765,000

  21,490,000

  15,924,000

  5.7

  Spring 1981

  24,153,000

  22,583,000

  16,274,000

  9.7

  Spring 1983

  23,490,000

  22,957,000

  17,065,000

  11.2

  Spring 1984

  24,019,000

  23,030,000

  16,794,000

  11.2

  Spring 19843

  —

  33,216,000

  16,608,000

  11.8

  1Since 1984 the definitions used in the Labour Force Survey have been fully in line with international recommendations. Prior to 1984 the definition of unemployment was based on a one week job search period and from 1984 was based on a four week job search.

  2The Labour Force definition of unemployment is based on a one-week job search period.

  3The ILO (International Labour Organisation) definition of unemployment is based on a four week job search period.

  Information from the monthly claimant unemployment count on levels and rates of unemployment in the United Kingdom can be obtained from the Nomis database accessed by the House of Commons Library.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to produce figures on the number of individuals who have been out of work for more than six months, who do not appear in unemployment statistics. [13354]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Analyses of the number of people who have been out of work for more than six months are routinely available for both official measures of unemployment—the claimant count and the internationally standard ILO definition. Copies of the relevant publications can be obtained from the House of Commons Library.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchquer what projections his Department has made of the impact on employment of entry into economic and monetary union by Britain. [13440]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 25 January 1996,Official Report, columns 312–13.

  Women's Earnings
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated number of women by region earning less than(a) £1.75 per hour, (b) £2 per hour, (c) £2.50 per hour and (d) £3 per hour in each year since 1990. [11492]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 31 January 1996]: The information requested is set out in the table.
  120

  New earnings survey 1990–1995 (GB): Hourly earnings for all female employees on adult rates, pay not affected by absence

  Percentage earning less than:

  Region

  £1.75

  £2.00

  £2.50

  £3.00

  1990

  South-east

  0.4

  0.6

  2.5

  10.5

  Greater London

  0.2

  0.4

  1.5

  4.6

  Rest of South-east

  0.5

  0.7

  3.4

  15.3

  East Anglia

  1.0

  1.6

  7.0

  22.7

  South-west

  0.7

  1.0

  5.7

  22.9

  West Midlands

  0.8

  1.3

  6.8

  25.1

  East Midlands

  0.7

  1.1

  6.7

  25.0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  0.6

  1.1

  6.5

  25.0

  North-west

  0.8

  1.3

  6.1

  22.7

  North

  0.7

  1.4

  8.3

  30.4

  Wales

  0.9

  1.6

  8.6

  27.0

  Scotland

  0.8

  1.4

  6.5

  22.9

  1991

  South-east

  0.6

  0.8

  1.7

  5.8

  Greater London

  0.3

  0.4

  1.0

  2.7

  Rest of South-east

  0.8

  1.1

  2.3

  8.3

  East Anglia

  0.6

  1.2

  3.5

  12.0

  South-west

  0.7

  1.3

  3.3

  13.5

  West Midlands

  0.9

  1.3

  3.9

  14.3

  East Midlands

  0.6

  1.0

  3.5

  15.0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  0.8

  1.3

  3.4

  14.5

  North-west

  0.6

  0.9

  3.0

  11.5

  North

  1.0

  1.4

  4.9

  18.2

  Wales

  0.8

  1.4

  4.5

  15.6

  Scotland

  0.9

  1.2

  3.1

  13.1

  1992

  South-east

  0.5

  0.6

  1.4

  3.4

  Greater London

  0.3

  0.4

  0.9

  2.0

  Rest of South-east

  0.6

  0.8

  1.8

  4.6

  East Anglia

  0.4

  0.5

  1.5

  6.0

  South-west

  0.6

  0.8

  2.0

  7.6

  West Midlands

  0.6

  0.9

  2.4

  9.3

  East Midlands

  0.4

  0.7

  2.2

  8.7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  0.6

  0.7

  2.3

  9.1

  North-west

  0.3

  0.5

  2.2

  7.4

  North

  0.4

  0.7

  2.7

  10.4

  Wales

  0.7

  0.9

  2.7

  9.4

  Scotland

  0.6

  0.7

  2.2

  8.2

  1993

  South-east

  0.4

  0.6

  1.3

  3.1

  Greater London

  0.3

  0.4

  0.9

  1.8

  Rest of South-east

  0.5

  0.8

  1.6

  4.1

  East Anglia

  1.0

  1.3

  2.5

  6.6

  South-west

  0.5

  0.6

  1.7

  5.4

  West Midlands

  0.4

  0.6

  1.7

  6.0

  East Midlands

  0.6

  0.8

  2.2

  7.1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  0.5

  0.7

  1.7

  5.8

  North-west

  0.4

  0.5

  1.7

  5.5

  North

  0.3

  0.5

  2.3

  7.0

  Wales

  0.2

  0.4

  1.7

  6.0

  Scotland

  0.4

  0.6

  1.6

  5.4

  1994

  South-east

  0.3

  0.5

  1.0

  2.6

  Greater London

  0.1

  0.3

  0.6

  1.6

  Rest of South-east

  0.4

  0.6

  1.2

  3.3

  East Anglia

  0.6

  0.7

  1.3

  5.2

  South-west

  0.8

  1.0

  1.6

  4.7

  West Midlands

  0.6

  0.8

  1.8

  5.5

  East Midlands

  0.6

  0.9

  1.8

  5.6

  121

  New earnings survey 1990–1995 (GB): Hourly earnings for all female employees on adult rates, pay not affected by absence

  Percentage earning less than:

  Region

  £1.75

  £2.00

  £2.50

  £3.00

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  0.6

  0.8

  1.6

  4.8

  North-west

  0.3

  0.5

  1.6

  4.8

  North

  0.5

  0.6

  1.8

  5.8

  Wales

  1.4

  1.5

  2.3

  6.7

  Scotland

  0.3

  0.5

  1.3

  4.0

  1995

  South-east

  1.2

  1.4

  1.9

  3.4

  Greater London

  0.9

  1.0

  1.4

  2.3

  Rest of South-east

  1.4

  1.7

  2.4

  4.3

  East Anglia

  1.6

  2.0

  3.1

  6.0

  South-west

  0.8

  1.2

  2.2

  5.3

  West Midlands

  1.6

  1.9

  2.9

  5.6

  East Midlands

  1.0

  1.3

  2.0

  5.3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1.5

  1.7

  2.7

  5.7

  North-west

  1.2

  1.5

  2.4

  5.1

  North

  1.2

  1.5

  2.6

  6.3

  Paid holiday entitlement of female employees, by region

  No paid holiday entitlement

  More than zero, but less than 10 days paid holiday entitlement

  Thousands

  Autumn 1992

  Autumn 1993

  Autumn 1994

  Autumn 1992

  Autumn 1993

  Autumn 1994

  Great Britain

  1,355

  1,446

  1,480

  356

  406

  393

  North

  70

  71

  76

  17

  21

  17

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  134

  120

  141

  35

  38

  41

  East Midlands

  124

  119

  117

  24

  32

  30

  East Anglia

  66

  72

  76

  17

  20

  16

  Greater London

  105

  120

  142

  32

  34

  32

  Rest of South-east

  294

  325

  329

  84

  86

  92

  South-west

  141

  152

  142

  34

  36

  40

  West Midlands

  121

  149

  131

  28

  33

  36

  North-west

  130

  138

  142

  33

  44

  33

  Wales

  66

  75

  75

  22

  25

  19

  Scotland

  104

  106

  110

  29

  37

  37

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number of staff employed by his Department or related agencies in each of the travel-to-work areas of Carmarthen, south Pembrokeshire, Haverfordwest, Fishguard and Cardigan on(a) 31 March 1979, (b) 31 March 1990, (c) 31 March 1992, (d) 31 March 1995, (e) the latest available figure and (f) the estimate for 31 March 1997. [13295]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 5 February 1996]: The Valuation Office agency has a local office in Carmarthen.

  Figures for the number of staff are:

  (a) 0

  (b) 0

  (c) 40

  (d) 35

  (e) 32

  (f) 32

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the annual(a) interest payments
  122

  New earnings survey 1990–95 (GB); Hourly earnings for all female employees on adult rates, pay not affected by absence

  Percentage earning less than:

  Region

  £1.75

  £2.00

  £2.50

  £3.00

  Wales

  1.8

  2.1

  3.1

  6.2

  Scotland

  1.0

  1.2

  1.9

  4.2

  Annual Leave Entitlement (Women)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated number of women employees by region with(a) no contractual annual leave entitlement and (b) fewer than 10 days' contractual annual leave per year in each year since 1979. [11490]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 31 January 1996]: Information from the labour force survey is available between autumn 1992 and autumn 1994 and is shown in the table.

  and (b) capital repayments due on the outstanding loans held by Railtrack with the national loans fund on 1 January in each of the first three years after privatisation. [13755]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 5 February 1996]: A decision on the capital structure will be taken in due course.

PRIME MINISTER

  Parliamentary Private Secretaries
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister, if he will publish the current list of parliamentary private secretaries and the Ministers to whom each is attached. [2516]

  The Prime Minister
  A comprehensive list is as follows:

  Parliamentary private secretaries (as at 5 February 1996)

  Minister

  Secretary

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Minister for Agriculture Mr. D. Hogg)

  Mr. G. Clifton-Brown

  Minister of State (Mr. T. Baldry)

  Mr. N. Evans

  123

  Parliamentary private secretaries (as at 5 February 1996)

  Minister

  Secretary

  Defence

  Secretary of State (Mr. M. Portillo)

  Mr. D. Amess

  Ministers of State (Mr. N. Soames and Mr. J. Arbuthnot)

  Mr. N. Hawkins

  Cabinet Office

  Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. M. Heseltine) and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. R. Freeman)

  Mr. S. Coe

  Education and Employment

  Secretary of State (Mrs. G. Shephard)

  Mr. A. Coombs

  Ministers of State (Mr. E. Forth and Lord Henley)

  Mr. J. Whittingdale

  Environment

  Secretary of State (Mr. J. Gummer)

  Mr. D. French

  Ministers of State (Mr. D. Curry, Lord Ferrers, Robert Jones)

  Mr. M. Banks

  Foreign Office

  Secretary of State (Mr. M. Rifkind)

  Mr. H. Bellingham

  Ministers of State (Mr. D. Davis, Mr. J. Hanley, Sir N. Bonsor)

  Mr. P. Atkinson

  Health

  Secretary of State (Mr. S. Dorrell)

  Mr. D. Faber

  Minister of State (Mr. G. Malone)

  Mr. N. Waterson

  Home Office

  Secretary of State (Mr. M. Howard)

  Mr. D. Lidington

  Ministers of State (Mr. D. Maclean, Baroness Blatch

  Mr. D. Evennett

  Minister of State (Miss A. Widdecombe)

  Dr. R. Spink

  Law Officers Department

  Attorney-General (Sir N. Lyell) and Solicitor-General (Sir D. Spencer)

  Mr. E. Garnier

  Minister without Portfolio (Mr. B. Mawhinney)

  Mr. A. Duncan

  National Heritage

  Secretary of State (Mrs. V. Bottomley)

  Mr. P. Ainsworth

  Minister of State (Mr. I. Sproat)

  Mr. A. Robathan

  Northern Ireland Office

  Secretary of State (Sir P. Mayhew)

  Mr. J. Cran

  Ministers of State (Sir J. Wheeler and Mr. M. Ancram)

  Mr. H. Elletson

  Prime Minister

  Mr. J. Ward

  The Lord McColl

  Privy Council Office

  Lord President and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. T. Newton)

  Mr. J. Couchman

  Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords (The Viscount Cran borne)

  Mr. J. Sykes

  Scottish Office

  Secretary of State (Mr. M. Forsyth)

  The Hon. B. Jenkin

  Social Security

  Secretary of State (Mr. P. Lilley)

  Mr. P. Merchant

  Ministers of State (Lord MacKay and Mr. A. Burt)

  Mr. D. Congdon

  Trade and Industry

  President of the Board (Mr. I. Lang)

  Mr. S. Coombs

  124

  Parliamentary private secretaries (as at 5 February 1996)

  Minister

  Secretary

  Minister of State (Mr. T. Eggar)

  Mr. P. Luff

  Ministers of State (Lord Fraser, Mr. A. Nelson)

  Mr. T. Devlin

  Transport

  Secretary of State (Sir G. Young)

  Dr. C. Goodson-Wicks

  Minister of State (Mr. J. Watts)

  Mr. T. Dicks

  Treasury

  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. K. Clarke)

  Mr. P. Butler

  Chief Secretary (Mr. W. Waldergrave)

  Mr. M. Robinson

  Welsh Office

  Secretary of State (Mr. W. Hague)

  Ms J. Lait

  Nolan Committee
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will refer to the Nolan Committee the issue of the financial links of people who are being considered for appointment as ambassadors. [13476]

  The Prime Minister
  There is no need to do so. This is already covered by the terms of reference.

  Local Authorities (Equity Portfolios)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 1 February Official Report, column 1121, on the purchase by local authorities of shares in privatised companies, what duties are owed by councils and their advisers to council tax payers which constrain their ability to build very unbalanced portfolios, with special reference excluding certain classes of equities. [13942]

  The Prime Minister
  Local authorities are free to invest their funds how they choose, subject to their general duty of prudence and other matters set out in professional guidance issued by the accounting bodies. Where authorities place their general funds in investments which are not approved under regulations, receipts from the disposal of those investments are treated as capital receipts. Local authorities' use of capital receipts is controlled through the capital finance system.

  Libya (Sanctions)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 46, what factors led to Her Majesty's Government being unable to estimate the cost to British trade of sanctions against Libya; and if he will make it his policy to implement structures to allow such estimates to be made in situations where sanctions are imposed in the future. [13222]

  The Prime Minister
  It is not possible to distinguish which elements in the overall fall in British exports to Libya over the past five years are attributable to the UN sanctions and which other factors such as the decline of the Libyan economy and lower oil prices.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 February. [12275]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 February. [12277]

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

HEALTH

  Biomedical Research
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research his Department has carried out into characterisation of the enantioselective metabolism of metoprolol by CYP2D6 expressed in yeast; what results and conclusions have been arrived at to date; and if he will make a statement; [13071]

  (2) what evaluation his Department has made of a template model of the CYP2D6 active site by experimental testing of compounds with a recombinant human CYP2D6; what results and conclusions have been arrived at; and if he will make a statement; [13069]

  (3) what research his Department has carried out into the function of aspartic acid 301 in cytochrome P4502D6 catalyst; what results and conclusions have been arrived at to date; and if he will make a statement; [13068]

  (4) what research his Department has carried out in respect of a differential regioselective metabolism of metoprolol by two human c.DNA-derived CYP2D6 proteins; what results and conclusions have been arrived at to date; and if he will make a statement. [13070]

  Mr. Malone
  None. Research commissioned within the Department's policy research programme is set out in "Centrally Commissioned Research Programme" and "Centrally Commissioned Research Programme: Commissions 1994–95", copies of which are available in the Library.

  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council. The MRC is an independent body receiving its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Personal Information
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the disclosure of personal medical records of individuals to outside agencies, with special reference to detective agencies; and if he will list the agencies to which such records have been disclosed in the last five years; [13416]

  (2) was assessment he has made of the extent to which (a) general practitioners and (b) hospitals are selling personal medical records to private detective agencies; [13417]
  126
  (3) what representations he has received urging that measures be brought forward to prevent personal medical records being sold to private detective agencies; and if he will make a statement. [13401]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) on 5 December 1995,Official Report, column 196. I have received correspondence from hon. Members and others about the confidentiality of health records and have answered a number of questions on this subject in the House. The information sought about disclosures to agencies outside the national health service is not available, but these are generally to agencies such as social services departments to enable joint care and treatment to be delivered effectively. The sale or disclosure of information to a detective agency, without a patient's consent, would be a breach of confidence and may be actionable under civil and criminal law.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths due to hypothermia were recorded in each of the health authority regions in each of the last five years. [13381]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is shown in the table.

  Number of deaths with a mention of hypothermia (ICD1 991.6) by health region of usual residence, 1990–1994

  Health region

  1990

  1991

  1992

  19932

  19942

  Northern

  17

  29

  16

  37

  27

  Yorkshire

  39

  33

  23

  36

  28

  Trent

  29

  44

  29

  28

  31

  East Anglia

  14

  28

  17

  30

  25

  North-west Thames

  28

  37

  28

  30

  24

  North-east Thames

  35

  32

  34

  36

  25

  South-east Thames

  29

  41

  24

  33

  20

  South-west Thames

  15

  29

  23

  12

  15

  Wessex

  21

  25

  19

  14

  16

  Oxford

  12

  24

  10

  18

  15

  South Western

  27

  40

  24

  23

  24

  West Midlands

  40

  60

  33

  45

  35

  Mersey

  11

  15

  10

  10

  9

  North Western

  21

  25

  21

  28

  28

  Wales

  22

  34

  18

  32

  22

  Total

  360

  496

  329

  412

  344

  1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

  2 Provisional.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total value of all schemes currently agreed in the NHS for the financial year 1995–96 under the private finance initiative; and what is the target for 1996–97. [13247]

  Mr. Horam
  So far, in the financial year 1995–96, £116 million-worth of schemes, each over £1 million capital value, have been approved under the private finance initiative by the national health service executive for the NHS in England. This brings the total value since the launch of the PFI to over £220 million in England. This excludes schemes whose individual capital value is
  127
  under £1 million, which are not recorded centrally. We do not impose a PFI target upon the NHS, but we expect that the sums will increase substantially in the coming year.

  Secure Units
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of secure units available to accommodate juveniles who commit serious crimes, by region. [13176]

  Mr. Bowis
  The regional distribution of available secure units is shown in the table.

  Social service inspectorate regions

  Units

  Northern

  11

  Central

  15

  Southern

  7

  London

  2

  Total

  25

  1 Includes Glenthorne centre in Birmingham run by the Youth Treatment Service.

  In addition, two existing units in the Central region are temporarily closed for building work. Six new units are being constructed as part of the national development programme—two in Northern region, one in Central region, two in Southern region and one in Wales.

  NHS (North Staffordshire)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the extent of underfunding in the NHS in North Staffordshire; and if he will make a statement. [13724]

  Mr. Horam
  North Staffordshire health authority's planned 1996–97 revenue allocation of £202.5 million represents a real terms increase of £2.5 million or 1.3 per cent., which was more than the national average.

  This shows our commitment to bring North Staffordshire closer to its weighted capitation target of £206.2 million as soon as possible.

  NHS Funding
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what replacement formula for resource allocation working party he uses to link NHS funding to local needs. [13723]

  Mr. Horam
  The RAWP formula was replaced by a new weighted capitation formula which uses forecast resident population figures which are then weighted for age, need and geographical variations in cost. The measure of need in the formula takes the form of two separate needs indices: one for general and acute services and the other for psychiatric services.

  Cancer
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the United Kingdom have died of oral cancer since 1989; what are the figures for(a) lung, (b) breast and (c) prostate cancer; and how many of those who died were over the age of 60 years. [13788]
  128
  Mr. Horam
  The number of deaths from oral, lung, breast and prostate cancer in the United Kingdom since 1989 are published in "World Health Statistics Annual", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Opposed Measures
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a list of all the measures approved by Parliament since 1979 on patient care and choice and value for money which were opposed by Her Majesty's Opposition(a) on Second or Third Reading, (b) in Committee and (c) on Report; and if he will make a statement. [13121]

  Mr. Horam
  The list of measures which the Opposition have voted against includes:

  The establishment of the general practitioner fundholding scheme—NHS and Community Care Act 1990

  The establishment of national health service trusts—NHS and Community Act 1990

  The abolition of regional health authorities—Health Authorities Act 1995

  A full list is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Intensive Care
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many adult intensive care beds were available in each year from 1988–89 to 1990–91 in the(a) Northallerton, (b) York, (c) Scarborough, (d) Harrogate, (e) Bradford, (f) Airedale, (g) Calderdale, (h) Huddersfield, (i) Dewbury, (j) Leeds Western, (k) Leeds Eastern, (I) Wakefield, (m) Pontefract, (n) Barnsley, (o) Doncaster, (p) Rotherham and (q) Sheffield district health authorities. [13423]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is shown in the table:

  Average daily number of available beds in intensive care wards other than for children or elderly patients

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Northallerton

  5

  4

  4

  York

  13

  14

  14

  Scarborough

  8

  8

  8

  Harrogate

  6

  6

  6

  Bradford

  5

  5

  5

  Airedale

  10

  10

  10

  Calderdale

  4

  4

  4

  Huddersfield

  12

  13

  15

  Dewsbury

  7

  8

  8

  Leeds Western

  20

  17

  16

  Leeds Eastern

  14

  14

  19

  Wakefield

  7

  7

  7

  Pontefract

  3

  10

  10

  Barnsley

  13

  13

  13

  Doncaster

  25

  25

  24

  Rotherham

  12

  12

  11

  Sheffield

  46

  47

  47

  Source:

  DH statistical return KH03.

  Note:

  Boundary and organisational changes may mean that the data are not strictly comparable with the latest bed availability information.

  Emergency Care
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what
  plans he has to review arrangements for emergency care of patients outside hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [13595]

  Mr. Horam
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the chief medical officer to undertake a review of the organisation and delivery of emergency care services outside hospital, to ensure that care delivered to patients is seamless across the primary, secondary and community care sectors. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health informed chairmen of national health service trusts and health authorities in a letter dated 10 January, copies of the subsequent guidance (EL96)3) issued to chief executives of NHS trusts and health authorities are available in the Library.

  Long-term Care Leaflet
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of producing the leaflet on long-term care, "Moving into
  a Care Home". [13792]

  Mr. Bowis
  The cost of producing a leaflet on long-term care will depend on the arrangements for production, printing and distribution. These arrangements have yet to be finalised.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Places (Costs)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average cost of an(a) assisted place and (b) a place in the state secondary sector in (a) 1992, (b) 1993, (c) 1994 and (d) 1995. [13164]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information requested is given in the following table for England. Data for the current year 1995–96 are not yet complete. The available figures are not directly comparable: those for maintained places exclude capital and certain other costs which may be subsumed in the assisted place figures.

  Average cost of maintained secondary place1£

  Average cost of assisted place2

  Year 3

  £

  age 11–15 £

  post-16 £

  1992–93

  3,405

  2,724

  4,358

  1993–94

  3,544

  2,775

  3,864

  1994–95

  3,688

  2,741

  3,761

  1 includes remission of annual tuition fees and incidental expenses e.g. uniform and travel grants and meals.

  2 figures represent the recurrent national average education Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) per pupil.

  3 figures relate to academic years for assisted places and financial years for maintained secondary school places.

  Youth Training Schemes (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many accidents and fatalities have occurred involving people placed on youth 130
  training schemes in the Greater Manchester area in the last five years. [13167]

  Mr. Paice
  A total of 445 accidents involving people placed on youth training programmes were reported within the area covered by the six Greater Manchester training and enterprise councils for the period 1 January 1991 to 31 January 1996. No fatalities involving people placed on youth training programmes were reported in this area during the same period.

  School Selection Procedures
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of school selection procedures in individual (i) European Union and (ii) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. [13187]

  Mrs. Gillan
  My right hon. Friend is fully aware of the potential benefits of sharing information and good practice with our European Union and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development partners in this and other areas.

  Comprehensive Schools (Streaming)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what number and percentage of comprehensive schools currently use(a) streaming (b) setting by subject and (c) mixed ability teaching. [13490]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is not collected by the Department. However the Office for Standards in Education paper "Class Size and the Quality of Education" published in November 1995, a copy of which is in the Library, contains relevant information derived from the large sample of schools whose inspection data were available at that date. The report indicated that some 62 per cent. of secondary school classes were formed on the basis of ability—sets or streams. Further details are given in table 12 of the report.

  Schools (Computers and Homework)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools have a computers and homework policy. [13557]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Matters concerning homework are for individual schools to determine. The information is not collected centrally.

  Manufacturing Apprentices (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total number of apprentices in manufacturing industry in the Greater Manchester area for each year since 1979. [13492]

  Mr. Paice
  The information is not available.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what annual income is generated by overseas students at United Kingdom
  universities. [13737]
  131
  Mr. Forth
  The requested information is not held centrally. However, a recent report for the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on the economic impact of international students in United Kingdom higher education estimated that in 1992–93 international students contributed at least £716 million to the UK economy.

  Wages (Yorkshire)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will list the lowest wage advertised in Rotherham jobcentre for each month from June 1994 to the present time. [13573]

  (2) what were (a) the lowest and (b) the highest wages advertised in each jobcentre in Yorkshire in each year since 1990. [13614]

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Denis MacShane, dated 5 February 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about wage rates advertised in Jobcentres in Rotherham and Yorkshire more widely.

  The Employment Service does not keep a record of wage rates advertised by Jobcentres.

  However, we did carry out research on vacancies in February 1994 which gave the following estimates for Great Britain, based on those vacancies for which wages and hours were given (ie not those open to an element of negotiation). These show that at that time 11% of vacancies were for hourly rates of pay of £2.50 or below, 47% for £2.51-£3.50, 27% for £3.51£4.50, 8% for £4.51-£5.50 and 7% for over £5.50. Research on vacancy circulation is being carried out at present and is expected to be published by the summer. It is expected to give some further, limited information on wage rates of jobcentre vacancies.

  I hope this is helpful.

  University Students (Northumberland)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students in the Northumberland education authority commenced university in the current academic year; and what the figure was five years ago. [13487]

  Mr. Forth
  Centrally held information on student numbers is not available at local education authority level. The following table shows the number of new mandatory awards and discretionary awards made to higher education students by Northumberland local education authority in the academic year 1988–89 and in 1993–94, the latest year for which data are available.

  New higher education awards made by Northumberland local education authority

  Academic year

  1988–89

  1993–94

  Mandatory awards

  960

  1,927

  Discretionary awards

  113

  34

  All new higher education awards

  1,073

  1,961

  Primary Education (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to increase 132
  her Department's expenditure on primary education programmes in the Greater Manchester area. [13493]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Within the programme of grants for education support and training allocations to local education authorities in the Greater Manchester area focused on primary education will increase by £270,000 in 1996–97. Other GEST grants relevant to all schools, and the £43.7 million increase in education standard spending assessments, may also be used to increase spending on primary education if that is these authorities' priority.

  EU Task Force on Multimedia
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the names, countries and interests of the members of the EU task force on multimedia in education. [13556]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This task force on educational software and multimedia is composed of officials from directorates general within the commission. I am writing to the hon. Member with the details.

  Internet (Children's Access)
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what different approaches she has evaluated, with special reference to blocking software, for preventing children(a) at school and (b) at home from gaining access to unsuitable material via the Internet. [13924]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has recently announced plans to evaluate Internet services for education, including software and other means of protecting children from undesirable materials. Similar evaluation is taking place under the Education Departments' super-highways initiative, which includes projects covering both schools and homes. The National Council for Educational Technology issued separate guidance for teachers and parents in February 1995.

  School Places (Parents' Choice)
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent assessment she has made of the proportion of parents who gain a place at their first choice of school(a) nationally and (b) in
  Leeds. [13178]

  Mrs. Gillan
  This information is not collected centrally. Surveys commissioned by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities in 1992 and by The Times newspaper in 1993 suggested that some 90 per cent. of parents gained a place at their first choice school. No figures are available on the proportion of parents gaining a place at their first choice school in Leeds.

  University Funding
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State
  for Education and Employment what was the change in funding to universities between 1989–90 and 1994–95 in constant prices. [13670]
  133
  Mr. Forth
  Funding from the Department for Education and Employment for higher education, including maintenance grants to students, increased by more than 23 per cent. in real terms at 1993–94 prices during the period 1989–90 to 1994–95.

  Jobcentres (Armed Forces Vacancies)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will make a
  statement concerning the use of jobcentres to advertise vacancies in the armed forces; [13366]

  (2) what guidelines have been issued to the managers and staff of jobcentres concerning the proposal to
  advertise recruitment to the armed forces in jobcentres; if he will place a copy of these guidelines in the Library;
  and if he will make a statement; [13367]

  (3) what training has been given to the staff of jobcentres in relation to the recruitment needs of the
  armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [13393]

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 5 February 1996.

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about the use of Jobcentres in Armed Forces Recruitment.

  Following the publication of the Defence Cost Study, "Front Line First" which proposed, amongst other things, the transfer of the initial stages of Forces recruitment to Jobcentres, the Ministry of Defence sought the help of the Employment Service in improving the cost-effectiveness of its recruitment into the three Services.

  Six month recruiting trials were conducted in 1994/1995 in Liverpool, Edinburgh, Greenwich, Gloucester, Norwich and Swansea, of different ways in which Jobcentres could advise people about employment opportunities in the Forces and undertake the early stages of the recruitment process. The trials were completed successfully and although we will not be the sole source of recruits for the Forces, Jobcentres will in future play an important part.

  Guidelines, outlining the new partnership arrangements were issued to my Jobcentres in November last year. These guidelines have recently been updated and are also in the process of being incorporated in our publication, the Guide to Job Broking, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Briefing/training events were held for my Jobcentre people, in conjunction with Armed Forces Careers Office Project Managers', prior to the national implementation of these arrangements.

  The Employment Service is keen to introduce jobseekers to all the options available to help them in their search for work and I believe that these new arrangements will both give unemployed people access to a wider range of opportunities and provide an effective service to the Armed Forces.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Pre-school Provision (Norfolk)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will estimate the capital cost of providing early years education for all four-year-olds in the county of Norfolk when(a) one
  quarter of such pupils attend nursery schools or classes as currently operated and half attend play groups under
  arrangements recognised by the Pre-School Education Alliance and (b) half attend each type of provision,
  together with the method of such funding and the type of accommodation to be provided. [13991]
  134
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The capital costs of providing a nursery education place for all four-year-olds in Norfolk will depend on the circumstances of individual providers.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will estimate(a) the number of four-year-olds in the county of Norfolk whose parents or guardians will be eligible to apply for vouchers and (b) the number of full-time equivalent adults required to staff all providers at current statutory or recommended staff-pupil ratios for half-time pupils (i) when one quarter of the children are attending nursery schools or nursery classes as currently operated, and three quarters play groups operating under arrangements recognised by the
  Pre-School Education Alliance and (ii) when half attended each type of provision; and what is the annual salary bill
  in each case. [13996]

  Mr. Squire
  We estimate that the parents of some 9,300 four-year-olds in Norfolk will be eligible to apply for a nursery education voucher. The number of full-time equivalent adults required to staff all providers will depend on the number of providers and the size of the groups therin. The annual salary bill will depend on the salary costs of individual adults.

  Nursery Education Vouchers
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if nursery education
  vouchers for parents of four-year-olds in receipt of income support, family credit or disability working allowance will be treated as income for the purpose of calculation of benefit. [11709]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I have been asked to reply. The answer is no.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those regulations laid since 1990 which have required compliance cost assessments. [12863]

  Mr. Freeman
  Details of compliance cost assessments issued since November 1993 on regulations are set out in the following Command Papers:

  1 November 1993 to 30 June 1994: Cm 2719

  1 July 1994 to 31 December 1994: Cm 2881

  1 January 1995 to 30 June 1995: Cm 3075

  Further Command Papers listing compliance cost assessments issued in the preceding six months will be published at six-monthly intervals.

  Details of compliance cost assessments issued prior to November 1993 are not centrally available.

SCOTLAND

  Housing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what restrictions are placed upon a tenant's right
  135
  to buy a local authority house if that house has been fitted with a community alarm system. [12220]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Under section 69 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, any public sector landlord may apply to the Secretary of State for consent to refuse to sell a dwelling to a tenant seeking to exercise the right to buy if the dwelling has features which make it suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age. Each application is considered on its merits. The presence of a community alarm system is one of the factors which may be taken into account in deciding whether to grant consent.

  Cruden Bay (Landfill)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list representations made in opposition to the date of the public inquiry into the planning application lodged by Caird Evered for a landfill at Cruden bay; [12250]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the strength and basis of the opposition in Cruden bay to the date of the public
  inquiry into the planning application lodged by Caird Evered for a landfill at Cruden bay; [12249]

  (3) if he will outline the history of the application being submitted by Caird Evered for a landfill at Cruden bay
  currently the subject of a public inquiry; and what amendments to the application have been accepted by the
  inquiry reporter; [12248]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the interval between the lodging of a planning appeal for a landfill at Cruden
  bay and the holding of a public inquiry to consider this appeal. [12251]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The detailed information requested cannot immediately be supplied because the appeal papers are currently with the reporter.

  I shall therefore write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the new unitary councils in
  Scotland currently negotiating with his Department over the introduction of the pilot scheme for nursery vouchers. [12516]>

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  In their public responses to the August 1995 consultation, the following councils expressed an interest in discussions with the Scottish Office on the possibility of involvement in the pilot:

  North Ayrshire

  South Ayrshire

  South Lanarkshire

  East Renfrewshire

  Clackmannanshire

  Borders

  Highland

  Western Isles

  Argyll and Bute

  136
  Discussions have been held with these and other councils.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much the nursery voucher scheme will cost to administer annually. [11557]

  Mr. Robertson
  [holding answer 14 January 1996]: The cost of administering the nursery voucher initiative from August 1997 will depend on the cost of a contract to be let by competitive tender.

  School Boards
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department has spent on overseeing the election of members of school boards in each academic year since their introduction. [12502]

  Mr. Robertson
  The Scottish Office does not incur expenditure directly in overseeing the election of members to school boards as, under the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988, responsibility for school board elections is a matter for education authorities.

  Water Leakage
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made over the last five years of leakage from the public water supply on a comparable basis to those figures that have been
  produced by the privatised water companies in England and Wales. [13421]

  Mr. Kynoch
  An assessment was made in the report, "An Assessment of Demands and Resources at 1994", which was published by the Scottish Office in July 1995. The figures contained in the report are broadly comparable to those published by the privatised water companies in England and Wales. Copies of the report are in the Library.

  Housing Budget
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will reply to the hon. Member's letter of 27 December concerning next year's housing budget for Edinburgh. [13618]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  A reply has been sent to the hon. Member today.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent on external consultants in the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disggregated by (i) legal fees, (ii) publicity costs, (iii) accountancy fees and
  (iv) management consultancy fees. [10964]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: Of the sectors in which private finance initiative projects have gone out to tender since the 1992 autumn statement, the only area in which the Scottish Office and its agencies have had direct responsibility for managing the tendering process is motorways and trunk roads. External consultancy costs were incurred in that field in relation to the advertisement, tendering and negotiation of PFI contracts only in 1995–96, and are shown in the table.
  137

  Estimated cost £000

  Legal

  0

  Publicity costs

  30

  Accountancy

  330

  Management consultancy

  550

  Total

  910

  Information on such costs to other public bodies in Scotland is not held centrally.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is the aggregate total of vessel capacity units of the Anglo-Spanish vessels; [13136]

  (2) what is the aggregate total of vessel capacity units of the 30 Anglo-Dutch vessels; [13137]

  (3) what is the aggregate total of vessel capacity units of the United Kingdom registered and licensed fleet of over 10 fishing vessels. [13138]

  Mr. Baldry
  Following the introduction of the Merchant Shipping (Registration of Shipping) Regulations 1993, SI 1993 No. 3138, the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen no longer collects details of shareholdings in UK companies owning British-registered fishing vessels. This means that it is not always possible to be sure exactly which vessels are owned by Spanish or Dutch interests. However, we estimate that at 31 December 1995 there were 103 vessels with a significant Spanish interest, accounting for around 55,000 VCUs and 39 vessels with a significant Dutch interest, accounting for some 31,000 VCUs. This compares with an aggregate total of approximately 657,000 VCUs for the UK over-10 m licensed fleet.

  Munitions Dumping
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of environmental contamination of fishing grounds in the Irish sea arising from the leakage of toxic materials from wastes and surplus explosives dumped into the sea off the British coast. [13348]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department carries out a routine monitoring programme to assess the level of contaminants in coastal waters, including those which are part of the Irish sea. The results are published annually and show that fish are safe to eat. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has carried out an investigation of the former Beaufort's dyke munitions dumping area. An interim report of the survey's findings was published on 8 January. Copies of the report are in the Library.

  European Legislation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on which occasions in the last three years officials have vetoed draft EC legislation on the 138
  grounds that a fiche d'impact had not been correctly prepared. [13638]

  Mr. Boswell
  The correct preparation of fiches d'impact is a very important part of our consideration of proposals for EC legislation. It is one of the factors taken into account when Minister consider the UK's negotiating position on a particular proposal.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he will be taking to ensure that the welfare of animals is given proper consideration at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference. [14221]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In 1992 we secured a declaration, attached to the Maastricht treaty, on the need to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals when drafting and implementing Community legislation on the common agricultural policy, transport, the internal market and research. That was a significant advance; the time has now come to build on it. We will be asking our European partners to use the opportunity of the intergovernmental conference to add a protocol to the treaty of Rome placing a formal legal obligation on the Council of Ministers to give full regard to considerations of animal welfare in the exercise of its powers on agriculture, transport, research and the single market.

  Integrated Administration and Control System
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the arrangements for IACS applications in England and Wales in 1996. [14222]

  Mr. Baldry
  The UK deadline for submitting IACS applications in 1996 will again be the latest possible date of 15 May.

  The IACS explanatory booklets and form will be issued in March. We have consulted the industry closely on the documentation and this year, for the first time, we are introducing a separate booklet and form for livestock farmers who have no interest in the arable area payments scheme. Other changes to the format of the text have been made to make it as helpful and as easy to follow as possible, given the complex nature of the rules. As last year, farmers will be sent a full printout of their 1995 declaration of forage, arable and other land areas, which they must check to ensure the entries are still valid and enter any necessary changes. In addition, this year, they will receive a copy of this printout to keep for their records.

  The latest date for applying for new field numbers so that they can be returned in time for farmers to lodge their 1996 IACS applications will be 1 March. Where changes to field boundaries occur after this date, applications for field numbers should accompany the IACS application form.

  I strongly urge farmers to consider now whether they need new field numbers and not leave applying to the last minute.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes are proposed in his Department's cash limits for 1995–96. [14223]
  139
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Parliamentary approval is being sought for a supplementary estimate for class III, vote 3—Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: operational expenditure—during which the cash limit will be increased by £6,385,000 from £402,545,000 to £408,930,000. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit will then be reduced by £4,672,000 from £408,930,000 to £404,258,000. Within this provision, the cash limit will be reduced by £1,622,000 as a result of a transfer to vote 4, by a transfer of £2,600,000 to the Office of Science and Technology to cover the cost of redundancies arising among staff of the Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council seconded to Horticulture Research International and by a transfer of £450,000 to the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland for the decommissioning of nephrops vessels.

  In addition, vote 3—operational expenditure—will be reduced by a further £1,877,000 from £404,258,000 to £402,381,000. This is a result of a transfer to class III non-voted expenditure on supplementary credit approvals.

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  11995–96

  21996–97

  21997–98

  FCGS3

  22.90

  29.60

  28.50

  28.00

  21.00

  11.00

  4.00

  3.00

  Moorland scheme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.35

  0.23

  Habitat scheme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.95

  2.00

  3.00

  Countryside access scheme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.05

  42.50

  42.50

  ESAs5

  7.45

  7.76

  10.87

  16.55

  20.10

  30.5

  32.77

  37.69

  FWPS6

  —

  —

  —

  0.66

  1.46

  2.05

  4.53

  5.88

  NSAs7 8

  0.30

  1.00

  1.40

  1.50

  1.50

  3.70

  6.10

  7.60

  Organic aid scheme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.03

  0.27

  0.46

  0.96

  Countryside stewardship

  —

  0.16

  3.82

  8.30

  10.80

  11.26

  12.22

  17.22

  1 1995–96 figures are estimates.

  21996–97 and 1997–98 figures are PES provisions.

  3 FCGS—farm and conservation grant scheme.

  4 Figures are subject to review.

  5ESAs—environmentally sensitive areas.

  6 FWPS—farm woodland premium scheme.

  7 NSAs—nitrate sensitive areas.

  8 Includes expenditure under the pilot NSA scheme.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Al Yamamah II
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what financial guarantees were offered to Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace in connection with Al Yamamah II. [12984]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  On grounds of commercial confidentiality the Export Credits Guarantee Department does not publicise details of individual firms' business without their prior approval.

  Overhead Power Lines
  Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will reject the application by Norweb to install overhead power lines between Claughton and Wennington; and if he will make a statement. [13563]
  140
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class III, vote 4—Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: departmental research, advisory services and administration, executive agencies and certain other services—will be increased by £3,622,000 from £330,408,000 to £334,030,000. The £3,622,000 arises as a result of a transfer from vote 3 where it is reflected as reduced provision of £1,622,000 and by end-year flexibility of £2,000,000. The gross running costs limit for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will decrease by £11,954,000 from £334,694,000 to £322,740,000.

  Conservation Schemes
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the annual expenditure figures and forecasts for the(a) countryside access scheme, (b) environmentally sensitive areas, (c) farm conservation grant scheme, (d) farm woodland premium scheme, (e) habitat scheme, (f) nitrate sensitive areas, (g) moorland scheme, (h) organic aid scheme and (i) countryside stewardship for each year between 1990–91 and 1997–98. [13636]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 5 February 1996]The information is as follows. Figures relate to England.

  Mr. Page
  No application has yet been received from Norweb. The position remains as given in my letter of 10 January to my hon. Friend.

  Arms Trade
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the figures for the imports and exports of arms manufactures in the United Kingdom for each of the last 10 years. [13571]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information on United Kingdom trade in defence equipment is published in "UK Defence Statistics" which is available in the Library of the House.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in which parliamentary constituency the
  141
  companies receiving regional selective assistance offers of £200,000 or more since 1991–92 are located. [13900]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  From April 1991, the parliamentary constituencies were as follows:

  Aldridge-Brownhills

  Amber Valley

  Barnsley Central

  Barnsley East

  Barnsley West and Penistone

  Barrow and Furness

  Bassetlaw

  Batley and Spen

  Beverley

  Birkenhead

  Birmingham Edgbaston

  Birmingham Erdington

  Birmingham Hodge Hill

  Birmingham Ladywood

  Birmingham Northfield

  Birmingham Perry Barr

  Birmingham Selly Oak

  Birmingham Small Heath

  Birmingham Sparkbrook

  Birmingahm Yardley

  Bishop Auckland

  Blackburn

  Blaydon

  Blyth Valley

  Bolsover

  Bolton North-East

  Bolton South-East

  Bolton West

  Bootle

  Bradford North

  Bradford West

  Brent South

  Brigg and Cleethorpes

  Bromsgrove

  Bury North

  Bury South

  Cannock and Burntwood

  Chorley

  City of Chester

  City of Durham

  Copeland

  Corby

  Coventry North-East

  Coventry North-West

  Coventry South-East

  Dagenham

  Denton and Reddish

  Dewsbury

  Doncaster Central

  Doncaster North

  Dover

  Dudley East

  Dudley West

  Ealing Acton

  142

  Easington

  East Lindsey

  Eccles

  Eddisbury

  Edmonton

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  Enfield North

  Erith and Crayford

  Falmouth and Cambourne

  Faversham

  Folkestone and Hythe

  Gainsborough and Horncastle

  Gateshead East

  Gillingham

  Glanford and Scunthorpe

  Great Grimsby

  Halton

  Hartlepool

  Harwich

  Hemsworth

  Hexham

  Houghton and Washington

  Hyndburn

  Isle of Wight

  Jarrow

  Kingston upon Hull North

  Kingston upon Hull West

  Knowsley North

  Knowsley South

  Langbaurgh

  Leigh

  Littleborough and Saddleworth

  Liverpool Broadgreen

  Liverpool Garston

  Liverpool Mossley Hill

  Liverpool Riverside

  Liverpool Walton

  Ludlow

  Makerfield

  Manchester Central

  Manchester Gorton

  Mansfield

  Middlesborough

  Newcastle upon Tyne Central

  Newcastle upon Tyne East

  Newcastle upon Tyne North

  Newham South

  North Cornwall

  North Devon

  North Durham

  North-East Cambridgeshire

  North Thanet

  North Warwickshire

  North-West Durham

  143

  Nuneaton

  Oldham Central and Royton

  Oldhara West

  Penrith and the Border

  Plymouth Devonport

  Plymouth Drake

  Plymouth Sutton

  Pontefract and Castleford

  Redcar

  Rochdale

  Rossendale and Darwen

  Rother Valley

  Rotherham

  Rugby and Kenilworth

  Salford East

  Sedgefield

  Sheffield Attercliffe

  Sheffield Central

  Sheffield Hallam

  Sherwood

  Shipley

  South-East Cornwall

  South-East Staffordshire

  South Hams

  South Shields

  South Staffordshire

  South Thanet

  Southport

  St. Helens North

  St. Helens South

  St. Ives

  Stalybridge and Hyde

  Stockton North

  Stockton South

  Stretford

  Sunderland North

  Sunderland South

  Sutton Coldfield

  The Wrekin

  Torbay

  Torridge and West Devon

  Tottenham

  Truro

  Tyne Bridge

  Tynemouth

  Wallasey

  Wallsend

  Walsall North

  Walsall South

  Wansbeck

  Warley East

  Warley West

  Warrington South

  Wentworth

  West Bromwich East

  West Bromwich West

  West Dorset

  West Gloucestershire

  144

  West Lancashire

  Wigan

  Wirral South

  Wirral West

  Wolverhampton North-East

  Wolverhampton South-East

  Workington

  Worsley

  Wyre Forest

  Office of Fair Trading
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes will be made to the cash or running costs limits to the Office of Fair Trading. [14217]

  Mr. Lang
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IV, vote 8 will be increased by £345,000 from £19,450,000 to £19,795,000. The increase, which is required to meet additional costs of litigation, will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make an announcement on the level of ECGD cover. [14216]

  Mr. Lang
  I am pleased to announce that the amber zone budget, which controls the level of new commitments on markets where ECGD exposure is already concentrated or the risks are high, will be set at £3.8 billion in 1998–99.

  Amber zone budget levels for 1996–97 and 1997–98—£3.2 billion and £3.5 billion respectively—were announced in the Chancellor's November 1994 Budget statement. This further confirmation of the rising trend serves to reaffirm this Government's continuing support for United Kingdom project exporters.

  Departmental Cash and Running Cost Limits
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes will be made to his Department's cash and running costs limits and external financing limits for 1995–96. [14219]

  Mr. Lang
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IV, vote 1—programmes and administration—will be increased by £44,811,000 from £1,233,341,000 to £1,278,152,000.

  This net increase results from the provision of £52,900,000 in respect of UKAEA restructuring, £2,240,000 to reflect agreed changes to Nirex payments, £2,193,000 to meet the funding requirements of executive agencies, £227,000 to reflect the net effect of the transfer of gas and oil measurement branch to the Office of Gas Supply and transfers of £300,000 from Property Holdings in respect of the relocation of the Nottingham industrial tribunal office and £77,000 from the FCO in respect of international subscriptions. These increases are offset by reductions of £3,000,000 in energy programmes, £2,303,000 in support for business, £723,000 for laboratory privatisation and contractorisation, £1,100,000

  145
  in running costs and by the machinery of government transfer from the Department for Education and Employment—class V, vote 1—of running costs of £6 million which will be carried forward for use in 1996–97. The increase will be accounted for by a reduction in provision for the non-voted redundancy payments scheme of £19,900,000 with that remaining being charged to the reserve. As a result, there will be no increase to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Within this total, the gross running cost limit for the Department of Trade and Industry is being reduced by £1,662,000 from £364,627,000 to £362,965,000. This change reflects machinery of government transfers from the former Employment Department—class V, vote 1—totalling £608,000 and the Cabinet Office: Office of Public Service—class XVIII, vote 1—totalling £1,044,000, plus an agreed reclassification of £20,000 capital expenditure as running costs. This has been offset by a transfer to class XVIII, vote 1 of £434,000, by a transfer of £1,800,000 to class IV, vote 10 in respect of the transfer of the gas and oil measurement branch to the Office of Gas Supply, and by a reduction of £1,100,000 to offset earlier claims on the reserve.

  Additionally, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XVIII, vote 2—science—will be increased by £2,600,000 from £1,292,852,000 to £1,295,452,000 to enable the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council to meet the cost of certain redundancies at Horticulture Research International. The increase is offset by a similar reduction in class III, vote 3 and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure. The opportunity of the supplementary estimate is also being taken to switch resources between certain subheads of the vote.

  A reduction of £2,300,000 is made in the external financing limit of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority from minus £10,300,000 to minus £12,600,000 to support the increased provision for UKAEA restructuring.

  The EFL of Nuclear Electric is reduced by £15,000,000 to £272,000,000 to £257,000,000 resulting from agreed changes to provision of Nirex payments. Nuclear Electric's EFL is currently under review and may be changed at a later date.

  Office of Gas Supply
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes will be made to the cash limits and running costs limits for the Office of Gas Supply. [14218]

  Mr. Lang
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IV vote 10, Office of Gas Supply, will be increased by £1,000 from £6,540,000 to £6,541,000 and the gross running costs limit by £1,975,000 from £6,190,000 to £8,165,000.

  The increase is required to cover the transfer of the gas measurement branch from the Department of Trade and Industry and other running costs associated with the introduction of competition into the gas supply market. The increase in running costs is offset by fees received by GMB.

  Holidays
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his most recent estimate of how many employees in the United Kingdom would receive an increase in their holiday entitlement in the event of the Government losing their case in the European Court against implementation of the European directive on working time. [13365]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The number would depend on the conditions of entitlement set by each member state. Many employees in Great Britain who are not entitled to the holiday periods specified in the directive are likely to have worked for their employers for less than a year.

  Opposed Measures
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a list of measures approved by Parliament since 1979 on the deregulation of the market economy, competition and the economic base of the country which were opposed(a) at Second or Third Reading, (b) in Committee and (c) on Report by Her Majesty's Opposition; and if he will make a statement. [13123]

  Mr. Lang
  I regret to say that the information as requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a list of measures approved by Parliament since 1979 on industrial relations, labour market mobility and flexibility and the governance of trade unions which were opposed at(a) Second or Third Reading, (b) in Committee and (c) on Report by Her Majesty's Opposition; and if he will make a statement. [13119]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information as requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Power
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the advantages of extending the availability of public information and the provision of public document retrieval rooms in the nuclear power electricity generation industry. [13391]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 February 1996]Considerable amounts of information about the nuclear power electricity generation industry are made available to the public, by the industry, by the Government in publications such as the 1995 White Paper "The Prospects for Nuclear Power in the UK" and by the industry's regulators. In addition, members of the public registering for the UK public offer will be sent information about British Energy, including an offer prospectus.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations have taken place with the EC regarding the proposed privatisation of nuclear power generated electricity. [13390]
  147
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 February 1996]The Government advised the European Commission of their proposals for the nuclear power generation industry following the nuclear review and are keeping them informed of progress.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the advantages for the privatised part of the nuclear power generation industry to have a segregated fund to meet obligations on decommissioning and waste disposal; and what guidelines on the amounts of such funds he has issued. [13285]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 February 1996]The nuclear review, published in May last year, concluded that segregated funds are the best way of ensuring public confidence that the parts of Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear to be privatised will meet their long-term decommissioning liabilities.

  The Government have therefore indicated that as part of the privatisation a segregated fund will be established to cover British Energy's long-term decommissioning costs. A funding company will be established in Scotland, independent of the nuclear stations' owners. The funding company will be owned by an independent trust, and will enter into a contract with the privatised companies under which it will receive funds to meet long-term decommissioning costs. These arrangements will come into effect on privatisation. The final details, including the size of the fund, are under discussion.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the privatisation of British Nuclear Fuels plc; and what negotiations have taken place in respect of a segregated fund for the liabilities of the Magnox reactors following privatisation. [13287]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 February 1996]The White Paper "The Prospects for Nuclear Power in the UK", Cm 2860, made it clear that the Government would not want to rule out privatisation on BNFL as an aim in the longer term. It also concluded that, while a nuclear generator was publicly owned, there was no practical benefit from a segregated fund to meet nuclear liabilities. Magnox reactors will remain in the public sector after privatisation.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations his Department has received alleging that privatisation of nuclear power generation will impact adversely on safety standards. [13288]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 February 1996]Many submissions to the nuclear review raised the issue of safety and there is a continuing interest in safety issues. The advice of the independent Health and Safety Commission during the review was that the current regulatory system ensured a high level of safety and that there was no need to change it in any fundamental way on account of privatisation. In reaching the decision to privatise parts of the industry the Government considered the possible implications for safety very carefully. Safety is, and will remain, of paramount importance for both the Government and the nuclear industry.
  148
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the advantage of increasing the numbers of staff employed in the nuclear installations inspectorate following nuclear privatisation; what representations he has received on the need to do this; if he will make a statement. [13289]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 February 1996]Staffing levels within the nuclear installations inspectorate are a matter for the Health and Safety Executive which is the body responsible for making arrangements for the enforcement of safety legislation. HSE does not currently consider that extra resources will be necessary to ensure safety standards are maintained in a privatised industry. In their White Paper setting out the conclusions of the nuclear review the Government confirmed that they would ensure that the NII has all the resources necessary to do its job effectively.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what comparative research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated in respect of other countries relating to (i) the statutory powers and (ii) the staff required to ensure safety in nuclear power generation. [13290]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 February 1996]No such research has been commissioned or evaluated. Nuclear safety is a national responsibility and legal and administrative arrangements for regulating and managing the nuclear power industry and for ensuring its safe operation have developed from such widely differing legal bases in the countries with nuclear power plant that such comparison is unlikely to be productive.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the work force of Nuclear Electric in each year since 1990; and what assessment his Department has made of efficiency savings that are possible without compromising safety. [13291]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 February 1996]These matters are addressed in the annual report and accounts of Nuclear Electric's efficiency savings are a matter for the company. The Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate has confirmed that there is no inherent conflict between safety and efficiency and I am confident that Nuclear Electric's current high safety standards will be maintained.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the licences that have been issued by the nuclear installations inspectorate since May 1975 to the(a) advanced gas-cooled reactor, (b) pressurised water reactor and (c) Magnox nuclear power generation sites; if he will list those licences that must still be issued; and if he will make a statement. [13361]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 February 1996]The tables list all the current nuclear site licences for sites of AGR, PWR and Magnox nuclear power generation plants in the UK and give the date of issue of the most recent version of the site licence. As a result of restructuring of Nuclear Electric plc and Scottish Nuclear, new licences will be required for all those sites listed which are currently operated by them. Those sites listed which are operated by BNFL will not require new licences.
  149

  Nuclear site licences for sites of UK AGR, PWR and Magnox nuclear power installations

  Licence number

  Site

  Reactor type on site

  Date of issue

  Nuclear Electric plc

  3E

  Berkeley

  Magnox

  1 March 1990

  4A

  Bradwell

  Magnox

  1 March 1990

  5D

  Hinkley Point

  Magnox

  30 July 1993

  6B

  Trawsfynydd

  Magnox

  1 March 1990

  8D

  Dungeness

  Magnox and AGR

  1 March 1990

  11B

  Oldbury

  Magnox

  15 October 1993

  12C

  Sizewell

  Magnox and PWR

  1 March 1990

  20C

  Wylfa

  Magnox

  1 March 1990

  25B

  Hartlepool

  AGR

  1 March 1990

  26D

  Heysham

  AGR

  1 March 1990

  Scottish Nuclear

  SC1D

  Hunterston

  Magnox and AGR

  1 March 1990

  SC4B

  Torness

  AGR

  1 March 1990

  BNFL

  31F

  Sellafield (Calder Hall)

  Magnox

  30 March 1994

  SC3C

  Chapelcross

  Magnox

  28 September 1990

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the safety record of nuclear power generation among OECD countries with(a) publicly owned and (b) privately owned nuclear industries. [13362]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 2 February 1996]My Department does not have access to figures on other OECD countries which would enable the nuclear safety record of publicly or privately owned nuclear power generating industries to be compared. However, the World Association of Nuclear Operators has stated that it is aware of no evidence to suggest that the type of ownership has any bearing on the level of safety achieved.

  Exporting Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the number of firms which have begun exporting since May 1995; and how many firms were exporting at that date. [13592]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 5 February 1996]The latest available information was given to the hon. Member in my answer on 19 December 1995,Official Report, column 1086. There are no official estimates of the number of firms which have begun exporting since May 1995.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Nigeria (Police Training)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 19 December,Official Report, columns 1073–74, how many Nigerian police officers received training in the United Kingdom in the maintenance of public order in (a) 1990 and (b) 1991; which United Kingdom police force provided the training; and which Government Department was responsible for funding the training. [13349]
  150
  Mr. Hanley
  Two Nigerian police officers received training in the maintenance of public order in 1990 and one 1991. All three were trained by the Greater Manchester police force. Funding was by the ODA.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 19 December,Official Report, columns 1073–74, what was the nature of the training provided in the United Kingdom in 1990 and 1991 for members of the Nigerian police in the maintenance of public order. [13380]

  Mr. Hanley
  The training covered the theoretical and practical aspects of command and control in serious public disorder situations, including instruction in teaching shield tactics, with emphasis on the minimum use of force.

  Zanzibar and Tanzania
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 522, to the hon. Member for Stretford, what appropriate actions he sought and what response he has received from the Zanzibari and Tanzanian authorities. [13796]

  Mr. Hanley
  We remain concerned about the discrepancies in the results of the Zanzibar elections. My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker raised this during her recent visit to Tanzania and emphasised to the Tanzanian authorities the need to establish a constructive dialogue between Government and Opposition in Zanzibar.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the public and private organisations, including non-governmental organisations and academic institutions, which have received funds by way of(a) the European Union's PHARE programme and (b) the know-how fund; what were the sums of money awarded; and if he will make a statement. [13394]

  Mr. Hanley
  Information in the form requested is not readily available on either the PHARE programme or the know-how fund. For the know-how fund it could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Detailed information on both programmes is set out in the following publications, copies of which have been, or are being, placed in the Library of the House:

  The KHF's 1994–95 annual report and latest list of approved projects;

  The most recent PHARE annual report; and,

  A profile of PHARE funding in the period 1990–1994.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to ensure that part of the overseas aid budget for Pakistan is directed towards the education and the rehabilitation of bonded children; and if he will make a statement. [13392]

  Mr. Hanley
  The problem is a cause for continuing concern. We therefore welcome recent measures by the Government of Pakistan to tackle it, such as the national project for rehabilitation of child labour. We are considering, through the European Union, how best to
  151
  assist and are focusing our bilateral aid on improvements in basic services, such as education, which help tackle some underlying causes of child labour.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the cost of rail privatisation; if he will breakdown its main components; and if he will make a statement. [8868]

  Mr. Watts
  Costs incurred to date by the Department, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and the Office of the Rail Regulator are as follows. They include running costs and consultancy costs.

  £ million—cash

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–961

  DOT

  1.0

  6.7

  213.5

  14.2

  14.3

  OPRAF

  —

  —

  2.4

  16.6

  21.3

  ORR

  —

  —

  1.4

  9.0

  5.8

  Total

  1.0

  6.7

  17.3

  39.8

  41.4

  1 Estimated costs to 31 December 1995.

  2 Includes £1.5 million contribution by DOT to the costs of setting up OPRAF and ORR prior to formal appointments of the Franchising Director and Rail Regulator.

  In addition, British Rail and Railtrack have incurred costs linked to privatisation, including expenditure on assets such as computer equipment and associated systems. These are as follows:

  BR/Railtrack (£ million—cash)

  1991–92

  —

  1992–93

  —

  1993–94

  92.2

  1994–95

  131.0

  1995–961

  72.0

  The privatisation process now has considerable momentum and the sales achieved so far will yield proceeds in excess of £2 billion.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if franchise agreements for the first three franchised lines specifically preclude the replacement of rail services with bus services. [13971]

  Mr. Watts
  The franchise agreement requires the franchise operator to run railway services; it may not replace these with bus services. Where, in exceptional circumstances, it is unable to operate the specified railway services, the operator is required to take reasonable steps to provide alternatives, which may include bus services.

  Exhaust Emissions
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review exhaust emission requirements under the MOT requirements. [12903]
  152
  Mr. Norris
  I am satisfied that the MOT test is effective in controlling unnecessary emissions from vehicles. However, we keep the operation of the system under review.

  Coastguard
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the amount of overtime worked in each month since the creation of the Coastguard agency; [13375]

  (2) what action has been taken to secure the retention of the Coastguard rescue helicopter base at Lee on the Solent; [13379]

  (3) how he proposes to recruit to the post of Chief Coastguard; [13377]

  (4) what steps are being taken to fill the current vacancies among operational Coastguard officers; [13374]

  (5) what changes he has introduced to provide Coastguard over from Chichester to Beachy head, including changes in the staffing arrangements to cover (a) incidents and (b) public education in maritime and coastal safety matters. [13376]

  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 6 February 1996

  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about Coastguard operations.

  The monthly amounts spent on overtime for the Coastguard Agency since its creation are as follows:

  1994–95

  £

  April

  74,413

  May

  82,613

  June

  80,636

  July

  84,962

  August

  81,076

  September

  76,764

  October

  77,995

  November

  71,255

  December

  74,016

  January

  63,700

  February

  104,483

  March

  76,880

  1995–96

  April

  78,544

  May

  113,785

  June

  105,191

  July

  99,987

  August

  108,836

  September

  93,639

  October

  100,166

  November

  82,369

  December

  72,959

  The Coastguard Agency is actively negotiating with the Ministry of Defence to retain facilities for future Coastguard Helicopter operations at HMS DAEDALUS.

  The post, which falls vacant on the present Chief Coastguard's retirement in June, is being filled by open competition under normal Civil Service rules. The advertisement which appeared in the national press on 25 January has been drawn to the attention of serving Coastguard Officers who are eligible to apply.
  153
  The Coastguard Agency maintains a continuing recruitment programme. During the past 12 months it has appointed 29 new Coastguard Officers.

  (a) The response to coastal incidents between Chichester and Beachy Head is the responsibility of Auxiliary Coastal Rescue Teams under the coordination of the Solent Coastguard Rescue Centre. There have been no changes to these arrangements in this area.

  (b) Since the retirement of the Newhaven and Shoreham Sector Officer this responsibility has been effectively covered by Sector Officers based at Littlehampton and Hastings.

  Helicopters (Portland)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to maintain permanent helicopter coverage for Portland and the mid-channel area; and if he will make a statement. [13378]

  Mr. Norris
  The interdepartmental helicopter review group, established to examine the national requirement for helicopter for search and rescue and how this might most effectively and efficiently be met, is due to submit its report to Ministers shortly. On the basis of its conclusions, further consideration will be given to future deployment. This will include the future of the Coastguard helicopter provided at Portland.

  British Rail (Safety)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects each of the British Rail infrastructure service units to complete the preparation of its contractor's safety case. [13231]

  Mr. Watts
  Each of the six track renewal companies and seven infrastructure maintenance companies, successors to the infrastructure service units, has completed the preparation of its contractors' safety cases. Railtrack plc, as the employer for the contracts, has accepted them.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the effect of European Union proposals on(a) the form and (b) the valid period of future United Kingdom driving licences. [13482]

  Mr. Norris
  The second directive on the driving licence requires the inclusion of additi onal information on the current United Kingdom licence and the repositioning of some of the existing material. A current EU proposal, if adopted, would allow the introduction of a plastic credit card style-licence containing a photograph. There are no proposals to change the validity periods of driving entitlement, but a card licence would be renewable every 10 years.

  London Lorry Ban
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further measures he plans to exclude heavy lorries from central London between the hours of 7 am and 11 pm. [13759]
  154
  Mr. Norris
  None. The number of heavy goods vehicles crossing the central cordon dropped from 32,000 in 1983 to 10,000 in 1993, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Bus Services (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he will take to ensure access for the disabled to public bus services in the Greater Manchester area. [13480]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government will be bringing forward regulations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to require that all new buses coming into service from the date determined in the regulations must be fully accessible to disabled people, including those who travel in wheelchairs.

  These regulations will apply to buses in the Greater Manchester area, as they will throughout the country.

  Vehicle Regulations
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to bring forward amendments to the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations. [13676]

  Mr. Norris
  Amendments are made regularly to the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, some to reflect changes in European type approval standards, others for the benefit of road safety or environmental protection.

  London to Luton Railway Service
  Sir Graham Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guaranteed level of service will be required on the London to Luton inter-city route after privatisation; what is the current level of service; and what assessment he has made of the level of service which will be provided after privatisation. [13627]

  Mr. Watts
  Services between London and Luton are predominantly provided by Thameslink, rather than the inter-city service, which is provided by Midland main line. Accordingly, it will be the passenger service requirement for Thameslink which will safeguard the level of service. That PSR has yet to be set. The PSR for Midland main line leaves the level of services to the commercial judgment of the franchisee.

  At present on weekdays, Thameslink operates 136 trains per day between London and Luton and 133 trains per day between Luton and London, Midland main line operates 16 trains per day between London and Luton and 15 between Luton and London.

  The level of service above the PSR to be provided after privatisation will be a matter for the franchise operator. In evaluating bids for franchises the franchising director is required to take account of bidders' commitments to providing service levels beyond those specified in the PSR. Franchisees for the first three franchises have committed themselves to provide service levels over and above the PSR and the Government expect bidders for other franchises to offer similar commitments.

  Roads (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the road building programme in the Greater Manchester area. [13481]

  Mr. Watts
  Following the recent review of the trunk road programme the list of road schemes in the Greater Manchester area is as follows:

  Schemes under Construction

  M66 Denton to Middleton Contract 2 (Advance Side Roads)

  M66 Denton to Middleton Contract 4 (M66/M62 River Irk)

  Schemes expected to start 1995–96 to 1996–97

  M66 Denton to Middleton Contract 1 (Denton to River Medlock)

  Main Prgoramme Schemes

  M63 junctions 6–9 widening

  M66 Denton to Middleton Contract 3 (River Irk to River Medlock)

  A6 (M) Stockport North/South Bypass

  A6 (M)-M56 Manchester Airport Link-West

  A57/A628 Mottram-Tintwistle Bypass

  A62 junctions 12/18 improvement (replaces M62 Relief Road scheme withdrawn from the programme)

  Longer Term Programme

  A6 Disley and High Lane Bypass

  A5225 Wigan-Westhoughton Bypass

  The longer-term programme comprises those schemes, which, although required, are not of the highest priority nationally. They will be taken forward only as the main programme is completed.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funding his Department has provided for maintenance of the trunk roads network in the Greater Manchester area between 1992 and 1995. [13479]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. James Callaghan, dated 6 February 1996

  As you know, the Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what funding his Department has provided for maintenance of the trunk road network in the Greater Manchester area between 1992 and 1995.

  Expenditure on maintenance was as follows:

  1992–93: £38.194 million

  1993–94: £27,513 million

  1994–95: £31,395 million

  1995–96: £17,771 million (to date).

  Maintenance programmes are determined to meet needs on the basis of continuous review of the condition of the network.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Traffic Congestion (London)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for avoiding traffic congestion in central London. [13736]

  Mr. Norris
  Improvements to the M25 and to the north circular road will encourage traffic to avoid passing through inner and central London. Within the central area itself a range of measures is being pursued, including tight controls over the provision of parking within new developments, improved signalling and traffic control,156
  better co-ordination of streetworks, stricter enforcement of on-street parking, and improved signing on the inner ring road.

  Oil Pollution
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many prosecutions have been pursued during the last five years in response to criminal or irresponsible action leading to oil pollution of seas and coastal waters; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of current regulations and sanctions. [13117]

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 24 January,Official Report, column 270, and on 31 January, Official Report, columns 807–8.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has had with British Airways in connection with its planned relocation of its cargo centre on the north-west fringes of Heathrow airport. [13302]

  Mr. Norris
  British Airways' cargo centre is currently located on the southern side of Heathrow airport and is being redeveloped on that site. The Department's transport security division has been in contact with British Airways to discuss the incorporation of aviation security requirements in this project.

  M25
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which bridges crossing the M25 will have to be widened to accommodate the additional lanes planned between junctions 12 and 16; and if he will make a statement. [13301]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, dated 6 February 1996

  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts, has asked me to reply to your parliamentary question about the proposed widening of the M25 between Junctions 12 and 16 and the likely effect on bridges.

  We have two separate proposals to widen this section of the M25. Between Junctions 12 and 15 there are no bridges which would have to be widened in order to accommodate the additional lanes planned. The widening would be within the current highway boundary.

  For the section between Junctions 15 and 16, we are investigating several options for widening. These may involve the widening of some of the 8 overbridges and 7 underbridges but it is not possible to say at this early stage how many would be affected.

  Blue Bell Hill Tunnel
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated cost of the tunnel under Blue Bell hill that forms part of the channel tunnel rail link project. [13904]

  Mr. Watts
  Union Railways' estimate is just over £70 million at 1994 Q3 prices. The actual cost will depend on detailed design by the successful bidder.

  Railways (Working Hours)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes the Health and Safety Executive has recently authorised in working hour arrangements for safety critical staff in the railways industry. [13805]

  Mr. Watts
  None. The Health and Safety Executive is not required to authorise working hour arrangements on the railways. However, under the Railways (Safety Critical Work) Regulations 1994, employers have a duty to ensure that any staff who undertake safety critical work do not work such hours that would be liable to cause fatigue which could endanger safety.

  The Health and Safety Commission has recently consulted on a draft approved code of practice which would give practical guidance to employers on their duty, including guidance on carrying out a risk assessment before making any changes to existing working time patterns.

  A303, Stonehenge
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he received the report of the chairman of the round table conference on the A303 at Stonehenge; when he will publish it; and if he will make a statement. [13498]

  Mr. Watts
  The chairman has not yet submitted his report. The report will be published as soon as it is received.

  Congestion
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated about the costs of traffic congestion. [13158]

  Mr. Watts
  The Department has not commissioned research to estimate the national cost of traffic congestion. The cost of congestion at a national level is a very difficult concept to pin down. Estimates have been made of the UK cost of congestion on the basis of work carried out by the OECD some six years ago. However, the method used contains a number of gross simplifications and the figures are consequently unreliable.

  Our own traffic and economics assessments focus on appraisal of individual transport projects. They start from the baseline of current congestion levels and estimate the reduction in congestion 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.

  Traffic Accidents (Poor Eyesight)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the existence of a relationship between traffic accidents and poor eyesight; and what statistics it maintains. [13752]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 6 February 1996]There are no specific statistics on the relationship between poor eyesight and road traffic accidents because drivers do not have their eyes tested after accidents unless required to do 158
  so by the police on suspicion that they cannot meet the legal eyesight standard. The Department however accepts the view of medical experts that poor eyesight is a danger to road safety, and follows their advice in setting minimum eyesight standards for driving.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of staff employed by his Department or related agencies in each of the travel-to-work areas of Carmarthen, South Pembrokeshire, Haverfordwest, Fishguard and Cardigan on(a) 31 March 1979, (b) 31 March 1990, (c) 31 March 1992, (d) 31 March 1995, (e) the latest available figure and (f) the estimate for 31 March 1997. [13299]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 5 February 1996]Details of the numbers of staff recorded in departmental computer records as employed in the Department and its agencies in the travel-to-work areas of Carmarthen, South Pembrokeshire, Haverfordwest, Fishguard and Cardigan for the years 1990, 1992, 1995 and February 1996 are set out in the following table. Figures for 1979 are not available except at disproportionate cost. Estimates for 31 March 1997 are yet to be formulated.

  31 March 1990

  31 March 1992

  31 March 1995

  2 February 1996

  Carmarthen South

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Pembrokeshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Haverfordwest

  26

  30

  25

  25

  Fishguard

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Cardigan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Railtrack Staff
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people are employed by Railtrack; how many have been made redundant in each year since Railtrack was set up; and if he will make a statement. [13219]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer, 5 February 1996]On 1 February, Railtrack employed 11,382 staff. During the financial year 1994–95, six employees were made redundant; to date, no employees have been made redundant in 1995–96.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list those police forces which run units dedicated to enforcing heavy goods vehicle safety; and what were the staff numbers in each of those units; [13243]

  (2) if he will list by police force the current budget dedicated to enforcement legislation relating to heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles. [13275]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Central Community Relations Unit
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all organisations in receipt of funding from the central community relations unit in 1995 giving, in each case, the amount of funding. [12334]

  Mr. Ancram
  The central community relations unit provided funding in 1994–95, the last complete financial year for which figures are available, totalling £4,642,941.54. Details of the organisations funded, together with the amount of funding they received in 1993–94, are set out in the following table. It does not include payments from the European regional development fund and the European social fund in respect of European Union measures administered by the central community relations unit.

  Organisations funded by the central community relations unit

  Grant £

  District councils

  Antrim Borough Council

  55,281.44

  Ards Borough Council

  39,987.37

  Armagh District Council

  74,526.57

  Ballymena Borough Council

  44,268.76

  Ballymoney Borough Council

  54,562.39

  Banbridge District Council

  56,876.90

  Belfast City Council

  141,706.65

  Carrickfergus Borough Council

  44,385.00

  Castlereach Borough Council

  39,522.00

  Coleraine Borough Council

  48,524.76

  Cookstown District Council

  38,429.68

  Craigavon Borough Council

  36,404.13

  Derry City Council

  86,437.00

  Down District Council

  63,679.29

  Dungannon District Council

  77,635.32

  Fermanagh District Council

  85,193.39

  Larne Borough Council

  40,235.84

  Limavady Borough Council

  45,031.94

  Lisburn Borough Council

  38,191.45

  Magherafelt District Council

  61,100.00

  Moyle District Council

  24,041.68

  Newry and Mourne District Council

  76,548.17

  Newtownabbey Borough Council

  35,689.91

  North Down District Council

  36,189.80

  Omagh District Council

  60,952.50

  Strabane District Council

  74,658.62

  Totals

  1,480,060.56

  Cultural traditions bodies

  Comhaltas Uladh

  24,125.00

  Cultural coalition

  10,000.00

  Northern Ireland sub-committee of the European Bureau for lesser used languages

  6,000

  Gael-linn Teoranta

  41,000.00

  Glencairn People's Project

  5,740.29

  Linenhall Library

  10,335.82

  Naiscoil Na Rinne

  5,000.00

  Oideas Gael Uladh

  5,000.00

  Origins of place names

  185,682.05

  Preas and Phobail Limited

  24,000.00

  Royal Irish Regiment museum

  22,149.72

  Ultach Trust

  80,000.00

  Totals

  419,032.88

  Community Relations Bodies

  Chinese Welfare Association

  15,033.03

  Co-operation North

  100,000.00

  Encounter

  5,000.00

  160

  Organisations funded by the central community relations unit

  Grant £

  Families against Intimidation and Terror

  15,090.00

  Growing through Conflict

  3,000.00

  Initiative on Conflict

  —

  Resolution and Ethnicity

  10,112.35

  Northern Ireland Community

  —

  Relations Council

  2,061,098.65

  Parent and Child Training

  750.00

  St. Columb's Trust

  24,110.15

  Ulster People's College

  30,952.52

  Totals

  2,265,146.70

  Capital programme

  Armagh District Council

  30,000.00

  Craigavon Asian Women's Association

  6,600.00

  Department of the Environment (NI) Advisory Service

  8,603.24

  Fermanagh District Council

  30,000.00

  Glenavy Community Support Group

  18,513.75

  Lisburn YMCA Ltd.

  16,000.00

  NI Children's Committee 10

  12,765.96

  SOMME Association Ltd.

  100,000.00

  St. Columb's Trust

  11,853.65

  Ulster People's College

  10,000.00

  Wandsworth Community Association

  2,871.80

  Totals

  247,208.40

  Research

  Capita Consultants

  4,111.00

  Central Survey Unit, Department of Finance and Personnel

  30,000.00

  Charities Evaluation Services

  10,000.00

  Community Relations Council

  10,000.00

  Corrymeela Community

  5,253.00

  Forum for Community Work Education

  5,000.00

  Initiative on Conflict Resolution and Ethnicity

  37,355.00

  Northern Ireland Office

  21,000.00

  Queen's University, Belfast

  25,857.00

  Research and Evaluation Services

  5,350.00

  Social Information Systems

  30,000.00

  Templegrove Action Research Ltd.

  5,000.00

  University of Ulster, Coleraine

  18,483.00

  University of Ulster, Jordanstown

  24,084.00

  Totals

  231,493.00

  Overall total

  District Councils

  1,480,060.56

  Cultural Traditions Bodies

  419,032.88

  Community Relations Bodies

  2,265,146.70

  Capital Programme

  247,208.40

  Research

  231,493.00

  Total

  4,642,941.54

  Action for Community Employment
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which bodies(a) have received and (b) will receive funding from the action for community employment programme in the financial years (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96 and (iii) 1996–97; and if he will list (1) the numbers employed by each body and (2) the amount each body received in (i) to (iii); and in which parliamentary constituency each body is located. [12694]
  161
  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Mr. Jim Dowd, dated 30 January 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency to reply to your questions about the Action for Community Employment programme (ACE).

  Across Northern Ireland there are currently 237 organisations running ACE schemes. The detailed information you seek is not immediately available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. However, on the assumption that you might find it helpful I have appended a list of ACE schemes operating during 1995/96.

  I am sorry I cannot be more helpful on this occasion.

  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the funding of ACE schemes in the Province. [12558]

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Rev. William McCrea, dated 30 January 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency to reply to your request for a statement about the funding of the Action for Community Employment (ACE) programme.

  As you know, on Monday 11 December 1995 the Secretary of State announced details of the Public Expenditure Plans for Northern Ireland for 1996/7 and the following two years. The announcement referred to the very encouraging performance of the Northern Ireland economy wish unemployment at its lowest for 14 years and employment at record levels. He mentioned also the promise of substantial jobs from recently announced investments by major companies.

  Against this background the reduction of £12.5 million in funding for the ACE programme in 1996/7 will help to meet pressures in top priority programmes aimed at promoting self-sustaining economic growth. The targeting of available resources in this way will best meet the needs of the unemployed in the longer term.

  I can assure you that the Training and Employment Agency is sensitive to the concerns of the voluntary/community sector and is aware of the possible implications for local communities arising from the reduction in ACE workers.

  The Agency has recently written to the Chairpersons of ACE schemes to indicate the level of reduction required in each scheme in order that the programme can live within the resources available to it in 1996/7. Following consultations with a variety of sponsors and others with an interest in ACE, the Agency is happy to allow sponsors to determine how best they might achieve the reduction either individually or collectively. The aim is to keep the consequences of the reductions to a minimum.

  I hope that you find this reply useful. I will of course be pleased to provide further information if you would find it helpful.

  Office of Legislative Counsel
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff are employed in the office of legislative counsel; at what grades and salaries; and what is its overall annual cost. [12828]

  Sir John Wheeler: Twenty-three staff are currently employed in the office of legislative counsel, which includes the statutory publications office.
  162
  The breakdown by grade and salary range is as follows:

  Grade

  Number of staff

  Salary range £

  First legislative counsel

  1

  62,000–67,000

  2nd legislative counsel

  1.4

  53,000–58,000

  Assistant solicitor

  2

  37,400–55,802

  Senior legal assistant

  1

  25,964–45,328

  Legal assistant

  2

  25,392–39,324

  Deputy principal

  1

  19,021–29,161

  Staff officer

  1

  15,363–20,634

  Executive officer I

  2

  12,923–17,895

  Executive officer II

  4

  10,982–15,208

  Personal secretary

  1

  9,287–12,592

  Administrative officer

  4.5

  8,778–12,174

  Administrative assistance

  1

  6,928–10,279

  Casual administrative assistant

  1

  6,928–10,279

  The overall annual cost of the OLC is £738,000, which includes £514,000 for salaries, £61,000 for accommodation and £163,000 for other running costs.

  Firearm Certificates
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the grounds for eligibility for holding a firearm certificate. [12846]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 18 January 1996,Official Report, column 716. Under the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, a firearm certificate shall not be granted unless the Chief Constable is satisfied that

  the firearm could be held without danger to public safety or to the peace;

  the applicant is fitted to hold a firearm;

  the applicant has "good reason" for the firearm;

  the applicant is not prohibited from holding a firearm by virtue of article 22 of the order;

  the applicant is 18 years of age or more.

  Controlled Secondary and Grammar Schools
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils(a) are currently and (b) have been in each of the last three years educated in controlled secondary and grammar schools. [12552]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) 54,785 pupils are currently educated in controlled secondary and grammar schools (1994–95).

  (b) The numbers of pupils educated in controlled secondary and grammar schools for the last three years are as follows:

  1991–92: 53,859

  1992–93: 53,976

  1993–94: 54,697

  Education Finance
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what capital schemes are planned in the next financial year for education establishments in the constituency of Mid-Ulster; [12553]

  (2) what additional resources he plans to provide for education in Mid-Ulster in 1996–97. [12554]
  163
  Mr. Ancram
  There are two major building schemes planned for 1996–97 in the constituency of Mid-Ulster: a new primary school in Dromore, County Tyrone, on which work has started, and a scheme to extend Holy Trinity primary school, Cookstown.

  Additional resources allocated for education services in 1996–97 have been distributed primarily through the five education and library boards and not on a parliamentary constituency basis.

  Temporary Employment
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the proportion of employees currently in temporary employment. [12555]

  Mr. Ancram
  Information on temporary employment is available only from the labour force survey. The latest available information relates to summer 1995 when an estimated 8 per cent. of employees were in temporary employment.

  Nursery Education
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he will take to make a nursery place in a state school available to all children under school age. [12556]

  Mr. Ancram
  It remains the Government's stated long-term policy objective to provide access to one year of nursery education for all children in Northern Ireland whose parents wish it. However, resources are not currently available within mainstream funding to facilitate the expansion of grant-aided nursery education provision.

  Youth Unemployment
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of youth unemployment in Northern Ireland. [12557]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Government are addressing the problem of unemployment among young people through a range of programmes which seek to provide the skills and abilities needed to obtain and retain employment.

  These include Training and Employment Agency programmes such as jobskills, currently being used by almost 10,000 under-25s, which provides quality training leading to national vocational qualifications; the action for community employment scheme, 40 per cent. of the participants on which are placed in employment on leaving; and programmes providing work experience opportunities including some overseas.

  The agency also works closely with the Department of Education to develop and implement vocational and educational training strategies aimed at helping young people who are entering the labour market for the first time. Over the past year, new courses have been put in place for young people wishing to take advantage of the emerging opportunities in tourism.

  For those with higher qualifications, the teaching company scheme administered through the industrial research and technology unit develops young graduates
  164
  for careers in industry; more than 200 graduates have made use of the scheme in Northern Ireland, a rate of uptake well above the UK average.

  The Government are working with the private sector Northern Ireland growth challenge to improve the links between industry and the education system at all levels.

  Older Workers
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what special provision is being made for the employment of older workers in the Province. [12579]

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Rev. William McCrea, dated 6 February 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency to reply to your question about the employment of older workers.

  The Agency's network of 31 local offices provides an all-age service for those seeking employment. We also help employers to fill vacancies. If an employer seeks to impose age limits when notifying a vacancy, the Agency encourages the employer to either abandon the age limits or broaden the age band. We also emphasise the experience and reliability of older workers.

  If an employer insists on imposing an age restriction for a vacancy which appears unjustifiable, the Agency will not handle it. This has been the position for several years.

  On a more general note the Agency is planning to produce a booklet giving practical advice to older people about finding work, training and changing jobs. It will also encourage them to realise the wealth of experience, maturity and skills they possess. In addition we propose to produce a separate booklet for employers highlighting both the benefits of recruiting older people and the unfairness of age discrimination.

  I hope that you find this reply helpful. I will of course be pleased to provide further information if you would find it useful.

  Independent Schools
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils are currently educated in independent schools, including independent Christian schools; and what the figures are for each of the last three years. [12580]

  Mr. Ancram
  Nine hundred and forty-one pupils are currently educated in independent schools—1994–95. the numbers of pupils educated in independent schools for the previous three years are as follows:

  1991–92: 1,052

  1992–93: 963

  1993–94: 939

DEFENCE

  Naval Bases (Privatisation)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has held with(a) naval officials and (b) union representatives regarding privatisation measures for naval bases. [12040]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence keeps in regular touch with the whole range of efficiency improvements planned for naval bases.

  Mr. David Hart
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review Mr. David Hart's security clearance. [12041]

  Mr. Portillo
  Mr. Hart has gone through the proper security clearance procedure.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money including the pay of service personnel his Department spends annually in each standard planning region of the United Kingdom. [12042]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Data of MOD equipment expenditure in each of the standard economic planning regions of the UK is available in table 1.9 of "UK Defence Statistics 1995", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. We do not compile regional data for other aspects of defence expenditure.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is taking to eliminate unnecessary spending in his Department. [12051]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Members for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) and for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner), on 9 January 1996,Official Report, column 93.

  Procurement Decisions (Impact)
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department makes of the industrial impact of procurement decisions. [12043]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Industrial implications is one of the many factors which are taken into account when procurement decisions are being made.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many attacks there have been on British military personnel in former Yugoslavia since 1991; if he will indicate from which sources these attacks came; and how many British casualties resulted. [12044]

  Mr. Soames
  Regrettably, 11 British military personnel have been killed and a further 17 have sustained serious injuries as a result of the activities of the former warring factions.
  166
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made by NATO's peace implementation force in former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement. [12047]

  Mr. Soames
  IFOR is making good progress and is continuing to work closely with the parties in implementing the military aspects of the peace agreement. It has recently verified compliance with the latest deadline to evacuate forces from those areas which are to be transferred to other parties. We expect the implementation process to continue with the compliance of the parties.

  Defence Industry
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on jobs in the defence industry of reducing United Kingdom defence spending to the European average. [12045]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  A reduction in UK defence expenditure to the current NATO European average would result in cuts of over £4.5 billion per year. This would have a drastic effect on the capability of our armed forces and the future equipment programme. The implications for jobs in the defence industry would be severe.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British jobs are sustained by the defence industry; and if he will make a statement. [12054]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Estimates of UK employment dependent on my Department's expenditure and on defence exports appear in table 1.10 of "UK Defence Statistics 1995", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Royal Air Force
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Defence what was the average cost of recruitment and training for each new recruit to the Royal Air Force in 1993–94 and 1994–95. [12046]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 9 January 1996,Official Report, column 102, and to the letter sent to him by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence on 13 December 1995, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the annual cost of Royal Air Force personnel and facilities in Germany. [12048]

  Mr. Soames
  Our current estimate of the costs for the financial year 1995–96 of RAF units stationed in Germany is approximately £227 million. Roughly half this figure represents personnel costs.

  Russian Defence Policy
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration is being given by the defence planning staff to the implications for UK defence policy of changes in the Russian hierarchy and defence doctrines. [12050]
  167
  Mr. Soames
  As explained in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995", the progress of reform in Russia remains an important factor in the determination of our security and defence policies.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in respect of the UK's nuclear deterrent. [12052]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The United Kingdom's independent minimum nuclear deterrent continues to provide the ultimate safeguard of this country's security and to make an important contribution to NATO's strategy of war prevention. The introduction into service of Trident will ensure that the United Kingdom retains a credible and effective minimum deterrent into the next century.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the value of nuclear weapons to Britain's defence. [12031]

  Mr. Portillo
  Nuclear weapons continue to make an essential contribution to the security of the United Kingdom.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what aims the Government have for their presidency of the WEU. [12053]

  Mr. Soames
  We intend to concentrate our efforts during the UK presidency on enhancing the WEU's operational capability. In particular, we are taking forward work on establishing a situation centre and intelligence section, seeking to strengthen links with NATO, and developing a coherent and progressive WEU exercise policy.

  Royal Yacht
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to his Department of the presence of the royal yacht Britannia at this year's Cowes regatta. [5310]

  Mr. Soames
  The total operating costs of HMY Britannia for the financial years 1992–93 to 1995–96 were provided in my reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 5 April 1995,Official Report, column 1151. Information on the marginal costs of individual deployments could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Tornado F3 Aircraft
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the terms of the lease agreement with the Italian authorities concerning Tornado F3 aircraft; and what non-financial facilities have been made available to the Italian authorities as part of this agreement. [13209]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The lease provides for 24 RAF Tornado F3 aircraft to be loaned to Italy for a period of 10 years for a fee of £100 million. The Italian Government are responsible for all support costs. The 168
  lease agreement includes an offset scheme under which Italian industry will be furnished opportunities to compete for defence work to the same value as the lease fee.

  Exercise Purple Star
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what alternative to HMS Fearless will take part in Exercise Purple Star. [13115]

  Mr. Soames
  HMS Fearless remains scheduled to return to operational duties in good time to allow her to take part in Exercise Purple Star.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the planned Exercise Purple Star, scheduled for May 1996, can proceed as envisaged; and if the condition of HMS Fearless has had any significant effect on the preparation of this exercise. [13116]

  Mr. Soames
  Exercise Purple Star will go ahead as planned, although our contribution has been adjusted slightly to take account of our involvement with the NATO implementation force in the former Yugoslavia. The condition of HMS Fearless, and her current maintenance programme, has had no significant effect upon the preparation of this exercise.

  Parliamentary Answers (Diagrams)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) of 31 January,Official Report, columns 755–56, when a diagram as described by the chief executive of the Meterological Office may be reproduced in or with the Official Report. [14042]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The publication of answers is a matter for the Editor of the Official Report.

  Boots
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many pairs of boots were issued to Her Majesty's forces during the past year; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [12276]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from M. J. Roycroft to Mr. Harry Greenway, dated 6 February 1996:

  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the issues of boots to Her Majesty's forces, in my capacity as the Chief Executive, Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency (DCTA).

  During the past twelve months a total of 291,493 pairs of boots have been issued to units at a cost of £11,124,643 VAT inclusive. These issues cover some 40 or more different types of boot ranging from combat boots to protective footwear. Within these totals 43,620 combat boots (£3,046,826) have been issued for specific operations, including Bosnia. A further 50,963 pairs of boots (£1,962,916) were issued as part of the recently completed deployment plan to equip HM Forces with the new Combat Assault Boot.

  If I can be of any further assistance please let me know.

  Joint Service Command and Staff College
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the joint service command and staff college will open. [14220]

  Mr. Soames
  The creation of a joint service command and staff college is a key element in our policy to encourage a more joint service approach to defence issues. It will open, as planned, in September 1997. Major General T. J. Granville-Chapman will be its first commandant, and he will assume responsibility for the project in June 1996.

  We shall close the joint service defence college and royal naval staff college at Greenwich, the Army staff college at Camberley and the RAF staff college at Bracknell, in 1997. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said in his answer to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on 19 December 1995, Official Report column 1107, he has appointed an advisory group to give him advice on the future of the royal naval college at Greenwich. A final decision is not expected until the summer.

  The works programme for the new college cannot be completed by September 1997. We are therefore making arrangements for the JSCSC to operate initially at a temporary location, probably at RAF Bracknell. A final decision on the interim site is subject to formal appraisal and consultation. We intend to dispose of the Bracknell site by the end of 1999.

  The work so far has shown that Camberley is the most cost-effective and appropriate Ministry of Defence site for the college. We shall be seeking proposals for private sector involvement in the provision of high-quality accommodation—including infrastructure and residential accommodation—associated facilities management for a range of services, and possibly civilian academic support. In exploring the opportunities for private finance, imaginative proposals involving an alternative site that meet our requirements are not ruled out.

  Formal consultations with the trade unions and other interested parties will take place before any final decision on the JSCSC is made.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Helplines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all the helplines, or schemes which include a helpline service, for which his Department provides any funding, stating which are(a) independent organisations, (b) run by his Department or agencies of his Department or (c) of another classification; how many calls each received in each of the last five years; and how much money each received from his Department in each of the last five years. [9803]
  170
  Mr. Burt
  Full information is not available and can be supplied only at disproportionate cost. However, information is available as follows:

  (a) The Department does not provide funding for any outside organisations.

  (b) Helplines run by the Department or its agencies are as follows:

  Social Security headquarters Public Enquiry Office (PEO) (national call rate)

  Number of calls received

  1990

  29,446

  1991

  39,879

  1992

  64,120

  1993

  75,907

  1994

  86,355

  1995

  67,645

  Any telephone costs to the Department which may be incurred by the PEO on follow-up calls and so forth cannot be distinguished from overall telephone costs for the building from which they operate.

  Until October 1993 the Department of Social Security public enquiry office also answered inquiries on behalf of the Department of Health.

  Information supplied by the Department's agencies is as follows:

  Benefits Agency

  Amount

  Freeline (free phone)

  Number of calls handled in the last 12 months up to 24 November 1995

  2.7 million

  Annual cost of call charges

  £1.1 million

  Annual running costs (staff)

  £4.9 million

  Benefit Enquiry Line (free phone)

  Number of calls handled in the last 12 months up to 24 November 1995

  0.9 million

  Annual cost of call charges

  £0.75 million

  Annual running costs (staff)

  £2.72 million

  Family Credit Advice Line (full rate)

  Number of calls handled in the last 12 months up to 24 November 1995

  2.2 million

  Annual cost of call charges

  NIL

  Annual running costs (staff)

  £1.6 million

  Disability Living Allowance Line (subsidised)

  Number of calls handled in the last 12 months up to 24 November 1995

  2 million

  Annual cost of call charges

  £0.072 million

  Annual running costs (staff)

  £1.62 million

  Disability Working Allowance Line

  Number of calls received January 1995-December 1995

  50,374

  Costs

  £54,568

  Pensions Telephone Liaison Service (TLS)

  Number of calls received:

  1994

  70,864

  1995

  65,162

  Annual running cost (staff)

  £90,458.00

  Annual running cost (accommodation)

  £6,042.00

  Total

  £96,500.00

  171

  Contributions Agency

  Social Security Advice Line for Employers (SSALE)

  Amount

  Number of calls received:

  April 1991-March 1992

  162,153

  April 1992-March 1993

  189,221

  April 1993-March 1994

  242,223

  April 1994-March 1995

  225,124

  April 1995-December 1995

  237,976

  Cost of running SSALE:

  1994–95

  Staff costs

  £639,852

  Non staff costs

  £393,585

  Total

  £1,033,437

  1995–96

  Staff costs

  £550,154

  Non staff costs

  £199,000

  Total

  £749,154

  War Pensions Agency

  Amount

  War Pensions Helpline

  Number of calls:

  1992

  56,065

  1993

  105,787

  1994

  315,021

  1995

  821,696

  Running costs (staff):

  1992

  £84,144

  1993

  £119,625

  1994

  £267.098

  1995

  £285,205

  Costs of establishing the technical system in 1992 were £114,941 and the annual maintenance cost is £9,700.

  Child Support Agency

  Amount

  National Enquiry Line (NEL)

  (Includes Child Support Agency Employer Line Child Support Agency Enquiry Line) Number of calls: June 94-January 96

  993,438

  Cost of operating (NEL)

  £1,123,895

  Child Support Agency Literature Line

  Number of calls/coupons/cards:

  1992–94

  19,964

  1994–95

  18,237

  The cost of Housing Benefit and the number of recipients, for Scotland 1983–84 to 1994–95

  Average number of housing benefit recipients (000s)

  Housing benefit expenditure (£ million)

  Financial years

  Local authority tenants (including new towns and Scottish Homes)

  All private tenants (including HA tenants)

  HA tenants

  Other private tenants (ex HA tenants)

  Local authority tenants (including new towns and Scottish Homes)

  All private tenants (including HA tenants)

  HA tenants

  Other private tenants (ex HA tenants)

  1983–84

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  211

  30

  n/a

  n/a

  1984–85

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  235

  41

  n/a

  n/a

  1985–86

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  262

  55

  n/a

  n/a

  1986–87

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  300

  71

  n/a

  n/a

  1987–88

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  338

  89

  n/a

  n/a

  1988–89

  494

  72

  n/a

  n/a

  363

  86

  n/a

  n/a

  172

  Child Support Agency

  Amount

  Running costs (Totals):

  April 94-March 95

  £134,881.77

  April 95-May 95

  £19,070.29

  June 95-November 95

  £52,290.77

  c) Other classification:

  Headquarters Teleresponse Lines

  These lines cannot strictly speaking be classified as "helplines"; they are routine telephone information lines set up to enable the public to respond to any publicity related to the following issues; they are not permanent.

  Pension Teleresponse Line

  Number of calls/coupons:

  February 1994-March 95

  41,483

  Cost of running the line

  £36,751

  Family Credit

  Number of calls/coupons:

  April 94-April 95

  18,255

  Cost of running the line

  £142,641

  Disability on the Agenda

  Number of calls/coupons:

  April 1993-March 1995 (2 years)

  34,570

  Cost of running the line

  £82,092

  Incapacity Benefit

  Number of calls/coupons:

  Year up to April 95

  138,470

  Cost of running the line

  £234,639

  Disability Working Allowance

  Number of calls/coupons

  April 1994-January 1996

  42,260

  Cost of running the line

  £94,000

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will detail for each of the years between 1982–83 and 1995–96(a) the total cost of housing benefit in Scotland paid to (i) tenants of new towns, Scottish Homes and local authorities, (ii) tenants of housing associations and (iii) tenants of private landlords and (b) the number of households in Scotland receiving housing benefit in each of the above categories. [11140]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the table.
  173

  The cost of Housing Benefit and the number of recipients, for Scotland 1983–84 to 1994–95

  Average number of housing benefit recipients (000s)

  Housing benefit expenditure (£ million)

  Financial years

  Local authority tenants (including new towns and Scottish Homes)

  All private tenants (including HA tenants)

  HA tenants

  Other private tenants (ex HA tenants)

  Local authority tenants (including new towns and Scottish Homes)

  All private tenants (including HA tenants)

  HA tenants

  Other private tenants (ex HA tenants)

  1989–90

  478

  79

  n/a

  n/a

  415

  113

  n/a

  n/a

  1990–91

  467

  76

  n/a

  n/a

  455

  119

  n/a

  n/a

  1991–92

  466

  76

  n/a

  n/a

  505

  136

  n/a

  n/a

  1992–93

  460

  83

  22

  61

  558

  169

  35

  134

  1993–94

  457

  93

  30

  63

  600

  202

  48

  154

  1994–95

  445

  104

  35

  69

  619

  239

  62

  177

  Notes:

  1. Figures for recipients have been rounded to the nearest thousand and are averages of four quarters data. Expenditure figures have been rounded to the nearest £ million.

  2. Figures for recipients refer to benefit units which may be a single person or a couple.

  3. Expenditure figures are not available for 1982–83.

  4. Information on Housing Benefit recipients on Scotland is not available prior to 1988–89.

  5. Information on the number of housing association tenants was not collected prior to May 1992.

  6. Housing association expenditure figures have been estimated from a one per cent. sample of recipients.

  Source:

  Recipients: housing benefit management information system, quarterly 100 per cent. caseload enquiries taken on the last working day in May, August, November and February.

  Expenditure: Department of Social Security planning and finance division.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many young single people aged 16 to 24 years(a) living in the private rented sector and (b) living in self-contained private rented sector accommodation in Scotland currently receive housing benefit; and in each case at what cost. [11161]

  Mr. Evans
  The latest available figures show that, as at May 1994, there were 15,000 recipients of housing benefit in Scotland who were aged 16 to 24 and living in privately rented accommodation; the estimated total cost of housing benefit paid to this group during the 1994–95 financial year was £41 million. Information is not routinely collected to differentiate between self-contained and non self-contained accommodation.

  State Earnings-related Pension Scheme
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of(a) males and (b) females covered by SERPs; and what percentage of the work force it constituted in (i) 1993, (ii) 1994 and (iii) 1995. [12833]

  Mr. Heald
  Figures are not available for 1994 or 1995. The latest figures available1 show that in 1992–93, 3.3 million men and 3.2 million women in the United Kingdom would accrue SERPS entitlement2, representing 22.8 per cent. of the work force3

  Notes:

  1 Source: 1 per cent. sample of national insurance records.

  2 This is the number of people who paid class 1 national insurance contributions at the not contracted out rate over the year 1992–93 whose earnings factor was equal to or above the annual lower earnings limit.

  3 Source: Employment Gazette December 1995. Workforce includes self-employed persons, HM Forces, people on Government training programmes and the claimant unemployed.

  4 Information on the workforce is provided quarterly and is a point in time figures. In order to assess the number throughout the year the four quarters have been averaged. The percentage covered by SERPS has then been calculated using the average figure. The breakdown by sex is unavailable.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money was lent on social fund loans at the last date for which figures are available; how many people have such loans; what is the average loan at the time of issue; and what is the average repayment period. [12834]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information for the period April to December 1995 is set out in the table.

  Budgeting loan

  Crisis loan

  Number of awards

  702,751

  621,048

  Total amount awarded

  £190,294,974

  £41,161,827

  Average payment

  £270.78

  £66.27

  Average length of repayment for loan repaid during this period

  34.7 weeks

  14.6 weeks

  1. The number of discretionary awards made after review is not included.

  2. The repayment terms for social fund loans are designed to be affordable to the applicant. The rate of repayment depends upon the applicant's individual circumstances. Although most loans are repaid within 78 weeks, the period of repayment may be extended up to 104 weeks.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the average time taken to process a claim on the social fund for each year since its inception; and if he will indicate the total number of claims(a) met, (b) refused and (c) appealed against. [12265]

  Mr. Evans
  [holding answer 31 January 1996]: The information is set out in the tables.
  175

  Clearance times

  Year

  Maternity payments

  Funeral payments

  Community Care grants

  Budgeting loans

  Crisis loans

  1988–89

  n/a

  n/a

  7 working days

  13 working days

  1 working day

  1989–90

  n/a

  n/a

  8 working days

  10 working days

  1 working day

  1990–91

  n/a

  n/a

  7 working days

  4.9 working days

  1 working day

  1991–92

  n/a

  n/a

  5.9 working days

  3.2 working days

  1 working day

  1992–93

  n/a

  n/a

  4.3 working days

  5.9 working days

  1 working day

  1993–94

  80.88 per cent. in 5 working days 98.02 per cent. in 20 working days

  71.69 per cent. in 12 working days 96.09 per cent. in 35 working days

  81 per cent. in 7 working days 98 per cent. in 20 working days

  78 per cent. in 6 working days 97 per cent. in 20 working days

  Cleared in day need arises

  1994–95

  73.3 per cent. in 5 working days 93.83 per cent. in 20 working days

  75.72 per cent. in 12 working days 96.95 per cent. in 35 working days

  87 per cent. in 7 working days 98 per cent. in 20 working days

  84 per cent. in 6 working days 98 per cent. in 20 working days

  Cleared in day need arises

  Performance monitoring by the Benefits Agency of clearance times for funeral payments and maternity payments did not commence until September 1992.

  Social fund claims, awards, refusals, appeals and reviews

  Maternity payments

  Funeral payments

  Community care grants

  Budgeting loans

  Crisis loans

  1988–89

  Claims (000s)

  212

  53

  315

  933

  501

  Awards (000s)

  170

  40

  153

  505

  379

  Refusals (000s)

  49

  13

  146

  330

  45

  Appeals

  748

  668

  —

  —

  —

  Applications for first review

  —

  —

  25,382

  71,131

  9,824

  1989–90

  Claims (000s)

  224

  63

  523

  1,131

  645

  Awards (000s)

  174

  44

  230

  580

  449

  Refusals (000s)

  46

  15

  278

  455

  46

  Appeals

  638

  859

  —

  —

  —

  Applications for first review

  —

  —

  71,104

  100,200

  9,898

  1990–91

  Claims (000s)

  234

  68

  692

  1,092

  596

  Awards (000s)

  189

  49

  246

  596

  504

  Refusals (000s)

  41

  15

  370

  472

  53

  Appeals

  522

  579

  —

  —

  —

  Applications for first review

  —

  —

  55,932

  64,577

  5,243

  1991–92

  Claims (000s)

  262

  77

  1,027

  1,360

  711

  Awards (000s)

  217

  57

  255

  711

  592

  Refusals (000s)

  41

  17

  736

  545

  70

  Appeals

  564

  1,076

  —

  —

  —

  Applications for first review

  —

  —

  88,913

  90,429

  7,148

  1992–93

  Claims (000s)

  271

  83

  1,184

  1,498

  837

  Awards (000s)

  228

  63

  287

  801

  671

  Refusals (000s)

  38

  16

  865

  592

  118

  Appeals

  491

  1,032

  —

  —

  —

  Applications for first review

  —

  —

  119,351

  118,539

  13,588

  1993–94

  Claims (000s)

  272

  94

  1,244

  1,529

  901

  Awards (000s)

  230

  72

  294

  854

  699

  Refusals (000s)

  20

  10

  923

  600

  153

  Appeals

  357

  969

  —

  —

  —

  Applications for first review

  —

  —

  148,633

  153,776

  18,790

  1994–95

  Claims (000s)

  262

  95

  1,266

  1,467

  1,011

  Awards (000s)

  220

  68

  285

  864

  755

  Refusals (000s)

  42

  27

  964

  588

  213

  Appeals

  312

  1,287

  —

  —

  —

  Applications for first review

  —

  —

  191,539

  205,368

  27,760

  1. As claims for maternity and funeral payments are from the regulated part of the social fund there are rights of appeal to a social security appeal tribunal. The grievance procedure for dissatisfied applicants to the discretionary social fund is by review process.

  2. The difference between applications received, awards and refusals is due to: applications being withdrawn by applicants; applications where there is no response from applicants; and applications not decided at the time the count was made.
  176

  Benefit Overpayment
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the total identified number of cases of overpayment of all forms of benefits in(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1993–94; how many of these cases of overpayment are due to (i) departmental or agency errors and (ii) inaccurate information supplied by applicants; and what is his policy on repayment of benefits overpaid in respect of (i) and (ii). [12843]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Such information as is available regarding the number and cause of overpayments is set out in the table.

  Year

  Total number

  Customer error

  Other

  1993–94

  818,073

  405,984

  412,089

  1994–95

  996,477

  590,218

  406,259

  The category "other" includes small overpayments where recovery is not pursued, and abandoned cases. Such cases may not be caused through official error. It is not possible to disaggregate the information, except at disproportionate cost. However, the majority of these will be official error overpayments.

  In cases where the overpayment is caused by misrepresentation or failure to disclose a material fact, recovery is sought whenever it is appropriate to do so. Where no acceptable offer to repay is forthcoming, recovery is effected either, where the person remains in receipt of benefit, by deductions from benefit or, if benefit is no longer in payment, through voluntary repayment or civil proceedings. Where an overpayment has been caused by official error whether recovery is sought depends on how the error arose. In appropriate cases voluntary recover is sought. Recovery is pursued further only where it is cost effective to do so and there is a right in law of recovery.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated total amount of money not paid in cold weather payments in 1994 to pensioners who do not claim income support although eligible, using the most recent take-up figures produced by the Department of Social Security's analytical services division. [13104]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to change the rules under which cold weather payments are made. [13074]

  Mr. Evans
  There are no plans for major changes to the scheme.

  After the end of March each year, we routinely review the operation of the scheme over the previous winter, taking account of advice from the Meterological Office. In particular, we look at the links between weather stations and postcode areas, and as a result minor adjustments are made if necessary.

  Back-to-work Bonus Scheme
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimates he has made of(a) the likely revenue effects and (b) the numbers participating in respect of the back-to-work bonus scheme in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98 and (iii) 1998–99. [13409]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table:

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Estimated gross cost of the back-to-work bonus

  £15 million

  £45 million

  £65 million

  Estimated numbers receiving a bonus

  60,000

  130,000

  150,000

  (i) Estimates based on 2.1 million unemployed.

  (ii) The table shows the gross cost of the back to work bonus scheme. However, once behavioural effects are taken into account we expect that the scheme will be broadly cost neutral. The behavioural effects are very difficult to assess accurately. In particular, the likely take up of the bonus in the first 18 months is very uncertain.

  Poverty and Social Exclusion
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the United Kingdom projects to receive funds as part of the EU initiative to combat poverty and social exclusion. [13160]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The United Kingdom permanent representative to the European Union wrote to the European Commission in December seeking further information about its proposals to spend money on projects seeking to combat social exclusion. We have asked the Commission on what legal basis it is funding such projects. No response has yet been received, and Governments have not officially been notified of the Commission's intentions. The UK has already made clear to the Commission its additional scepticism about the value for public money of projects of this kind.

  As an issue of principle, it is unacceptable for substantial spending projets to be undertaken without a clear legal basis. Such practices offend against budgetary discipline and undermine member states' own efforts to constrain public spending. Resources within the Community as a whole are finite. It follows that any resources used without the authority of member states will mean fewer resources are available for national Governments to support anti-exclusion projects in member states.

  The Government's commitment to providing assistance for disadvantaged people is clear. In addition to spending an estimated £85 billion in this financial year on social security benefits, the Government are already funding many projects to combat social exclusion in the UK through inner city challenge, adult training, health care, housing and literacy programmes.

  Pensions Awareness Campaigns
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library copies of(a) advertisements, (b) leaflets and (c) transcripts of television and radio broadcasts used in the pensions awareness campaign in the midlands announced in his press release of 30 January. [13995]

  Mr. Heald
  Such material as is available will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Note:
  The Department is, for copyright reasons, unable to provide transcripts of television or radio broadcasts other than radio commercials.

  Deaths (Cold Weather)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of people who died as a consequence of the recent cold weather; and if he will break down the figure by assigned cause of death. [13215]

  Mr. Horam
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information about the number of people who died as a consequence of the recent cold weather is not yet available. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys will be publishing data on excess winter deaths later in the year.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

The Lord Bishop of Southwell
Patrick Burnet, Lord Bishop of Southwell—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Southwark and the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.
The Earl of Iveagh—The Earl of Iveagh—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Aircrew: Duty Hours
2.44 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of the anxiety on grounds of safety caused by the proposed extension of airline pilots' flying hours, and what action they are proposing to take.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Government are aware of some concerns that have been expressed about the Joint Aviation Authorities' proposals for aircrew flight and duty time limits. The Civil Aviation Authority believes that these proposals would provide an equivalent level of protection to the present UK rules, and that the high safety standards in the UK would not be compromised by their adoption.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which I find very encouraging. Can he confirm what I think he said, that the Civil Aviation Authority in this country has approved of this extension of flying hours?
Viscount Goschen: Yes, my Lords, I can give that assurance. The Civil Aviation Authority has been deeply involved in working out these proposals throughout the whole course of their consideration and is content for them to be adopted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, the former trade union leader for the airline pilots, I should like to ask this question. Is the noble Viscount aware that the British Air Line Pilots' Association is concerned about these new proposed limits, not so much as regards the limits imposed in a year or a month, but rather the amount of flying that is to be permitted in a single day? Has no consideration been given to the danger of fatigue from excessive flying within a single day?
Viscount Goschens: My Lords, in the absence also of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, who I
114
understand is the president of the association under consideration, we recognise the anxieties of BALPA. It is a responsible body and it is of course quite right for it to express its concerns. However, one has to view these proposals as a package. It is the firm view of the Civil Aviation Authority that while the proposals are more restrictive in some areas, they are perhaps less restrictive in others and they provide a comparable level of protection. There are different levels, for instance, of rest periods, not just duty times. As the noble Lord has said, there are indeed more restrictive limits as regards annual duty hours. Taken together, it is the firm view of the expert authority that has been involved in this matter, the Civil Aviation Authority, that safety standards will not be compromised by the adoption of these proposals.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the House will allow me to return to this matter, my anxiety was specific and concerned the amount of flying time within a single day. That is what I think the flying public, rather than the airline pilots, will be concerned about. There will be concern about the issue of fatigue and the problem of pilots having to fly for too many hours in a day. Has medical opinion been sought as regards the risks involved in such a change?
Viscount Goschen: Yes, my Lords. A considerable amount of medical opinion has been sought in producing these proposals. The daily limits are not the be-all and end-all of the story. One must also consider rest periods, and rest periods when pilots have crossed time zones. It is the case that operators can schedule slightly longer duties under the JAA proposals, although when the discretion currently available to aircraft commanders is taken into account, the absolute daily limits are broadly similar. I believe that addresses the specific and detailed question of the noble Lord. One should also take into account the fact that the CAA—as it does now—will monitor extremely carefully the implementation of these proposals which depend on proper, responsible rostering by responsible operators. That is the key to ensuring that fatigue is not a problem.

Mr. Humphrey Errington
2.49 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following the judgment in the sheriff court on 5th December 1995, they will take steps to reimburse Mr. Humphrey Errington for the costs which he incurred in defending himself and his product against the proceedings brought against him by Clydesdale District Council.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon): My Lords, the question of Mr. Errington's expenses in the proceedings is a matter which is currently before the sheriff at Lanark for decision. Until the sheriff has announced his decision, it would be inappropriate for me to comment other than to remind the House that

115
Her Majesty's Government are not a party to the proceedings, which involve Mr. Errington on the one hand and Clydesdale District Council on the other.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for giving me prior warning that in the present circumstances he would not be able to answer the Question as I would have liked. However, will he have in mind that the unrelenting pursuit of Mr. Errington by the Clydesdale District Council was seriously flawed because of a failure either to look carefully at his production methods or to consider who, if anybody, had suffered as a result of eating his product? Will my noble and learned friend consider circulating the admirable judgment of Sheriff Allan to be read with care by all those who are tempted to use their office as an opportunity to bully?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am aware that the anxieties raised by my noble friend have attracted a measure of publicity. In view of the fact that the case is currently still before the court there is a limit to what it is appropriate to say. It is my understanding that the sheriff hopes to deliver his decision by the end of this month. However, I can assure my noble friend that in the meantime the judgment is being studied carefully. I have little doubt that it will be studied carefully by the officials of the district council. Certainly the relevant government departments have in mind to review all the relevant guidance to make sure that when such issues are addressed in future they will not take as long to decide as in this case.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I hope that it is in order to ask my noble friend whether he is aware of the appalling comments about the witnesses for the Clydesdale District Council, to the effect that Dr. Ahmed did not appreciate serious matters, Dr. McLaughlin was not reliable as an expert witness and the Scottish Agricultural College was not reliable in all the tests that it undertook. They have all been torn to pieces in the judgment. Does he agree that such comments should not be allowed in public affairs?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, again, I must remind the House that there is a limit to what I can say. As my noble friend correctly observed, certain criticisms are made of individual witnesses. I am sure that the witnesses concerned will read the judgment and reflect carefully on the criticisms that are made of them.
Lord Richard: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Macaulay, who is recuperating from a recent fall, perhaps I may say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that we on this side of the House are
116
delighted that Lanark Blue has been preserved. After all, it is one of the very few places north of the Border which can still be called blue.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I understand that it is not only blue but it is thriving, like other areas in Scotland.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend tell us what is the product which is the subject of this great discussion?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Cheese, my Lords.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the Clydesdale District Council spent £250,000 in pursuing this case, very badly, against Mr. Errington? Can he say whether in the light of that large figure the matter will be considered by the district auditor?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am uncertain as to precisely what sum has been incurred by the district council, but it is a very large sum indeed. In addition to proceedings before a sheriff, at an earlier stage in proceedings there was an appeal for judicial review in the Court of Session in which the district council was unsuccessful and in which it had to meet not only its own expenses but also those of Mr. Errington. If any expenditure has been incurred which ought not to have been incurred that is a matter which can properly be investigated by the usual procedures. Again, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, would my noble and learned friend care to comment on the current position of the draft appeal procedures which were promoted in this House about a year ago and which, when enacted, will enable the regulatee to appeal against inappropriate or excessive regulation to a far greater extent than currently? Had those procedures been enacted when this horrendous case arose no doubt it would not have occurred. Can my noble and learned friend give some idea of when those appeal procedures are likely to be introduced?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, this is an aspect of the whole issue of deregulation which the House knows has been considered actively by the Government. In relation to the particular statutory provisions with which this case is concerned, it is my understanding that until this particular case they have operated in the manner in which they were designed to operate; namely, to provide a speedy remedy for establishing one way or another whether the food in question is unfit for human consumption. Clearly, this case has lasted a great deal longer than anticipated. It has cost more money than is desirable. Therefore, the matter will be looked at fully by the Government once the proceedings have come to an end.

Stalking of Women
2.55 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to legislate to combat the stalking of women by men.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Government have recently completed an examination of the anti-stalking laws passed in the United States, Australia and Canada and are currently considering whether workable and effective legislation to combat stalkers can be introduced in the United Kingdom.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am grateful for that constructive response. Does the Minister agree that some 5,500 people, the overwhelming majority of them women, have complained of being stalked, and that stalking induces terror and devastates their lives? That is before any assault or rape which sometimes follows. When the noble Baroness discusses these matters in relation to the United States, will she bear in mind the example of Los Angeles where a threat management unit has been established with legislation and penalties specifically aimed at this serious and obnoxious offence?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord about the horror of stalking, the fear it generates and the physical violence which is often the end result. I am able to say to the noble Lord that we are looking at lessons to be learned from abroad. The noble Lord will know that the picture is patchy. There is not a uniform approach to stalking. One of the main difficulties is that many of the activities of stalkers are already offences in this country. Many of the less serious aspects of stalking can, on the one hand, be very sinister and part of the ways in which real stalkers stalk their prey and, on the other, the harmless activities of innocent people. The problem is finding words to put on the statute book that would catch the kind of person who is of concern to all noble Lords in this House.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has raised an important subject which needs to be addressed. However, on a less serious point perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether she is aware that there have been cases of men being stalked by women, not in the same way but with the perseverance and guile of a femme fatale, who usually achieves her object in the end. Will an attempt be made to avoid sex discrimination in any legislation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, by way of warning, it is leap year. Therefore, I ask all male Peers in the House to beware. Of course we shall always respect the need to avoid discrimination in this respect.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, can my noble friend say how one would define stalking as distinct from any other offence?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right: that is the difficulty. We all know that
118
the kind of stalking which is the subject of this Question is what we want to prevent. Some of the activities involved in stalking include looking at someone, appearing at the same venue frequently over a period of time or sitting in a car in a road outside someone's house. It is difficult to regard those as criminal activities when we know that in some cases they are criminal activities but in others they are not. We also know that there are many aspects of legislation that can be brought to bear here. The police have a general power to bring people before the courts for breach of the peace. It is an offence to make indecent, obscene or menacing phone calls. It is an offence to send a letter which is threatening, offensive or indecent. It is possible to seek an injunction on someone who is behaving in an objectionable way. It is an offence intentionally to cause alarm, distress or harassment. There is a great deal on the statute book that can be used.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, would it be accurate to say that the Princess of Wales and the Duchess of York are stalked by the press?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would be inappropriate for me to go into any detail on that. However, it has been the subject of public comment that they have been stalked. On reading through all the symptoms of stalking in preparing for this Question, I have to say that journalists come to mind.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this loose use of the word "stalker" is somewhat upsetting to someone who lives in Scotland where stalkers are highly trained, suffer an arduous life and are essential to the culling of our herds of deer? They are a very honourable corps of men; there may be some ladies among them. I hate the word "stalker" being used as though it is a bad smell.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, whatever the outcome of the deliberations of the Home Office in seeking a solution to the problem, I hope that it will not thwart the innocent activities of our noble friends in Scotland or anyone else who indulges in harmless and innocent activities. However, the heart of the problem is to put something on the statute book which will catch the sort of people of whom we speak.
I have to say to my noble friend that stalking has a very real meaning for some people who have been subject to it. I live very close to a lady who is the subject of a recent case; and I suspect that for that lady her life will never be the same again.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, amid the levity and the difficulties of definition, will the Minister accept that we are referring to areas of profound concern and danger for individuals? The difficulties of definition have been tackled by other countries. Will the noble Baroness be steadfast in considering the issue seriously, given the amount of concern that she has expressed about its consequences?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, because there has been some lightening of the subject I hope that it does not

119
detract from its seriousness. I believe that it is serious in particular for the people whom the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, mentioned.
In America, 48 states have addressed anti-stalking legislation in different ways. In an attempt to have some consistency, Congress produced a model code for an offence. It states,
"purposefully engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily injury to himself or herself or a member of his or her immediate family or to fear the death of himself or herself or a member of his or her family".
That sounds fine. I suspect that as a Minister for the Home Office I should have some difficulty in persuading your Lordships to put those words on the statute book in this country.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what about "watching and besetting"?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am tempted to say, "What about it?". Again, watching and besetting for some people is a wholly innocent activity. For others it would be rather sinister.

EC Accounts: Court of Auditors' Findings
3.6 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in regard to the European Court of Auditors' declaration (95/C.352/01) of 30th December 1995 that it is unable to provide the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers with a statement of assurance, as required by Article 188(c) of the Treaty of Rome, as to the reliability of the accounts of the Community and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the United Kingdom welcomes the publication of the European Court of Auditors' first statement of assurance, a UK initiative secured at Maastricht in 1992. The court's statement will be one of the documents which the Council will take into account in deciding on the Council's recommendation to the European Parliament on the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of its implementation of the 1994 Community budget.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that his rather non-committal Answer gives no cause for comfort to those who have taken an interest in a matter which affects every British taxpayer? Is he aware that the report regarding reliability of the accounts and the regularity of the transactions lying behind them is not a matter which concerns the domestic affairs of individual states but the actions of the institutions and in particular
120
the Commission? Is the Minister aware that the document is a thorough indictment of the irregularity with which large numbers of transactions are carried out within the European institutions? Will he take a far more robust attitude in the Council of Ministers towards the discharge of the budget than his answers have done so far?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord thinks my answers sound complacent. I can assure him that the United Kingdom takes a robust view. As I mentioned in my original Answer, at Maastricht we were much in favour of the kind of outcome which led the Court of Auditors to produce this report. The noble Lord should not perhaps be too extravagant in his condemnation. He will note that the report, after showing the concerns, says at Chapter 4.2:
"The obverse of these statements is that Court's audit indicates that at least four fifths of EC payments should he without serious substantial error with regard to the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions".
Therefore, more than 80 per cent. has been given without error. Many of the other questions the court raised are not to do with honesty or dishonesty but with the way in which the procedures are carried out and recorded.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that efficiency as regards the accountability of the European budget would be greatly increased if the auditors in Europe were to copy our National Audit Office? Not only does it audit the public accounts; it also pays special attention to value for money. If value for money was introduced into the European budget, it would surely help all taxpayers throughout the Community.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend makes a valid point about the National Audit Office. One aspect of its work is to look for value for money. The idea behind the statement of assurance, which is the subject of the Question, is along the same lines as the opinions on departmental accounts given in this country by the NAO.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the Select Committee on fraud in the Community recommended strongly that the European Parliament budget control committee should have enough powers and the necessary documents and evidence to complete its task fully and properly, as it would wish. Will the Minister assure the House that the committee will be given those powers to enable it to decide whether or not to give a discharge?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the report before us is not specifically concerned with fraud although it may identify situations where there may have been fraud. However, I can assure my noble friend that we in the United Kingdom are aware of the need to ensure that the amount of fraud in the European Community is reduced to the absolute minimum. One of our problems is that it is for each member state to

121
control the situation in its own country and to make sure that there is no fraudulent abuse of European moneys within its own borders.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that he stated that 20 per cent. of the budget is either fraudulent or "iffy"? If that is what he said—I thought that he said that 80 per cent. was clear; so it follows that 20 per cent. was not—it seems a totally and utterly disgraceful state of affairs.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend did not listen to the whole of my answer. I indicated to my noble friend Lady Elles that the report was not concerned with fraud; quite the reverse. It is far more concerned with the checks and balances in both the revenue and the expenditure systems. I recommend that my noble friend reads the report. The general conclusions in paragraph 3.1 state:
"The Court's examination of the revenue entered in the accounts in respect of traditional own resources did not reveal any significant errors. In respect to the expenditure"—
this is where the point about the 80 per cent. comes in—
"there are too many errors in the transactions underlying the payments entered in the accounts…to be able to give a positive global assurance as to their legality/regularity".
Many of the points raised are to do with the way things were reported and signed off and the timescale in which they were reported. Those problems have rightly been drawn to the attention of the Commission and of member states to ensure that those aspects of the administration are correct.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that he has admitted to the House that one-fifth of the expenditure transactions referred to in the report are irregular, illegal or lack proper regularity within the terms of the Act? He recommended that his noble friends read the document; perhaps we may have the assurance that he himself will read an additional report, No. C/27, dated 31st January. That refers specifically to the European Parliament and the irregularities are extremely detailed. Would it not be unfortunate if the Minister were to give the impression that the United Kingdom did not intend to pursue matters with the utmost rigour at the core of Europe?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thought I had given the noble Lord the assurance that we would pursue matters with the utmost rigour. The 14 per cent. of total payments, for example, on which the court could not obtain assurances include items in the United Kingdom such as the data in the prescribed form for the ewe premium scheme in Scotland. It was stated that the court did not have the data because they were not available in the form desired by the required date. I was asked earlier about the National Audit Office. In 1994–95, in its audit of Scottish agricultural spending, it checked 170 payments under the guarantee scheme. That is far more checks than the court would make, and no material errors were revealed in payments to farmers. That is an example of where we have checked and the audit office has put a question mark on
122
it because of timescales. We have checked in greater detail, and there is no reason for concern. That is something the noble Lord should bear in mind.

Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
3.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITIEES in the Chair.]
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
("PART A1
LISTED EVENTS AND SPORT
CERTAIN EVENTS NOT TO BE SHOWN SOLELY ON PAY-PER-VIEW OR
SUBSCRIPTION TERMS
(".—(1) Section 182 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 shall be amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (1) substitute—
"(1) The Commission shall do all that they can to ensure that any programme which consists of or includes the whole or any part of a listed event being broadcast live—

(a) is not reserved exclusively for pay-per-view or subscription television; and

(b) is included in a television broadcast service which is for general reception, capable of being received in the United Kingdom.".").

The noble Lord said: First, I must declare what interests I have which may be germane to the subject. I am a non-executive director of Birmingham Cable Corporation and also Wembley Stadium.
The series of new clauses which I shall be proposing are not purely about the economics or financing of sport, important though that subject may be. They also involve the ethics and the spirit of sport. I hope that the Committee will allow me to indulge myself on those matters for just a moment or two. I have a profound belief in the social purpose of sport. To me it is fundamental in the context in which this debate has to be considered. In essence, the social purpose of sport is best expressed through its spirit, commonly known as sportsmanship, in the way it inspires young people to take up sport, to develop their personalities, to face the challenges of life and to experience the joys and good fellowship which should be at the heart of all sport.
Those precepts are being increasingly undermined by the total domination within sport of financial considerations above all others. No wonder all the arguments put forward to oppose the new clauses concentrate exclusively upon the right to sell all sport to the highest bidder. All the letters we have received and

123
all the statements which we have read deal exclusively with money. The protagonists never rise above the pure material: the price of the product. They have nothing to say about the worth and value of sport in the community. They ignore the 30 million to 40 million people who cannot afford or get Sky. They ignore the elderly and infirm who have supported sport in better days and who are now to be sacrificed apparently to the interests of one man—Rupert Murdoch. The protagonists write off their duty to the young who, in their millions, obtain their inspiration to take up sport, to have a go for themselves, because they see sport in its excellence in their millions in their own homes, on terrestrial television. Nick Faldo said that he took up golf because he saw Jack Nicklaus playing on television.
Nowhere in the letter to us, repeated in The Times today, from the Central Council of Physical Recreation—of which I am a senior vice-president—are those questions addressed which were raised in this Chamber, I remind the Committee, during the Second Reading debate on the Bill. The silence of sport on addressing social questions is deafening.
Though it has to be said that the terrestrial channels have also exercised their monopoly powers in the past and kept their prices down, that has to change. I am pleased that the new chairman of the BBC endorses the view which I put forward at Second Reading that the new digital channel will give an opportunity to the BBC and ITV to provide some form of pay-TV at reasonable prices which everyone in the country can afford if they wish to watch a particular match. Perhaps that is the future way forward, but it is not what we are discussing today.
We have all received a letter from Mr. Ken Schofield, of the Professional Golfers Association European Tour, responsible for the deal between the PGA and Sky, which covered the Ryder Cup. That event between the finest golfers in Europe and America proved to be one of the most sensational sporting events of the decade. Europe won with the last shot on the last green. When Sky was asked why it would not allow the BBC even to show highlights of the event, it inferred that the BBC would not buy them. That was totally incorrect. I have in my hand the licence agreement between Sky and the PGA which covered the Ryder Cup. It states in stark terms:
"For the avoidance of doubt, there will be no BBC transmission of The Ryder Cup".
Sky deliberately set out to stop the broadcasting of highlights and prevent the BBC having any coverage of the event. Mr. Ken Schofield's letter to us all does not even begin to explain why he thought it right to prevent the nation, in its millions, from seeing anything of that great sporting triumph.
Sky tried to do the same about the forthcoming World Cup in cricket, as I disclosed to the House on Second Reading of the Bill. I rejoice that all the odium, and, no doubt, the proposed new Clause 2, which we shall reach shortly, have brought about a change of heart. The right of the BBC to show the highlights of the World Cup at a cost of £1 million, which was refused a month or two
124
ago, was suddenly re-offered to the BBC last Friday and taken up. New Clause 2 has triumphed before I have even moved it!
We must put aside the black propaganda that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will know something about. A spokesman for Sky alleged three times this weekend that the reason our football grounds have all been put in good order has to do with Sky Television money. That is a monstrous assertion. The £200 million spent on football grounds has come from the Football Trust, of which the noble Lord is chairman. It receives its money from the Pools promoters, who have been rather badly treated compared with other organisations such as the National Lottery. The money from Sky has gone to pay grossly inflated wages and monstrously large transfer fees. It has not been put into grounds. I hope that the noble Lord will give further details later.
The case for this amendment is irresistible. As the Select Committee on National Heritage in another place stated in a report in 1994:
"The public policy objective for permitting satellite services is to expand viewer choice…If it leads to the ending of free access to major sporting events, deemed by the public to be part of their birthright, then this is a narrowing of public choice".
As Stephen Dorrell said when he was Secretary of State for National Heritage:
"Sport provides for the integration of young people into society. It allows young people to excel. It provides role models and the opportunity for their admirers to imitate them".
That is not possible on Sky alone.
As David Mellor frankly confessed, as author of the 1990 Act that we seek to amend today, he made a mistake. He should have included subscription television when he prevented pay TV from showing, the eight listed events exclusively. That is what this amendment seeks to achieve today. It does not seek to add anything to the existing situation. It aims to hallow the existing situation but to extend it to subscription television as well as pay television.
Fortunately, the International Olympic Committee last week rejected Mr. Murdoch's millions—£1.2 billion of them—and kept faith with the youth of the world. That is what we ask the Committee to do today. President Samaranch has a wisdom and a sense of duty that we must applaud. He said that the Olympic Games are a vital sporting festival and must be available to the people of the world—in Africa, Asia and eastern Europe, where no Sky dishes are to be found, as well as in this country.
We now have to consider two quite fascinating last-minute developments. The first is the consultation paper issued by the Government for purposes at which we can only guess. The Government need to consult the nation, they tell us. They had no intention of doing so at Second Reading. They had no desire to do so during the past six months while this matter was debated the length and breadth of the land. They did not take the matter up when the newspapers gave it considerable coverage. This is very much a last-minute dodge.
A cynic might believe that the Government wished to bypass your Lordships' House, where they know that opposition is strong. Well, we proceed with our

125
amendments, which declare matters of principle. As our new Clause 6 proposes, when their consultation exercise has been completed and considered they can then come back to us, if they wish, to make any proposals for change at that stage.
Meanwhile they have the results of last week's opinion poll, which I hope they will feed into their consultation process. I hope that the Minister will assure us of that. The survey, by BMRB, disclosed that nine out of 10 people in this country believe that these listed events should be available to the widest audience; seven out of 10 believe that the Government should legislate to protect the listed events; and 66 per cent. of Sky viewers also hold that view.
It is not for me to come to the aid of this Government. However, even they must see that, if the strength of public opinion is against them in such measure and if they propose to deprive 30 million homes of the right to see the crown jewels of British sport, that is a hazardous and monumental electoral undertaking upon which to embark at this stage of this Parliament. However, the Government should not act for those reasons. They should act because it is right to do so, on the justice of the case.
I turn now to today's most extraordinary news. The Director of Fair Trading has become so alarmed about restrictive practices in football that he is to refer the agreement between the Premier League, Sky and the BBC to the restrictive practices court. That is on top of two other references he has before him to Sky. The first is from some of the cable companies. They have taken Sky on board and now find themselves squeezed more and more by Mr. Murdoch as prices go up and up. The second reference comes from the pubs. Mr. Murdoch persuaded publicans to install Sky Television, and now the prices are rising, as I read in one case, by 1,900 per cent. No wonder the publicans have approached the Director of Fair Trading as well! If the Director of Fair Trading believes that there is a prima-facie case to be answered, then our amendments are even more necessary than I previously thought.
Those representing some of the listed sports do not want to leave the BBC or ITV. They merely want to use Sky as a bargaining factor. As I explained, they will be gobbled up. If I may be permitted to say so, anybody who chooses to get into bed with Mr. Murdoch does not get out of bed the same man! Just imagine taking the Derby or the Grand National off television. These are the great betting races of the year. Racing would lose an enormous amount of income if that were proposed—and they know it.
In this amendment, we do not seek to add to the number of listed events. That is another piece of black propaganda that was put out. Nor do we seek to prevent Sky Television showing sport. To declare another interest, I have two Sky channels, one in London and one in Birmingham, and I like Sky Sport. However, that does not mean that 30 million other people should be prevented from enjoying the main sporting events. As David Mellor advises us—and we accept his advice—we must face the logic of his 1990 Act by adding subscription television to pay television. In so doing, we
126
shall keep faith with the millions who have no access to Sky, who cannot afford the £300 that is necessary to plug into Sky and to receive Sky Sport.
In that way, we shall remain true to the heritage of British sport on television, and to millions of young people who need the inspiration of sporting excellence to take up and enjoy sport. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I rise to support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord. I congratulate him on his eloquence and envy him his knowledge and experience in matters of sport. In order to offer some shadow of competition with his knowledge and interest, I have, for the first time in public, dredged into my past. I am sure it will come as something of a shock to the Committee to learn that I was once appointed Minister for Sport. That is one of the very few occasions on which I feel able now to congratulate myself on having behaved with perfect discretion. I did nothing. As the result of masterly inactivity over the first 36 or 48 hours, that awful problem went away. So I do not have that shadow upon me.
Another of my inadequacies is that I am unable to fall back on any great personal experience as to what happens to those who get into or out of bed with Mr. Murdoch. I do not for a moment suggest that the amendment is either an answer to the problems of broadcasting sporting events or to the more general questions raised under the Bill. I very much hope that my noble friend—in fact I am quite sure of it, because I have great respect for him—will not yield to the temptation which sometimes catches unwary Ministers to say that the amendment is inadequate. We know that it is inadequate. But it is a nudge to the Government to produce something better to cope with some very difficult problems.
Indeed, if I may say so with due modesty, I would claim that the amendment, even at this stage, has achieved some modest success. It has prompted the Government into admitting that there is a need for consultation on some very sensitive issues. That should be very much welcomed. At this point I must apologise to my noble friend. Over the weekend I said that I regarded this consultation effort, coming, as it did, late in the day, as something of a grubby manoeuvre. I had suspected that it might have attached to it some unpleasant device for removing the matter from this Chamber's consideration. In that I was quite wrong and I unreservedly withdraw that terrible remark about a grubby manoeuvre.
In the consultation document which has so thoughtfully been provided to us, there appear the immortal words:
"We must proceed prudently and with caution".
Perhaps I may go a little further and express the hope that the Government will accept that "proceed" involves some movement and that that would not be satisfied by a static condition of waiting courteously and politely upon the market. It does not need me to tell the Committee that the communications industry is very important, very fast moving and very much open to

127
abuse. For those reasons I believe that competition has to be encouraged and any pre-eminence in that field avoided.
In sport, as elsewhere, there are conflicts. There are those who are responsible for producing the event but who do not quite own it; there are those who show it; and there those who very much want to watch it. We should do well to remember that there are many million members of the public who would find themselves very unhappy at being denied access to what are major national events simply because they could not afford the gadgetry necessary.
There are a number of points which we should all bear in mind. First, there is the quite unique position of the BBC, whose brief, by the way, I do not hold. The BBC once enjoyed a degree of monopoly and abused it. It ought not to be allowed to do so again but it should not be punished for ever by being shut out from events in which it is very experienced and to which it has some degree of right of access.
It is fair that we should also have in mind the difference in contributions made to the Treasury by the independent television companies and by BSkyB. The independent television companies pay an annual levy of £400 million a year (the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, knows more about that matter than I do). Not only do they pay that levy; in addition, they pay taxes on their profits. The contribution of BSkyB to the Treasury and to the taxpayer is almost negligible by comparison.
I want to dwell on one or two further points. In an imperfect world we still have national boundaries. I doubt whether there is any other country in the world that would have allowed a man who was a non-national to acquire quite the degree of eminence, power and influence that Mr. Murdoch has by his very great ability achieved for himself. This Bill may not give to either BSkyB or Mr. Murdoch all that they would like. But, unless I am very wrong, I suggest to the Committee that it most certainly will considerably enhance the position and power of a man who owes this country no allegiance and does not seem overwhelmed by admiration for its institutions or way of doing things but who finds it a very comfortable and profitable place in which to do business.
Let me go back for just a moment to the point I made earlier; namely, that communications is a very fast moving activity in which no one can foresee tomorrow's developments with any clarity. One thing is absolutely certain. All the arguments and difficult problems will not be settled in this Bill. I do hope for truly effective machinery of arbitration to be set up, so that there is some way for people with knowledge and experience to oversee the affairs of a vitally important industry and bring to bear their influence and knowledge to arbitrate in the very important and frequent disputes that will occur. Without that, I can envisage the balance of advantage going one way or the other or just being tipped over permanently into what the market dictates.
The market—I hope that my noble friend will take careful note of my remarks—is just as foolish as the rest of us and just as capable of making mistakes. But, if the
128
market has any merit, it is very important that there should be—in that overworked and ghastly phrase—a level playing field. That is not the case at the moment.
I feel that my noble friend has an extraordinarily difficult task in piloting this complicated Bill through this Chamber. I have no doubt that he will do it with skill and care. But I ask him to understand that, so far as I am concerned, this amendment is moved with absolutely no malice against him or the Government. At this moment I want to see it on the face of the Bill, with all its inadequacies, because I believe that it will serve as a very useful nudge to the Government, who will be obliged, because of its presence there, to come forward with something better in order to be justified in removing it. I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment.
Lord Weatherill: One of the blessed things about your Lordships' Chamber is that, unlike the other place, there is no need to repeat arguments that have already been well made. Now that I am a "free man" and travel by buses and on trains, I am occasionally accosted by members of the public. In recent days I have lost count of the number of people who have said to me, "What are you going to do about the so-called crown jewels of sport?".
I should declare an interest in that I am a non-executive director of United Artists, which is a cable company with a pay-as-you-view channel. Nevertheless, it is because 85 per cent. of our countrymen do not have cable or Sky TV that I attached my name to the amendment.
I am aware of the consultation document produced by the Government. The trouble with consultation is that it takes time. Your Lordships would therefore be wise to consider carefully the amendments on the Marshalled List this afternoon tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and others. They seek to ensure that the majority of people in our country—the old as well as the young—are able to continue to watch the highlights of the eight major events of sport as was envisaged in the 1990 Act. It is for that reason that I strongly support the amendment to which I attach my name today.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I warmly support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Weatherill. In the debates in the passage of the 1990 Bill through this House, I moved an amendment with a similar purpose. But those were the days before Mr. David Mellor saw the light in these matters and my amendment was soundly defeated. It did not at that time enjoy quite the strength of support across the Chamber that has been engendered by this amendment today. I hope that at the end of the debate the Minister will be able to accept the amendment or, if he does not, that the sense of the Committee will find itself in support of it.
Since the 1990 Act the problem has become more urgent with the immense growth of broadcast sport on satellite television. I recognise that that growth is largely due to BSkyB and it deserves credit for widening the

129
range of choice and extending the opportunities available for many of us to see sporting activities on the television screen. I recognise equally that that has brought substantial financial benefits to sporting organisations, which has meant that there are now legitimate conflicts of financial interest between satellite and terrestrial broadcasters and the sporting organisations.
My view—I hope it is not unduly naive; after spending 10 years as chairman of one of the broadcasting authorities it is difficult to retain any naivety about broadcasting matters—is that these conflicts are reconcilable if the Government will give a lead and those concerned show a little less greed and a little more willingness to consider the general public interest; that is, the interest of the viewers and the listeners.
It is sometimes forgotten that BSkyB, for all its enterprise in this matter and for all that it has widened the choice for those of us who are addicts of specific sports, and despite commanding a number of different satellite channels, has only 4.5 per cent. of the total television audience in this country. It is those who use the terrestrial broadcasting system that provide more than 90 per cent. of the television audience. It may sometimes be forgotten when we argue about the pros and cons of subscription broadcasting that the 90 per cent. plus of ordinary people using terrestrial channels are themselves engaged in a form of subscription broadcasting. It is a positive form because they all pay a licence fee and thus they are entitled to have their interests properly taken into account.
I do not believe that those interests can be left adequately to the sporting organisations, despite the eloquent letter in The Times quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. The timing of the letter must have seemed somewhat unfortunate, since it coincided with the announcement by the Office of Fair Trading that it was referring to the restrictive practices court the activities of one of the major sporting organisations in football associated with the activities of BSkyB. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, quoted the rather devastating information that the licence agreement between one of the great golfing organisations—the PGA—and BSkyB specifically excluded any possibility of the Ryder Cup highlights being shown on BBC for the general benefit of the British public.
I applaud the public spirit of the IOC—the International Olympic Committee—in deciding to accept the lower bid of the European public service broadcasting organisations rather than the higher bid of Rupert Murdoch's news corporation, which would have put the Olympic Games, until the year 2008, into the hands of his organisation.
It is the Government's responsibility to define the public interest and then to defend it. I do not believe that in tackling that we needed the consultancy exercise which took us all by surprise at the end of last week. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for whom we have the greatest respect as a responsible Minister in this Chamber, made two good speeches on the Second Reading of this Bill. But I did not hear him whisper in
130
either of them that there was a feeling that this was an issue on which fresh consultation was required. In fact, the Broadcasting Bill, together with the BBC Charter, has been subject to the most intense period of consultation on all aspects of broadcasting policy, including this one.
We all know that the real purpose behind the consultation exercise was cosmetic; it was a way of dealing with a divided Cabinet—divided on the issue of how far it should go down the purely market road in the matter of broadcasting where public interest should he dominant, and perhaps not so divided in its collective funk in facing up to the influence and power of Mr. Murdoch in a pre-election year.
It is important to remember that the listed events that we are discussing in this amendment are, in fact, only a small proportion of total sports broadcasting; but they are a special bit of it. They are not merely sporting occasions; they are national occasions of a special character. The listed events are now 40 years old and represent occasions which, in many ways, help to hold the nation together and give it a sense of being "one nation"—to quote a familiar phrase. There are all sorts of dear old ladies in Monifieth who apply themselves to watching the listed events on the television screen but who otherwise have no knowledge of the sport that they are watching and would not dream of attending a football match or a cricket Test match. They are special events and deserve a special degree of protection from the Government.
It is important to emphasise that in preserving the listed events we do not give to the terrestrial broadcasters—who compete with each other; there are now three or four competing terrestrial broadcasters—the exclusive right to those events. If the satellite broadcasters want to include these listed events in their package, they should be perfectly free to do so—it is important that they should be—or perfectly free to negotiate highlights of them. Banning exclusivity in the broadcasting of sporting events is the essence both for listed events and indeed for the rather wider and perhaps in some ways more important aspects of general sporting events, an area to which we shall come in the next clause.
I heard the Secretary of State today saying that one of her reasons for going through this curious period of consultation was that she wanted to try to ensure flexibility in relation to sporting events. I was puzzled by that because, if ever there was a flexible instrument of government, it is the sporting events. They are entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can recommend adding to them or taking away from them. They can therefore be adjusted to take account of changing circumstances.
I have had a case put to me in the past few days from the Test and County Cricket Board. It was not seeking to be disengaged from listed events but the force of its argument was that test matches are a rather exceptional sporting special event. They go on for five days several times a year and therefore they are quite different from a football match which takes place over 90 minutes. I am a heathen Scot and I hesitate to make remarks about

131
cricket. But I am bound to say that I would be perfectly content to see the longueurs of a Test match on a subscription channel for those who are cricket enthusiasts, provided that the climax of the great games and the highlights were preserved for the general viewer. There might be a case for more flexibility in the definition of some of these special events.
I have some final remarks about the future. In pressing this amendment, all of us are aware that the world of broadcasting is changing fairly quickly. One of the main areas of the Bill that we shall come on to and try to understand is digital broadcasting, with its increased number of channels. It may well be that by the end of the century there will be a need to review this formula. For my part, I should be content if there were some provision for that kind of view. I am reinforced in that by having looked up the debate during which my original amendment on these matters was turned down in July 1990. At that time the Minister responding was the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. In sustaining the Government's position at that time, he set out the reason why the 1990 Act applied only to pay-for-view and did not mention subscription services generally. He said that the only way for the foreseeable future that those channels would be able to show listed events profitably would be by charging for them on a pay-per-view basis. What has happened is that BSkyB has been extraordinarily profitable by offering a general subscription service. This country does not yet enjoy any pay-per-view service, although I understand that BSkyB is thinking about it for a great boxing match that lies immediately ahead of us.
I urge the Government to accept the amendment. They should do so looking forward to the future. They should hold the present position to at least the end of the century and make sure that, while the present situation exists, in which less than 5 per cent. of people enjoy BSkyB offerings and more than 90 per cent. depend on the public service broadcasting channels, the protection of the listed events should be extended and preserved.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I have a curious interest to declare, in that I have long been writing articles in Mr. Rupert Murdoch's newspapers and I own a few shares in News Corporation and in News International. But I had them long before I came into this House and they do not arise from my being a Member of this House or of this Committee. I also have an interest in how racing is affected in this matter. I have been chairman of the Tote since 1976 and I came into this House in 1987. Therefore, although I declare it, I have no interest that arises out of being a Member of this House.
I was afraid that the occasion of moving the amendment would become a Murdoch-bashing exercise. It owes more to that than it does to common sense. I was very sorry that my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Howell, took the extraordinary view that he did. Nearly every person and every organisation connected with sport, including the Central Council of Physical Recreation, which represents 300 organisations, want to be able to see the highest bidder get these great sporting events in order to fructify the sports which receive the money so that they may find the people and train the people who are going to be the great heroes and play for England in the future.
132
The Ryder Cup was mentioned. When the BBC had the Ryder Cup, it did not cover every day. Since BSkyB has had the Ryder Cup, it has covered every day and all of it. That shows how much more dedicated BSkyB is and how much better it is at showing sports programmes than the BBC. There was also a reference to the elderly and the infirm. They are always trundled out on these occasions. Perhaps I may say that more than 30,000 pubs and clubs provide free entry to elderly and infirm people, who can go there to watch free all the sports on BSkyB. So that argument is a non-starter as well. There is also the point that the friends or relations of the infirm may be willing to subscribe for them in order that they may have BSkyB programmes, whether they pay for a particular item or for the whole lot.
We were told that the BSkyB contribution to football stands has been nothing at all. That is not true. It has contributed a good deal to football stands, as have the organisations to which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred.
Then we had the question of highlights. What are highlights? How long are highlights to be? The argument for the showing of highlights concerns how much will be used and how long they go on for. That is what the argument is about. As I understand it, Sky has no wish to stop the selling of highlights, provided it can get an agreement on how much will be used.
Lord Howell: I have read out the contract under which Sky prevents the BBC from showing any highlights.
Lord Wyatt of Weefords: But I have later information than the noble Lord has.
Great play was made with restrictive practices and there were suggestions of a cartel. That has nothing to do with BSkyB. If there is a cartel, that has to do with the clubs themselves. If the matter goes to the restrictive practices court—and BSkyB has nothing to do with it—BSkyB is quite happy to deal with all the organisations involved separately if they wish. BSkyB has no standing in this matter at all. The matter has been raised as a smear against BSkyB to suggest that it will fall foul of the restrictive practices court.
My old friend the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, made an extraordinary statement. He said that Mr. Murdoch was a Canadian and what a terrible thing that was. I am sorry, he said that he was an American. I have got that wrong. I was thinking of Mr. Black, who is the main owner of a newspaper which I thought was sacred to the Tory Party. There has been no complaint about him being a foreigner. I thought it was very xenophobic for the noble Lord to refer to Mr. Murdoch as he did.
4 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should like to get this matter absolutely straight because we are on sensitive ground. I do not believe that I ever mentioned Mr. Black and I certainly did not mention the word "Canadian".
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I have already accepted that. He was referred to as an American citizen and Mr. Murdoch was named. That was the xenophobic part.

133
Why is it that there was no reference or smear as regards Mr. Black, who is also a foreign owner in this capacity; namely, a Canadian? He is not a British citizen. It is because he is the promoter or controller of the Daily Telegraph.
Lord Thomson of Fleet, as he was called, said that his ownership and monopoly of Scottish television was a licence to print money, and no one complained at all in the Tory Party, although he was a Canadian. He owned the Sunday Times as well, which in those days was a fervent supporter of the Tory Party. It is rather disgraceful to introduce these xenophobic criticisms into the situation.
So far, less than 1 per cent. of sport previously shown on BBC and ITV has been transferred to BSkyB, so I do not see a great threat of a monopoly in this regard. It is not a monopoly at all. It is a field of intense competition and I thought the Tory Party believed in competition, but it appears that they do not if Mr. Murdoch is allowed to take part.
From the racing point of view, we would like to see every important race such as the Derby, the Grand National, the Queen Elizabeth and King George VI Stakes, the Diamond Stakes and so on, sold to the highest bidder because we have been hit very badly by the lottery and racing deserves to be able to get as much money back as it can. It is very negative of people to say that the Derby has necessarily to he shown by the BBC or whatever terrestrial station it may be. That is a very negative approach. The race should be open to free bidding. It is, in a sense, because it has already been sold to sponsors. I do not believe it is wrong for anything owned by racing to be sold to the highest bidder in order to gain some benefit to counteract the lottery among other things and also to promote the interests of racing. I am sorry that noble Lords take an opposite view. Many noble Lords here today are so determined to blacken Mr. Murdoch that the entire sky is filled with soot and a television could not be seen if there was one in front of us!
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: That is so. This is a ridiculous, concerted attack on one man because he has been more successful than others. After all, he was the person who put up satellites when no one else dared to do so. He showed the way at Wapping so that at last newspapers were able to be printed, which could not have taken place before.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: We are discussing Sky television and television broadcasting, not industrial relations in the printing industry. However, if the noble Lord is willing to table a Motion to that effect, I shall he happy to debate it.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I am sorry to say to the noble Baroness that we have been discussing at length the character of Mr. Murdoch.
Noble Lords: No! No!
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: Oh yes we have! If noble Lords have not noticed that they must be stone deaf. That is a very big part of the story. Mr. Murdoch has
134
been a great entrepreneur who has freed up competition. He is envied because he has been successful. Many people in this country do not like those who are successful. I am enjoying myself!
A Noble Lord: Dig deeper!
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: The BBC forces the elderly and infirm to pay licence fees even if they do not want to watch BBC. In 1994, 763 people were jailed for non-payment of their licence fee, but no one is jailed for taking Sky programmes, whether for sport or anything else. No one is forced to watch those programmes because most people have "turn-off' switches on their television sets. Anyway, I believe that I have said enough.
Noble Lords: Hear! Hear!
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: I have said enough to show that the whole of this amendment is directed ad hominem, and absurdly, against someone who has done much for television in this country and for satellite television. He has risked a great deal of his own money and nearly went bust in doing so. Therefore, I very much hope that the Committee will reject this amendment.
Lord Barnett: I doubt if the Government—
Viscount Whitelaw: I do not intend to take a very long time over this matter. It is very important to get the measure we are discussing this afternoon exactly right. I personally am just as keen as many other noble Lords who have spoken about the various issues. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said that he did nothing, but that is not quite true. I know what he did at the time and he did quite a lot. It is wrong to say that he did not. He did many things very well indeed and I admired them very much. I do not believe that it is worth his while getting up. He knows that perfectly well.
We have a very difficult decision to make. I do not believe that it is easy simply to say, "I want various sports and 1 am going to have them in this way". I have great sympathy with many Members of the Committee in what they say, including the noble Lord, Lord Howell. But I do not believe that it is right for us to decide at this time that we are going to have a measure of this kind changed. There is a great deal still to be done. Perhaps I am not allowed to call the noble Lord, Lord Thompson, my friend, but he is. He said that he thought that it was very important to get the matter right. I could not agree with him more. It is very important to get the matter right.
How is that to be done? I do not believe that we shall do it by approving this measure at this time. Equally, I accept at once that something needs to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, made some very wise and true remarks. However, I do not want to see the Committee deciding at this moment on the measure before we have the opportunity to talk to more people and discuss it further.
Noble Lord: No!
Viscount Whitelaw: I know exactly what some noble Lords want to do. It is very nice and splendid to get a

135
measure through. But that is not always what is right for your Lordships' House. I have been here long enough to know that very well. We must think carefully so we get the various measures right.
There have been some arguments about what the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, said. I do not agree entirely but I accept quite a lot of what he said. If that is the case, should not this House look again at the measure and try to see whether we can find a sensible arrangement? That would do this Chamber a great deal of good: not to do that would be a great pity.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: We always know when the Government are in trouble. They are lucky to have the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, to present a reasonable case on their behalf when they do not always seem totally capable of it themselves. I differ from the noble Viscount. I believe that he was once chairman of the legislation committee in the Cabinet. Like him, I have sat on many legislation committees. If there is one thing the legislation committee will want this afternoon it is that Members of the Committee should declare their view. The committee will then know that if there is something precise in the Bill, whether or not it is right, it must be handled delicately and completely and a provision brought before the other place which commands support there and also in this House because the Bill will return here in due course.
In those circumstances, there is no doubt about what this Chamber should do. We have been presented with Second Reading. The Government have given us the Bill to consider before it goes to another place. We are right to declare our opinion. It may be that we do not get it entirely right. However, when I consider the number of Bills where we are asked to put matters right that the other place has got wrong, it seems to be absurd that we should not be allowed to declare our preliminary view.
As the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said, this is a nudge to the Government to indicate that we intend the matter to be taken seriously. I do not believe that on reflection the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, will feel that he made the most persuasive speech of his career. It really is not a case of the amendment being about Mr. Murdoch whom I have had the pleasure of meeting only twice. But people are genuinely concerned. I am talking about ordinary people. They have no vendettas against Mr. Murdoch. However, they are concerned that they should be allowed to watch great national events. That is the nub of the question—nothing else. They want to make sure that Parliament decides in its wisdom that they shall not be excluded from watching great national events because the Government forgot about the matter, because some ideology prevailed, or because the power of money was so great.
I agree that the matter will need to be carefully thought out. But we should show the people of this country that we take note of their anxieties and that we have a view. We should send our view to another place and let it be considered there. We should ask another place to bring forward a proposal on which we may reflect. The shape of television is changing rapidly; what
136
we decide today may not be apposite in five years' time. But we wish to see certain safeguards built into the Bill. The only way to do that is by voting for the amendment and sending the Bill, as amended, to another place. The Government can then issue a White Paper, consult on the matter and bring forward a better scheme. For heaven's sake, let us not show ourselves to be toothless on an issue about which the ordinary men and women of this country are concerned.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Barnett: The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, made the only serious case for not deciding the matter today and allowing the other place to do so. I hope that the noble Viscount will agree on reflection that that is not really a case at all. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, declared two interests. He works for Murdoch—I assure him that I shall not blacken Murdoch's name—and he is employed by the Tote. As the noble Lord will know from my brief conversations with him from time to time, I have never agreed with his articles in The Times and I did not agree with his speech today. I am sure that he will not be too surprised to hear that. The noble Lord said that the elderly and the infirm may go and watch Sky Television in clubs and pubs. I do not know how many. We have a few elderly and infirm in this Chamber; perhaps we should carry out a poll. I should like to have a bet with the noble Lord that there would not be a majority of people who go to pubs and clubs, or anywhere else for that matter, to see Sky Television.
I quote something said by an important person:
"Sport is a binding force between generations and across borders. But, by a miraculous paradox, it is at the same time one of the defining characteristics of our national pride. We should cherish it for both reasons".
There is a game going on in another place at the moment at Prime Minister's Question Time. The quote is from the Prime Minister in his introduction to Sport—Raising the Game. How can that be a defining characteristic if 85 per cent. of the population cannot watch sport on television? That is the situation at present.
I declare an interest. I have cable television. I have it because I want to watch sport. I prefer to go to see Manchester United, the best club in the country. They may not win the league this year but that is another matter. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, that the important point is that neither Sky nor sport generally need suffer if the amendment is carried. Sky would still be able to have sports programmes but it would not have a monopoly and would share them with terrestrial television. That is the point of the amendment. At present Sky may secure rights to all key events and so terrestrial television loses out. Surely it cannot be right that only 15 per cent. of the country's population can watch those programmes. That is what the amendment is about. It is not about blackening the name of Mr. Murdoch. I am not interested in Mr. Murdoch. I feel that the whole of the country should be able to watch sport on television if they wish to do so. Plenty of people do not wish to watch sport, but if they do let them see it. What is wrong with that?

137
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, referred to market forces. Of course, as he said, market forces get it wrong from time to time. Let them get it wrong. We should not prevent that. That is the main point, is it not? We are talking about achieving a better balance. We are trying to achieve a balance which ensures that sporting programmes are available across the board on terrestrial and Sky satellite channels. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that the BBC should not have a monopoly. Nobody should have a monopoly. That is what this amendment is about; that is why I shall support it.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: I should like all to feel that everyone, young and old—in particular, the young—should be able to watch sporting events. Like many Members of the Committee I went to the conference centre last week to see Sky's presentation. After listening for quite a while to Sky explaining how clever and wonderful it was and what a good job it had done, at last it said that there were many people who would not be able to afford Sky at the moment—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said at least 30 million people.
That means that masses of young people will be deprived of the opportunity of viewing games and sport, becoming excited about them, and then perhaps themselves becoming players of the sports upon which they are particularly keen. The Government are now urging schools to take more interest in sport and games. In my day they were all called games. It would be disastrous were young people again to be deprived of enjoying hacking their favourite teams and stars. I ask the Government to see what they can do in the Bill to make that possible.
The Marquess of Reading: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the eight listed events are shown on terrestrial television channels such as BBC1, BBC2, ITV and Channel 4. The amendment states that the listed events would have to be shown on channels available for general reception in the UK. They could not be reserved exclusively for subscription or pay-per-view channels. The eight listed events are, of course, the Grand National, the Derby, the FA Cup Final, the Scottish Cup Final, the Wimbledon finals, England's home Test matches, the Olympics and the World Cup finals.
The Broadcasting Act 1990 ensures that those events cannot be shown on pay-per-view channels. However, contrary to the understanding of many Members of this place and of the other place, most could be bought by subscription satellite channels even now. That would mean that the bulk of the population would be unable to see them; 85 per cent. is the figure, I understand, agreed by Sky and the BBC.
The purpose of today's amendment is to ensure that those events would have to be shown on mainstream TV channels which the bulk of the population can receive, but the amendment would not deny the satellite channels the right to show the events. They could show them at the same time as the mainstream channels if they wished, and bring all their ingenuity to bear in branding their own and in giving their viewers unique coverage of the event, with their added distribution capacity.
138
The amendment would ensure coverage by placing a duty on the ITC to ensure the availability of the events on free-to-air channels. We would expect the ITC to ensure that a satellite subscription channel would not be allowed to be the only broadcaster. That builds upon the ITC's responsibility under the 1990 Act, and its duty to prevent their showing on pay-per-view channels.
The live rights to those specific events should be determined by the highest bid from universally available terrestrial channels. Recent evidence of competition for the Cup Final and the Grands Prix between the BBC and ITV shows that there is healthy competition for the rights between the terrestrial channels. Satellite channels would also have the right to buy the rights if they also wanted to show them at the same time as the terrestrials.
The eight events have rightly been called the crown jewels of sport. No doubt some Members of the Committee have been surprised to find that they do not include the Five Nations rugby which we were able to see on Saturday. I am sure that we all have our preferences for different events. We are leaving the Secretary of State's responsibility intact in determining which sports should be included. Today we vote on the principle, not on detail. There is plenty of evidence about what viewers think are the important events, as the survey published over the weekend has shown.
I want to lay to rest one ghost today. We are not trying to extend the list in the amendments. I am sorry that BSkyB has been scaremongering about that in its briefing document which it gave to Members of this place last week. Contrary to BSkyB's briefing, The Broadcasting Bill and listed sporting events, neither we nor the mainstream broadcasters are seeking to add other events to the list. Nor—this is important—are we attacking the sports' incomes, as some sports bodies have claimed in The Times today.
These events form an infinitesimal proportion of the events which sporting bodies are able to sell. They are able to sell live TV rights, live radio rights, and TV highlights. There is a good market here. Some sports have a commitment to ensuring that the widest possible audience watches their events. That is true of the Olympics. I am delighted that the BBC has secured the rights through to 2008. But the International Olympic Committee has a charter that says that it must ensure the widest possible audience for the Olympics. That is true to the Olympic spirit, but that is unique. No one else has such a charter, ethos, and culture, except perhaps the All-England club.
Today the Committee has the opportunity to correct a deficiency of the 1990 Act. In 1990 things were different. In 1990, Sky had no sports channel of its own—subscription or otherwise. It was its competitor BSB which had the Sports Channel. Sky merely offered Eurosport on behalf of the European Broadcasting Union and showed any big sports it bought itself on its general channel, Sky One. A month after the Broadcasting Act 1990 received Royal Assent, Sky and BSB merged. Some would call it a takeover. After that, Sky had its sports channel, and in 1992 it went onto subscription.

139
No one in 1990 could have forecast that today we would have one broadcaster dominating our sports in the way that BSkyB does. So it is understandable that in 1990 different decisions were taken by this place and by another place. But it is interesting to note that the then Minister in the other place has now changed his mind and believes that there should be regulation.
But today's debate is not about BSkyB or any other broadcaster. BSkyB has done well in expanding coverage of sport. The debate is about the ordinary viewer. About one-in-six households subscribes to Sky Sports, but 26 million viewers watched the 1966 World Cup. As things stand, it would be nice to believe that the market will protect the sports, the viewers and the listeners. But, sadly, we already have cases where satellite channels refuse to sell the rights on to more mainstream broadcasters; for instance, the Ryder Cup has been mentioned. I hope that Members of the Committee will have seen from the weekend's press that the contract for that event stated specifically that the BBC would not be able to show any coverage of that on television. Thankfully, the rights were sold to Radio Five Live. There is the cricket World Cup, and I hope that BBC's bid for rights to BSkyB is successful, but BSkyB was grudging in selling the radio rights, and we are still waiting on the TV highlights.
I urge the Committee not to be taken in by any BSkyB propaganda which states that the BBC did not bid for these events. In the case of the Ryder Cup, it was presented with a fait accompli. The contract stated that the BBC would not have rights. In the case of the cricket World Cup, the BBC's original offer was turned down in the autumn. Its new offer, the same as in the autumn, has been under consideration only because this debate is taking place today and the cricket World Cup begins this weekend.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we must be clear about what the amendment states. It purely extends pay-to-view to subscription as regards events on the list. It is nothing to do with restrictions on Mr. Murdoch; it is nothing to do with highlights; it is nothing to do with consultation about what should be on the list; and it is nothing to do with many other issues that have been raised in the debate. It specifically extends pay-to-view to subscription.
It must be an anomaly that under the current law all eight events could be denied from terrestrial television; they could all be on subscription television. The Government have produced an extremely thorough and comprehensive consultation paper which allows the Committee to consider the issues while the Bill is before it. It has extended the debate and has given us the statistics and information which allow us to discuss the matter in a much wider context. I do not believe that we can debate the amendment without considering the complex matters of the right-holders. After all, we are talking about the rights to broadcast, which is the same as copyright and book-right.
140
We should think most carefully before pressing the amendment today because the Government have said that they will come forward with their views. Can my noble friend assure the Committee today that before the end of our debates on the Bill the Government will come forward with their proposals so that we can discuss them?
Lord Annan: There is only one real issue, which is: do we put the interests of the consumers—that is, the viewers—first? I very much hope that the Committee will believe that we should do that. The second point is that if the proposals contained in the amendment were not given top consideration and the amendment failed to be accepted, I wonder how long the licence fee would last. Surely the licence fee exists to ensure that terrestrial television should be able to show all events of this kind.
Lord Aberdare: I had no intention of speaking in the debate but the noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned my name and the noble Lord. Lord Wyatt, took up the point. Perhaps I should put the record straight. My comments are related to the claim by BSkyB that all the £400 million-odd which has been put into building magnificent new football stadia came from its sources. That is not true. My organisation, the Football Trust, of which I am happy to be chairman, subscribed approximately one-third of that money and it is proud of what has been achieved. It is also most grateful to the Government because, indirectly, that money comes from the reduction in the football pools betting duty via the football pools companies. The remaining two-thirds came from the clubs, which are deserving of considerable praise as regards the money that they have given, and no doubt they were helped to a large extent by the money that they received from BSkyB. That is the situation in reality.
Perhaps I may add that I came into the Chamber today not having made up my mind about the amendment but being unconvinced and undecided about what to do. However, from what I have heard I find the case for the amendment very convincing.
Viscount Caldecotes: There is little more to be said in favour of the amendment, but I wish to make one point that has not yet been made. The issue is in danger of being seen merely as striking a balance between the financial benefits to sport and an excessive monopoly which is detrimental to the public interest. However, there is more benefit from sport than money. The public have given enormous support to sport, and without the expansion that the public have helped to generate there would not be nearly so much high-quality sport to be televised. The Central Council for Physical Recreation states in its briefing:
"Attempts to impose new restrictions on the thriving commercial market in televised sporting rights are likely to have a substantial negative impact on British sport".
I do not agree with that. The vital issue is to give the greatest possible opportunity to everyone, in particular the young, to watch sport on TV. That is also in the best interests of sport and of improving the quality of life in this country.
Lord Donoughue: It is not flattering the Committee to say that this has been a marvellous debate and that we have had fine contributions from all sides. As a signatory to the amendment, I believe that nearly all Members—and I almost include the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt—one way or another ended up on our side.
I do not wish to make a long speech, but I shall try to focus on the points that have arisen. As was said in a nutshell by my noble friend Lord Callaghan, the central issue is to ensure that the nation can watch national sports and that no minority monopoly can shut out 85 per cent. of sports lovers. Accordingly, the amendment is based on the 1990 Act. The Minister, putting that Act through another place, stated his support for our amendment.
The amendment is not intended to ban sports from Sky television. It bans monopoly, whether it is Sky or terrestrial television. That is most important. The amendment is not against market forces. I am not against market forces. I believe that I am the only former member of the London Stock Exchange ever to sit on this Front Bench. I am certainly in favour of market forces. All will be free to bid non-exclusively for live coverage, for highlights, for news extracts. A later amendment covers the question of highlights.
The amendment is against monopoly control and its possible potential practices. Action taken today by the Director-General of Fair Trading, which I need not go into in detail, reinforces our anxieties. I should be surprised if the Government wished to extend the listed events into waters which potentially contain such practices. I have a copy of the Ryder Cup contract which illustrates how the public can be shut out.
I am not against sports receiving a fair return from broadcasting rights. A few sports governing bodies—and it is a few—are taking what I believe to be a short-term, money-only view. Not all, I may say. Today I saw that the Football Association made an excellently balanced statement. However, it is not in the long-term interests of sports to offer broadcasters what will ultimately be monopoly rights. It will be a monopoly because, as has been said, if the BBC and ITV do not receive a share of the sports rights they will shrink and will not have the resources to compete. When all the sports are in that monopoly cupboard the payments will be cut, because that is normal monopoly behaviour.
It is not in the interest of sports to shut out 85 per cent. of their supporters; to shut out the pensioners and the unemployed who in good times were able to go to the matches and who might be able to afford Sky television but certainly not the licence, which is 400 per cent. more than the BBC licence. As the noble Baroness said, it is not in the interests of any of us to shut out the youth of this country and to shut out young sportsmen so that they cannot see their good role models.
I now turn to what actually faces us today; namely, the consultation issue and whether to vote. Like the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I must confess that it
142
crossed my mind that the consultation process was a sort of device to bypass this Chamber during the Committee stage. That happened to be my subsequent reaction. But, being a trusting man, it merely hovered a while. It occurred to me that the Bill has been two years in preparation. It was published last year. We had a magnificent Second Reading debate when, as has been said, the Minister made a wonderfully long speech. But there was no time to mention the point of consultation.
Who are they going to consult? Surely they have no need to consult any friends in Sky, or Sky Sport's clients, because their views are fully reflected in the consultation document which has nine quotes from Sky's PR document. In fact, the nation has already discussed the matter and thrashed it out. It has already been consulted and that has shown that 90 per cent. of the nation support our position; as, indeed, do two-thirds of Sky's sport viewers, among whom I am one.
The all-party Select Committee with a Conservative majority has already been consulted and, with that majority, was unanimous in support of our position. MPs in another place were polled over the weekend by MORI. That poll showed that a majority of Conservatives, and an overwhelming majority of all others, support our position. I believe that the Government should consult this Chamber today and not try to avoid it. There is no need for delay.
I wonder why the Government are still apparently siding with a minority monopoly. I would say to the Minister that if he can tell us today that the Government will go away and return with draft clauses or proposals which meet the spirit of our amendments and of what the nation wants, then I am sure that we would sympathetically consider withdrawing the amendment and supporting the Government on Report. Our amendment may be defective, but, as my noble friend said, many defective amendments have been put before this Chamber by the Government.
However, if the Government simply ask us for delay because of some potentially spurious further consultation to avoid the will of this Chamber, then I believe that we should vote to show that we do not like being bypassed; to show our opinion that the nation should have access to televised sport; to show that we are not toothless; and to show that, ironically, on this issue, as on a number of others, this Chamber stands in the mainstream of national popular opinion. I believe that it is our historic role to express our view in Committee and to send it to another place.
5 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: The Government welcome the helpful and high quality debate that we are having on this important issue. Parliament has the last word in this matter and it is, therefore, for Parliament to decide; so a proper understanding of noble Lords' views is essential for us.
This is a topic which quite properly and understandably is of concern to many noble Lords. It is equally so to sporting bodies, to broadcasters, and to

143
the wider public, be they regular viewers of sport on television, occasional watchers, participants, or those children and young people who may be inspired to take part. The Government recognise those concerns and, as I said, we value what has been said in today's debate. We are grateful for the spirit in which the debate has been conducted. Perhaps I may thank noble Lords for their kind personal remarks about me, albeit recognising the fact that they were, normally, a shield for rather more barbed comment about the Government.
I should like to say something about the general issues which are relevant in considering new controls in this area. I shall then turn to the specific amendment that has been moved. But, before I do so, I want to respond to some of the procedural comments made about the Government's position paper which, as has been said, was issued last week.
The Broadcasting Bill before the House establishes new structures for digital terrestrial broadcasting, and sets out a new framework for the ownership of licensed services. Throughout the work that we have done bringing the Bill forward we have deliberately endeavoured to consult widely in respect of the matters that it covers. That process has, I think and hope, been generally welcomed and we intend to proceed with the Bill on that basis because it seems the right way of dealing with such legislation. It has enabled us to be more sure that we have got to the bottom of the issues on which we propose to legislate and that we have taken proper account of the legitimate interests of those affected by them.
The amendments that we are discussing today are entirely distinct from the proposals in the Bill as introduced. They seek to introduce new controls on broadcasting sports rights beyond those in the Broadcasting Act 1990. The issues may look relatively straightforward alongside some of the technical broadcasting matters that we shall debate later in Committee, but, in reality, they are no less complicated for reasons that I shall try to explain. Equally, they affect significantly a wide range of interests.
Hence, just as we did for media ownership and digital policy, we concluded after careful thought that it was right to put out a discussion paper to inform this new debate and to give those whose interests might be affected to their own detriment the opportunity to put their case. Surely that is only fair. It will also improve our understanding of the issues.
We accordingly published a discussion paper last week. It is just that—a discussion paper. It does not advocate any particular proposal. It derives much of its factual content from the Heritage Select Committee Report to the other place in 1994. Within the next fortnight we aim to conclude a series of discussions on it with groups of broadcasters, sports interests, regulatory bodies and bodies representing viewer and consumer interests. In the light of this, the Government will decide on the merits of proposals for possible legislative change. The timetable is compressed. That is because sports rights did not form part of the Bill as introduced before Christmas. We are proceeding with all possible speed, and I plan to make clear the Government's
144
intentions as to how they mean to proceed no later than Report stage. We will clearly need to take full account of opinions aired in this Chamber today, and shall do so. That will provide the basis for plenty of fuller discussion and debate.
I can specifically reassure Members of the Committee that that process is not intended to cut across parliamentary debate, but to assist it. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton for his kind comments in reference to the remark about "a grubby manoeuvre". I was so busy working on problems relating to free-to-air broadcasting that I did not have any time to listen, so I was not actually aware of those comments.
I really believe that what we have done does not raise constitutional issues which damage, demean or in any way impugn the role played by this Chamber. On the contrary, I can assure Members of the Committee that today's debate will be a very significant contribution to our thinking. Noble Lords will have ample opportunity to return to the matter on Report and beyond, and to do so on the basis of fuller information on the implications of action in the area and of the Government's intentions. In short, further consideration of these matters can only increase noble Lords' input on this aspect of the Bill and our scope for influencing this matter for the best.
However, as we all know, there is increasing and understandable public concern that the next stage in the development of subscription television could pose a serious threat to the ability of terrestrial free-to-air broadcasters to provide coverage of key sporting events—those which have a wider resonance than just to the committed fan. In considering how to respond to those concerns, we need to reflect on and accurately and precisely analyse the complex and changing balance between the interests of the sporting bodies, the new cable, satellite and digital terrestrial television services, the traditional broadcasters, the general viewing public's wishes and aspirations and the interests of those who participate. In particular we must ensure the interests of the disadvantaged, the disabled and the least well off are not lost sight of.
It is clear, however, that the development of subscription television for sport alongside terrestrial television, whatever problems it may pose, has had some beneficial effects. Significantly increased income for broadcasting rights has benefited sport at all levels. For example, it has enabled the TCCB, to give but one example, to invest substantial sums in cricket training at grass roots level. More sport is covered on television and in greater depth than ever before because of the development of subscription services which are in turn part of a wider television revolution. Alongside increased provision on subscription services, many major events are still available on terrestrial services. It is worth noting that no listed event covered by terrestrial channels has been lost to subscription television.
There are no easy answers here. If there were, I should already have come to the Chamber with them. We need to find a measured balance between all the interests involved. In doing so we need to assess a number of matters. First, if guaranteed access to sporting events is secured to a particular category of broadcasters

145
through a list as in the 1990 Act, what events should be included in the list, and how should it be altered? Secondly, can guaranteed access to key sporting events on terrestrial channels be secured without undue damage to the ability of rights holders to exploit their rights in the interests of their sports thereby seriously harming the sports themselves?
Thirdly, what might be the effect of any change on subscription broadcasters' ability to develop their industry in the interests of the public at large? This may he an important element in determining the success or failure of digital terrestrial television. Fourthly, how far is any approach compatible with the flexibility needed at a time when broadcasting technology is changing rapidly? Finally, and arguably most fundamentally of all, will any of the suggested changes actually work, thereby delivering the benefits their proponents contend for them? No one should underestimate the legal and administrative technicalities involved, which have to be got right to get it right. That, as my noble friend Lord Whitelaw said, is important. We need to find out more of what are the views of those actually involved and the exact nature, scale and characteristics of the issues and problems involved in order to assess fully and responsibly all the implications for change included in the amendments before the Committee.
I now turn to the amendment proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Howell, Lord Peyton, Lord Weatherill and Lord Donoughue. The amendment is close to one of the possibilities canvassed in our discussion paper and which we wish to see examined in more depth as part of the debate about these issues. In detail we believe the amendment flawed. That does not mean that the idea underlying it is not one which might provide the basis for change.
We fully understand and recognise the concern underlying the amendment. It seeks to give effect to one of the options to which I have already referred. But the issues are perhaps not as straightforward as they appear at first glance. The amendment raises a number of general questions which the debate has left unanswered. It is also not clear that it will work. I am not talking about technical drafting deficiencies—I fully understand the comments made—but about possible major shortcomings leaving loopholes. I cannot see any point in legislation which does not work as it is intended.
Perhaps it would help the Committee if I were to illustrate briefly some of the difficult issues to which the amendment gives rise. It raises major questions as to regulation and enforcement which in turn highlight some general problems. It is proposed that the Independent Television Commission should do all it can to restrict live exclusive broadcast of listed events by pay-per-view and subscription television and to ensure the live broadcast of listed events on television services for general reception. How is the commission to ensure that listed events are included in television services for general reception, not least when it has no regulatory role in respect of the BBC? It has no powers of direction in this field. Nor can it be right that it should have the power to stipulate that a particular channel shows a particular programme at a particular time.
146
It is unclear how any restrictions of the kind proposed are to be made enforceable. Obviously, they cannot apply to sporting events where the rights belong to international bodies and which are negotiated with broadcasters collectively, such as the Olympics. More fundamentally, the controls as proposed could not prevent United Kingdom sports rights holders selling broadcasting rights to companies based abroad and providing entirely lawful satellite uplink services from outside the United Kingdom. That would appear seriously to undermine the value of the proposed restrictions. The amendment would also fundamentally and radically alter copyright legislation in a hitherto unanticipated manner.
As I hope I have made clear, the debate we are having is helpful for the Government, even though the amendment upon which it is hung is one we believe would be positively unhelpful to Parliament in achieving the outcome it wishes. We believe that that outcome can be best achieved by allowing the consultation process to go ahead as I have described. We believe that an amendment of the kind we are discussing can only box the Government in in their efforts to find the best and most satisfactory and workable solution to the difficulties that beset us.
Having heard what has been said this evening, we are now fully apprised of the sense of the Committee and we shall draw that into our deliberations. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, that is what the Committee should aim to achieve from this debate.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: The noble Lord has been so helpful in accepting the general view of the Committee that it occurs to me to ask why we should not reverse the normal process in the sense that the Bill has come to this Chamber first. We are the first Chamber to consider it and deliberate it. Why should we not ask another place to act in the way that we are normally asked to act, namely, as a revising Chamber? If there are defects in the amendment, let another place put the matter right after the Government have considered it. Would that not be the sensible way forward if this Chamber is to be given the respect it deserves?
Lord Inglewood: The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, puts forward a sage proposition. It is not inconsistent with what I explained is inherent in our proposals. As I explained, I intend to indicate to noble Lords before Report stage what the Government's position is. That provides opportunities for debate on Report and Third Reading. I am sure the noble Lord is right. This may well be an occasion when it is appropriate for the other place to be the revising Chamber. I am delighted that we seem to be at one on that important point. If those noble Lords proposing the amendment bring it to a vote, I urge the Committee not to support it. We believe that to do so would reduce rather than increase the likelihood of successfully resolving what by any standards is a difficult and far from straightforward conundrum.
Lord Howell: I shall speak briefly because the debate has spoken for itself. I shall say little about the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, except to say

147
that the 300 organisations represented by the CCPR, which he mentioned, were certainly not consulted. The people mentioned in the letter to which he referred were involved in spectator sports. I am grateful to the Minister for his normal great courtesy. Indeed, I am grateful to all the Members of the Committee who have spoken.
The Minister, with his great charm, placed before the Committee what is really a most ludicrous proposition; namely, that he can consult everyone in a fortnight and return to this Chamber with the results of that consultation, not having previously undertaken such consultation. The Ministers's noble friend Lord Astor, who has spoken, was for a long period the Minister in charge of the preparation of the Bill. So why did he not consult everyone before we reached this stage? Why is he only now telling us what we should be doing?
The Minister undermined what he said about consultation over the next fortnight by recounting a long list of matters which he said had to be considered. It is totally impossible to consider all those matters in a fortnight. What about the 30 million viewers who cannot watch sport on their televisions? How are the Government going to consult them in a fortnight? What machinery exists to carry out that extraordinary consultation exercise in a fortnight when that has not been possible in the past 10 years since the legislation came on to the statute book?
I want to say a word about the faulty wording of the amendment to which the Minister drew our attention. If it is faulty, I am sorry to say that it is the fault of the Government because the amendment repeats exactly the wording of the 1990 Act. I was very careful to do that because I thought that I would beat that kind of argument. Whenever I took the field as a football referee, I took care to know what I was doing and who was playing before I went on to the field. That is what we had to do on this occasion.
We are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for being so helpful and charming. However, my noble friend Lord Callaghan wins the day. The sap of the nation is rising. Not only is there anxiety about these sporting events, but there is also profound anxiety about the way monopoly television is going. That is why the nation is asking us to protect its interests and to protest. It is for that reason that we must press the amendment to a Division today.
5.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 223; Not-Contents, 106.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Addington, L.

Abinger, L.

Airedale, L.

Ackner, L.

Aldington, L.

Acton, L.

Alexander of Tunis,E.

148

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Annan, L.

Grenfell, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Grey, E.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hamwee, B.

Attlee, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Bancroft, L.

Hayman, B.

Barnett, L.

Healey, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hertford, M.

Beloff, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Berkeley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Birk, B.

Howell, L. [Teller.]

Blackstone, B.

Howie of Troon, L

Blease, L.

Hughes, L.

Blyth, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Borrie, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Ilchester, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Inchcape, E.

Bridges, L.

Inchyra, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Iveagh, E.

Brookeborough, V.

James of Holland Park, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jeger, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Caldecote, V.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Judd, L.

Carter, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Chapple, L.

Kimball, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Kintore, E.

Chorley, L

Kirkhill, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Clinton, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cobbold, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Cockfield, L.

Lockwood, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Coventry, Bp.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Craigavon, V.

McConnell, L.

Crickhowell, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Cross, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

McNair, L.

David, B.

McNally, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Marlborough, D.

Desai, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Donoughmore, E.

Mayhew, L.

Donoughue, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Merrivale, L.

Downshire, M.

Middleton, L.

Dubs, L.

Milne, L.

Dundonald, E.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Milverton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mishcon, L.

Erroll, E.

Molloy, L.

Exmouth, V.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Ezra, L.

Moran,L.

Faithfull, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falkender, B.

Mottistone, L.

Falkland, V.

Moyne, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Munster, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Nicol, B.

Gage, V.

Ogmore, L.

Gallacher, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Geddes, L.

Palmer, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Palumbo, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pender, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Peston, L.

149

Peyton of Yeovil. L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

B. Stedman, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Stodart of Swindon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Quinton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Quirk, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Rea, L.

Temple of Stowe, E.

Reading, M.

Templeman, L.

Reay, L.

Terrington, L.

Redesdale, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Richard, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L. [Teller.]

Rix, L.

Thurlow, L.

Robertson of Oakridge. L.

Tordoff, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Rochester, L.

Varley, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Weatherill, L

Runcie, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Russell, E.

Westbury, L.

Sainsbury, L. St. Davids, V.

Westmorland, E.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Whaddon, L.

Sandwich, E.

White, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Serota, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Sewel, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Shannon, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L

Shepherd, L.

Winston, L.

Sheffield, L.

Wolfson, L.

Simon, V.

Young of Dartington, L.

Simon of Glaisrlale, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ailsa, M.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Harvington, L.

Arran, E.

Henley, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Holdemess, L.

Astor, V.

HohnPatricic, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hooper, B.

Barber, L.

Inglewood, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Ironside, L.

Bethell, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Boardman, L.

Kimberley, E.

Bowness, L.

Kingsland, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Knollys, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Knutsford, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Liverpool, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L

Long, V.

Eturnham, L.

Lucas, L.

Butterworth, L.

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Chelmsford, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Coleraine, L.

Manton, L.

Courtown, E.

Marlesford, L.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Marsh, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mersey, V.

Dean of Hamtree, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Denham, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Donegall, M.

Mowbray and Stoutton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elles, B.

Norfolk, D.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Elton, L.

Onslow, E.

Fairhaven, L.

Orkney, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Ferrers, E.

Peel, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Goschen, V.

Renwick, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach. L.

Sandford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Seccombe, B.

Halsbuty, E.

150

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Stockton, L.

Trumpington, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Sudeley, L.

Vestey, L.

Swaythling, L.

Vivian, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Swinton, L.

Wakeham, L.

Swinton, E.

Waterford, M.

Tebbit, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wynford, L.

Torrington, V.

Young, B.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 2:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
RIGHTS TO BROADCAST SPORTING EVENTS
(". After section 182 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 there is inserted—
"Rights to broadcast sporting events.
.—(1) The Commission and the Radio Authority, as the case may be, shall each have power to direct the holder of exclusive rights for the broadcasting of any sporting event to license rights, on terms that are reasonable in the opinion of the Commission or the Radio Authority, to any person providing a television broadcasting service or a radio broadcasting service for general reception, capable of being received in the United Kingdom for—

(a) inclusion on a sound broadcasting service of a programme which consists of or includes the whole or any part of that event, and

(b) inclusion on a television broadcasting service of a programme which consists of or includes a recording of the whole or any part of that event.

(2) In deciding whether to make a direction under subsection (2) the Commission and the Radio Authority shall have regard to the national and local interest of the sporting event.
(3) If the holder of the rights fails to comply with any direction made by the Commission or the Radio Authority under subsection (2) the Commission or the Radio Authority, as the case may be, shall refer the matter to the Director General of Fair Trading.
(4) Where a matter is referred to him under subsection (3) the Director General of Fair Trading shall determine the terms on which the rights, or any of them, are to be licensed.
(5) In this section—
"national interest" has the same meaning as in section 182; and
"local interest" means interest of persons living in the area or locality of a local sound broadcasting service.".").
The noble Lord said: I am glad to say that Amendment No. 2 will not take up much time. It deals with the subject called "unbundling". I can tell the Committee what that means in one sentence. In negotiations about television coverage the question of highlights has to be divorced from main television. As we have seen as regards one or two events recently, Sky has bought up all the rights, including radio, and is able to stop the BBC from showing highlights. That is wrong. I believe that Sky is beginning to realise that it is a mistake. The issue needs to be dealt with in the Bill. This clause deals with it. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I am somewhat surprised that no other noble Lord wishes to speak to the amendment. As

151
the noble Lord said, it is an interesting subject. As he explained, the amendment brings about an unbundling of broadcasting rights so that a broadcaster with exclusive rights to televise a sporting event of national or local interest will he obliged to license rights to live radio or recorded television coverage to other broadcasting services for general reception if the ITC or Radio Authority decides that it should.
There is one fundamental distinction between this and the previous amendment. The previous amendment might be described as a "bolt-on" to an existing provision in the 1990 Act. Whatever the merits behind the proposal, it is important that we are all clear that this amendment introduces an entirely new concept. It has wide-ranging implications.
We recognise, of course, the concerns with which the amendment seeks to deal. Those Members of the Committee who have read the consultation document will appreciate that the amendment covers what is described by everyone who considers this topic as an "unbundling" approach. It is perhaps a rather loose phrase. However, just as I spoke of a number of technical problems with regard to the previous amendment, similar difficulties of definition, regulation and enforcement apply. The Government were unable to support Amendment No. 1 and, in the same spirit, they are unable to support this amendment either.
If anything, the problems with the amendment are greater because its scope is wider. Indeed, as drafted, all events of national and local interest, actual and potential, are within its scope. By any standards that is fairly all-embracing and it is defined only in the most vague and general sense. I hope that the Committee will allow me to illustrate, rather more selectively than I might have done, some of the problems that the amendment poses.
First, the amendment gives the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority powers to direct holders of exclusive broadcasting rights to license rights to other broadcasters—who may be commercial organisations trading in pursuit of profit for themselves—on terms that the commission and authority consider "reasonable". But what does "reasonable" mean in these circumstances? A subscription broadcaster will have paid a certain sum to a sports rights holder for exclusive coverage. That sum could be considerable. Without exclusivity, the value of the rights to the original purchaser will be substantially reduced. Will he be reimbursed in full? If not, would that be "reasonable"? Could the broadcasters who are to receive radio rights or recorded coverage rights afford to reimburse the original purchaser in full? What would happen if they claimed to be unable to do so?
In the debate on the previous amendment there was quite properly considerable discussion about the place of sport in the national consciousness. However, it is significant that scarcely a mention was made of the financial implications. That matters because, when considering such a subject, they are clearly relevant. Of course the implications were touched on, but how does the market place work? There was no discussion of that.
152
It matters when one goes into the detail inherent in such an amendment and it is at the heart of what we have been debating. The reason underlying the political discussion that we have had is that the terrestrial free-to-air broadcasters, for whatever reason, can no longer afford the price that such rights command in the free and open market.
In any event, how could the commission or authority make an assessment of "reasonable terms"? They are, after all, regulators, with no relevant expertise in the area and there is no elaboration of what might be involved in the proposals. Furthermore, the suggested reference to the Director General of Fair Trading does not seem to us to go far towards solving the problem. His responsibilities and expertise do not extend to arbitration or licensing.
The amendment goes to the heart of copyright law. No longer will a broadcaster be able to dispose of his copyright coverage of an event, he will be obliged to sell that material to someone else. It will be for the copyright tribunal perhaps to settle disputes, but it too would find it hard to define "reasonable terms".
There are further points and one which is particularly unfair in the position of the sporting bodies. The levels and extent of radio and recorded coverage will be a matter of considerable and legitimate interest to the sporting bodies. But the amendment gives them no status in the process whatsoever. In such a state of affairs as we are considering, it would not seem unreasonable for the potential purchaser of exclusive sports rights to be able to establish in advance whether the rights he proposed to acquire might be unbundled. Yet there is no mechanism for establishing that. Surely it is a serious and unjust omission. Moreover, would the provision apply to rights acquired before the coming into effect of that piece of legislation?
I have already referred to problems of definition and enforceability. It would be the height of irresponsibility not to think the issues through carefully before we seek to amend the statute. It has occurred to me that the proposed controls in the amendment could easily be circumvented by a broadcaster who bought up exclusive rights to all but a small part of a sporting event. He could, for example, make available 5 per cent. or even less of an event to other broadcasters on a non-exclusive basis. Then the controls as drafted would not apply. If I, as a comparative layman, saw that possible loophole, surely the broadcasters involved and their lawyers would be infinitely more expert in finding others.
I return to where I started. As I explained, the previous amendment was attached to and inherently connected with an existing statutory provision which has been understood and accepted for some time. What is being proposed here is something quite different and new. We are genuinely entering new territory. The point is relevant; we have been concerned about it and have raised it in the discussion document to which I referred earlier. I urge the Committee carefully to consider the important and fundamental distinction between this proposal and the previous one that we debated earlier this afternoon.

153
We need to think the issues through with great care and to consider their implications fully. In conclusion, I must say that it is somewhat of a surprise that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, moved the amendment so quickly on an important issue, not merely because the amendment is significant in itself in what it might achieve but because of the much wider legal implications that are inherent in it.
Viscount Astor: I believe that all Members of the Committee would agree that recorded highlights are extremely important with regard to subscription or pay-to-view television. We would also all agree that those highlights should be made available to terrestrial broadcasters or any other broadcasters on fair and reasonable terms. That must be common sense. It is a bonus for the subscription channel. Interestingly, at the moment BSkyB currently makes highlights available but the BBC does not always do so. The amendment does not take the BBC into account at all. It seems to me that, if we are to consider this important issue, it must be done in an amendment which covers the whole of broadcasting and not just one part. The amendment covers merely the commission—the ITC—which is not responsible for the regulation of the BBC.
To say the least, the amendment is complicated and the noble Lord did not explain how it would work. He simply said that it concerned bundling. However, it is not about bundling but about unbundling, so far as I understand it. We should not suddenly have the amendment whistled through the Committee on the back of the noble Lord's earlier success. I hope that we can consider it as a separate matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, has raised an extremely important point, but the amendment goes nowhere in dealing with the issue. He should think again and come back to your Lordships' House with one that works.
Lord Elton: One does not often in Committee have to rely on the Government to explain the workings of an Opposition amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, will forgive me if I ask him to be a little more specific about what he intends to be the effect of the amendment, apart from the obvious lacuna pointed out by my noble friend.
The release of one of the bundles is directed to,
"any person providing a television broadcasting service or a radio broadcasting service".
Is the intention of that proposal that the authority shall direct that the company that has the licence shall make a sub-licence available to all the other participants in the medium, or is it to a particular participant? In either case, how will the price be decided, since there obviously cannot be an auction? Either it is released to all simultaneously or to one company on its own. Merely to propose this because the Committee is in a good mood with the noble Lord and has approved all that he said before would be a mistake, as my noble friend on the Front Bench said. It is an entirely different matter and I wish to know what the noble Lord is after.
Viscount Chelmsford: As I understand the amendment, it applies solely where there are exclusive
154
rights. Dealing with the previous amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said that his amendment denied any exclusive rights. If the amendment which the Committee passed is correct and there are no exclusive rights, then the whole of this amendment falls. In fact, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, as I tried to say before the Committee voted. It seems to me that the amendment on which we voted contains nothing to prevent a terrestrial broadcaster from obtaining exclusivity in respect of sporting rights. Had I been able to say that, perhaps the Committee might have voted differently.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Lyell: I support the remarks of my noble friend the Minister on this amendment. When I examined subsection (1) I was somewhat chilled by the words. Indeed, the Minister covered most of my comments, and quite beautifully.
I too was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, introduced his amendment so briefly. With his memory, above all of the Government, let alone individual politicians, mingling in sport (not to mention the noble Lord's previous great sporting prowess) he will know that the Government's entry into sporting matters did not always meet with enormous success. I recall the dramas of the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. The Government became heavily involved in 1980 in whether the team should or should not go to Moscow, and whether the 1980 Moscow Olympics should or should not be shown. I also recall the events of 1988, which will no doubt be seared into the memory of the noble Lord, Lord Howell—to wit, the proceedings on the Football Spectators Bill. Events in this Chamber and in another place showed that when government tried to become involved in matters of sport, let alone what is shown on television, they got into very great difficulty.
Subsection (1) contains the kernel of the amendment. My noble friend sets out what is "reasonable". He has also stressed the powers given to the commission, which is no doubt composed of reasonable people. Looking at my noble compatriot, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, I think that nobody could be more reasonable than he is. Even he might admit that the powers in subsection (1) are pretty draconian. Perhaps they are not intended to be, but their effect certainly would be.
Perhaps the noble Lord, when he comes to speak, or the Minister, might lay my curiosity to rest on one point. Subsection (5) refers to the "national interest". I have not been able to grasp the definition in Section 182 of the original Act. Does "national interest" refer to the United Kingdom?
Perhaps I may explain matters in this way. Let us suppose that a young Scot does extraordinarily well in a skiing event. To my knowledge only one major international skiing race has been held in Scotland. However, given some good skiing weather, there could be events in the future. The young Scot does particularly well, and the rights to that event have been sold to Sky, to subscription television or to a pay-as-you-view channel. Suddenly, along comes the BBC or ITV—

155
terrestrial broadcasting organisations—and says: "There is great interest in Scotland. We want to cover this event". Will that event be broadcast by BBC transmitters covering Scotland? There might well be no interest in England. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister or the noble Lord will explain.
I have mentioned skiing and "Ski Sunday". It is a minority sport. I declare an interest as former chairman of the Lords and Commons Ski Club. I have been a skier for 23 years, together with my noble friend Lord Oxfuird, who is in the Chair, and with other noble Lords. I believe it was 20 years ago that the BBC introduced "Ski Sunday". One evening I took the step of telephoning the BBC to say thank you for what I appreciated was a minority sport being shown on terrestrial television. The BBC took an editorial view that there was sufficient interest in this particular sport to project it at peak time, apparently between "The Money Programme" and "Rugby Special". I am advised that 10 to 12 years ago the viewing figures were 41/2 million for "Ski Sunday" on BBC 2.
I rang the executive producer this morning. We spoke about the fees and the prices for sport referred to in the previous amendment. He told me that the cost to the BBC, thanks to the European Broadcasting Union, has quintupled over the past 12 years. The BBC is happy to pay that. That just shows what is covered by our £86 licence fee—in this case, a minority sport which only in exceptional circumstances can be practised within the United Kingdom under the scope of this Bill. The BBC needs the facility. I am delighted to tell the Minister and the Committee that the BBC is pre-eminent in this particular sport in the United Kingdom.
That said, I really do wonder whether the proposers of the amendment before us realise the draconian nature of the powers set out in subsection (I). Indeed, I wonder whether they mean what is printed there. I look forward to my noble friend's reply and to any corrections that he may wish to make.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I draw the attention of the Committee very briefly to the distinction between the previous amendment, where it is provided that,
"The Commission shall do all that they cart to ensure",
and the powers proposed under subsection (1) of this amendment, whereby the Commission "shall have power to direct". In effect, that usurps in this context the jurisdiction of the Director General of Fair Trading, which may be invoked only if the holder fails to comply with the direction. That is stated in subsections (3) and (4). These are very serious powers of direction. I entirely support the suggestion that we should give further consideration before accepting such a novel type of power.
The Marquess of Reading: I shall be very brief. As I understand it, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that, where a subscription channel holds all the rights to a sporting event that does not appear within the group of eight listed events, the rights to TV highlights or live radio rights cannot be hoarded.
156
We all accept that sports will want to maximise revenues. We have set out a very limited list of events which the nation believes must he protected by legislation to show live on mainstream channels. However, there are many other events which, while not necessarily falling into the group of "crown jewels of sport" are nevertheless important events which people want to see in highlight programmes—for example, "Match of the Day"—or perhaps want to hear on live radio. If there is a powerful media player in the field with deep pockets and a virtual monopoly, that player is in a strong position to say to the sports body: "That's what we will offer and we want all the rights for that amount".
This amendment is necessary. It would ensure that, where a subscription channel has live rights, the rights to highlights or radio rights have to be sold on to other channels with a universal audience. The amendment would not be retrospective. There is no question that existing contracts would be hit. It could help the sports bodies to create a new set of secondary sporting rights. There will be live rights on TV, recorded rights and rights to highlights. There will be live radio rights. No large media owner will he able to tell the sports rights holders, "We will negotiate only if you sell your rights to us". They will be able to negotiate in different markets and extract the highest price in each. This amendment works in the interests of the viewer, the listener and the sports bodies. It is the best long-term bet to stop monopolies emerging. The World Cup Final could be bought by a minority channel and tiny numbers would see it. That cannot be right. The amendment is about events that unite our nation and allow us to share moments defining our culture and our heritage. I hope that the Committee will support the amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I Wish to make a comment which I hope will be helpful to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I believe that those concerned with the last amendment have won an important argument. I suggest to the noble Lord who proposed the amendment that enough is perhaps enough for the day. If my noble friend on the Front Bench is prepared to say that he will carefully consider all the issues raised by this amendment along with the last one, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, will agree to withdraw the amendment. My name is not in fact attached to it. It raises very complicated issues, to some of which my noble friend has referred.
Lord Inglewood: Perhaps I may intervene. I confirm that we are already considering this matter in general terms and that we shall continue to do so. It is part of what I have described as. the general terms of our discussion paper and is inherent in our considerations.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I agree very much with what was said by the noble Lord who spoke a moment or two ago. I deliberately strayed into this amendment earlier. In some ways it raises issues of equal importance in terms of the public interest. Nevertheless, I recognise that we are in an unusual position because of the failure of the Government—to put it as politely as possible—to deal with the sporting

157
issues when drafting the original Bill. It is left to this Chamber to raise issues, well argued in the long preparation for this Bill and the new BBC Charter. As a result we have a series of new clauses which are very much Second Reading matters.
I wait to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has to say. I should not like the matter to pass from the Chamber without some acknowledgement of how much the issues are in the public interest. Certainly we must overcome any technical difficulties in order to ensure that unbundling—that dreadful word—is very much in the interest of the ordinary viewer of terrestrial channels.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Howell: I apologise to the Committee if it thought I was peremptory in moving the amendment. I was trying to help the Committee. It was being urged upon me from all sides. "Get on with the vote." I rise now in a spirit of conciliation. As a football referee, I have never seen the need to play extra time when the match is won. That is the position at the moment.
I must ask the Minister to be more specific. Has no thought been given to the issues? We were told by the Minister and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that there was need for these matters to be thought through. Of course. That is what we have been doing. But it is not what the Government have been doing. We have been thinking the issues through. We have done that because of the Ryder Cup and the cricket World Cup. The knowledge that Mr. Murdoch wanted to prevent the highlights of those events appearing on BBC and put it in the contract should have stimulated the Government, as it stimulated the Opposition, to think the matter through.
I agree the issues are complicated. I was impressed by what the Minister said about the rights being sold overseas and then beamed back to this country. We seek to provide that the rights to live TV coverage, recorded coverage, and live radio broadcasting—it is important to include that—are sold separately and to prevent hoarding of material a broadcaster cannot use himself. That is what happened with the Ryder Cup. It is what was going to happen in the cricket World Cup until we tabled the amendment. As I said earlier, we have managed, in the case of World Cup cricket, to get Mr. Murdoch to sell to the BBC at a price he turned down two or three months ago. That is a significant advance. I do not in any way want to suggest that we should not take note of it.
I am advised that the proper place to decide the price, if there is a difficulty, is the copyright tribunal. I do not feel that the Minister or anyone else could object to the word "reasonable" appearing in an Act. In the 40 years I have been in Parliament I must have passed hundreds of Acts referring to reasonable people or reasonable men. If reasonable people do not agree, they go to the copyright tribunal.
The Minister wants to know the price in the market place. Mr. Murdoch and the BBC decided that this weekend in the case of World Cup cricket. They said that the price in the market place was £1 million. That was agreed. So it is possible for reasonable people to reach a sensible conclusion about the price.
158
I accept what the Minister said. There are difficulties. If he will give an undertaking, in a word or a nod, that at Report stage or on Third Reading he will take on board all the points we intend in this amendment and all the things which came out of the last amendment—in short, that the Government will seek to secure for this Chamber what it wants to achieve—I shall be happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Inglewood: I am sure the Committee will understand that I am not in a position to give the kind of commitment described by the noble Lord. However, I can assure him that I shall come back, as I described in my speech on the previous amendment, and make the Government's position absolutely clear before Report stage.
Lord Howell: That is not very good. However, in the knowledge that we can come back and move the amendment again if the Government are in default on a matter where I judge the whole Chamber is with us, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 3:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
HOLDING OF LICENCES: RESTRICTIONS ON INVOLVEMENT IN
ADMINISTRATION OF SPORT
(".—(1) Sections 5 and 88 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 are each amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a), after "who" insert —
("(i) is involved, or any of whose employees, agents or representatives is involved, in the government or administration of any sport in respect of which he is the holder of any exclusive broadcasting right, or
(ii)".
(3) At the end there is inserted—
"(8) In this section "exclusive broadcasting right" means any contract or agreement providing for the exclusive right to include in a broadcasting service any programme which consists of or includes the whole or any part of a sporting event, or of a recording of that event.".").
The noble Lord said: I shall not trouble the Committee too long. The amendment raises an important principle. I do not intend to press it to a vote, but I want to raise the issue. More and more the question of the executive duties of television companies dealing with subscription channels and the duties of executives dealing with sport are becoming interlocked. I find it increasingly difficult to know whether some sporting executives speak on behalf of their sport or on behalf of Mr. Murdoch. It happens the other way round, too, as we have all experienced in the past week or two.
The amendment seeks to declare what I believe to be a very sensible principle; namely, that the management and representation of television companies when negotiating with sports bodies about television rights should be separated from the management and governance of the sports concerned. That is what the amendment seeks to do. It seeks to assert that principle. Sport should be divorced from television when negotiations are under way; otherwise there is conflict of interest.
Having stated the principle we seek to uphold and in the hope that the Minister will have some sympathy for the principle, if not with the wording, of the amendment, I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has really thought this amendment through. I know that one of the main interests of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, is racing rather than sport. The amendment would particularly affect SIS. That is a broadcasting service in which the Racecourse Association is a shareholder. The amendment would prevent that kind of thing in the future and that may be damaging. I do not see why a sporting organisation cannot at the same time have some form of right or share in broadcasting. The amendment seems to me to be utterly unnecessary and ties up the open market with a whole lot of unnecessary regulation.
Lord Inglewood: I am sure that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, seeks to deal with what can be a real problem in certain circumstances. No one can object to the sentiment underlying his remarks. Clearly everybody opposes those conflicts of interest. However, if impropriety occurs, that becomes a matter for the criminal law. It is for the sports rights holders themselves to take adequate measures to ensure that no such conflicts arise for their negotiators, and that is probably not a suitable matter for legislation.
To touch on the points raised by my noble friend Lord Astor, he is right that the amendment may prevent the development of new television services by sports bodies which would profit from the new digital opportunities to provide a wider range and higher quality of coverage for viewers. That is not a fanciful suggestion. I read in the newspaper only a few days ago that that was being proposed. We must therefore be careful, when thinking about such a proposal, that we do not end up throwing the baby out with the bath water; that is, damaging the potential of the digital world into which we are moving while trying to eliminate and excise what is obviously an abuse and indeed a crime where it occurs.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for bringing the matter before the Committee.
Lord Howell: I can assure the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that the amendment is necessary. There have been cases, though not in horseracing, when one wonders whether the people making speeches on behalf of sport are in fact making them on behalf of subscription television. That is unfortunate.
I was seeking to find a clear dividing line. The Minister kindly says that he understands what I am trying to do and will presumably ask his advisers, and others, to look at the matter in detail. I trust that he will be in communication with us in that process so that when we reach Report stage we have an agreed approach to the problem. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 4:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR BROADCASTING AND SPORT
(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a committee to be known as the Advisory Committee for Broadcasting and Sport.
(2) The Committee shall consist of—

(a) a Chairman appointed by the Secretary of State, and

(b) fourteen members appointed by the Secretary of State representative of the interests of—

(i) broadcasters,

(ii) sporting bodies, and

(iii) viewers of and listeners to broadcast services.

(3) The Committee shall—

(a) review such matters relating to the broadcasting of sport as it considers appropriate, and

(b) consider any matter referred to it by the Secretary of State,

and shall from time to time report and make recommendations to the Secretary of State.
(4) Any report or recommendations made under subsection (3) shall be laid before Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4 seeks to help the Government. Under the 1990 Act the way in which listed events are decided is that the Secretary of State must consult and then he can sit down and make an order. The matter does not even have to come back before Parliament. That cannot be satisfactory.
I assume that, from time to time, especially when digital television is in full flow, Ministers will want to make orders. For example, as I said at an earlier stage today, if the new chairman of the BBC thinks it right to go down a pay-as-you-view road with one of the new digital channels, and provided the cost is reasonable to all those whose interests are protected and who cannot afford Sky, then it would be sensible for us to consider the issue again. However, there is no machinery for the Secretary of State so to do and I have just had a cockshy in trying to provide some with the amendment.
Again, I shall understand if the Minister says that I have left out a lot of interests. I hope he does not say that. I have included,
"broadcasters … sporting bodies, and … viewers of and listeners to broadcast services".
That seems to cover everybody, and if everybody can be properly consulted so that the Secretary of State can reach a conclusion and bring the matter before Parliament, that would seem to be an eminently satisfactory way to proceed. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be as conciliatory towards Amendment No. 4 as he and I have been towards each other in the past few minutes. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: It seems to me, as a small verbal point, that the first paragraph under which the advisory committee is named, is wrong. It would not be an advisory committee for broadcasting and sport; it would not be an advisory committee for vast areas of sport; it would be an advisory committee for broadcasting sporting events.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his intervention and to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for explaining his proposals. I recognise the spirit in which the amendment is moved.

161
I must admit that I remain to be convinced of the overriding need for an advisory committee and have doubts about the remit and added value that it may have, not forgetting the problems of cost and bureaucracy. However, we are prepared to consider the issue further. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Howell: What an extremely helpful intervention. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 5:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
CERTAIN EVENTS NOT TO BE SHOWN ON PAY-PER-VIEW TERMS
(".—(1) Section 182 of the 1990 Act is amended as follows—
(2) In subsection (1) after the words "Part I of this Act" there shall be inserted the words "or in any such service which requires payment to receive or view that service".
(3) In subsection (2) after the words "or the Welsh Authority" there shall be inserted the words "or in any such service which requires payment to receive or view that service".
(4) In subsection (3) after the words "national interest" there shall be inserted the words "and importance".
(5) In subsection (4) for the word "subsection" there is substituted the word "section" and after words "national interest" there shall be inserted "and importance".
(6) After subsection (7) there is inserted —
"( ) In drawing up or revising such a list as is mentioned in subsection (3) the Secretary of State shall have due regard to the representations made to him by those he has consulted, in particular—

(a) in relation to a particular event, the representations of the person from whom the rights to televise the event may be acquired as to the financial consequences of being included in, or omitted from, the list; and

(b) whether, in the event the relevant event is included in the list, the whole of the relevant event will be included in any television broadcasting service referred to in subsection (1) or (2)".").

The noble Viscount said: I tabled Amendment No. 5 in an attempt to allow the Committee to consider what events should or should not be on the list. We have had debates already in regard to protecting the list from subscription as well as pay-to-view television and on highlights. However, we have not looked at what should make up the list.
In that regard we are faced with two conflicting problems. I believe that, fundamentally, the Government should not interfere with intellectual property rights, whether they are sporting rights, broadcasting rights, book rights, music rights or any other kind of rights. I do not believe either that the public have some sort of divine right to watch sport on television. It is not a right; it is a service. Having said that, it is true that the service has become an accepted custom; but it is not a right any more than that one has the right to march into a football stadium and watch a match for free.
The Government made the right decision when they established the list under the 1990 Act. There are some events which the public should be able to see on free-to-air television. They are national events in which the nation has a stake. The difficulty is how to define what is a national event. What is it in which the nation has a stake?
Those events should involve a national team—for example, Test matches and football World Cup finals. That does not necessarily mean that any sport involving a national team should be on the list. There are also national events like the Derby and the Grand National that are currently on the list and have nothing to do with the nation competing. The public enjoy watching them. We must consider whether or not they should be included on the list. Fundamentally, it should be up to the racing organisations to decide.
It is important that, where events are to be included on the list, proper safeguards are installed to protect sporting interests. At the very least the Secretary of State should consult the sporting bodies concerned and take account of any possible loss of revenue that may occur as a result of being on the list. Also, an event should not be included on the list unless the whole event cannot be broadcast live. We had discussions earlier today in relation to the Ryder Cup. It seems to me to be distinctly pointless to add such an event to the list because, when it was on the BBC, one saw only a tiny proportion of it. When it was on subscription television we were able to watch the whole match in its entirety. In such a case, it should not be included on the list. However, the BBC should have the opportunity to show the highlights and those problems are then solved.
We have had a good deal of debate about the broadcasters, but I sometimes wonder whether we are picking up the wrong end of the stick. Should we be regulating the sporting bodies and not the broadcasters? After all, it is they who own the rights and they sell the rights. They operate in the best interests of the sporting bodies but that does not mean to say that they necessarily get the right deals. They all have different needs. Not all of them want to sell to the highest bidder. Wimbledon and the Olympic Games are good examples of where the organisations concerned made sure that the event was sold so that it could be seen on free-to-air terrestrial television. Football had a different view and it has done very well out of it. Ten years ago football was getting just over £6 million for its rights. Now it is getting 10 times that amount. However, we must get the balance right.
My amendment attempts to look at how we should define what is on the list. It is purely a probing amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend for publishing the consultation document, which will allow us to consider all these issues in some detail. I move the amendment in order to give my noble friend a chance to reply if he has anything to say to it. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: For clarification, perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether he was also speaking to Amendments Nos. 230 and 233, with which his amendment is grouped.
Viscount Astor: They are grouped, but they are not my amendments. I have to confess that I have not read

163
them with as much care as I might. But if anyone else wishes to speak to them with my amendment, they certainly can.
Lord Donoughue: We have not much to say on this amendment because we feel that what happened earlier on this subject rather pre-empts the field. We take that as the position. I was interested in a good deal of what the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, had to say. There was a great deal of sense in it. We have to look at the nature of the list. Indeed, on this side, we have already made a commitment that when in government we shall review the list. That is not a commitment to add or subtract, and in a later clause we have a proposal for a committee to be consulted and for the Secretary of State to consult in order to make sure that the sports do not feel they have to campaign on issues like this because they are excluded and are afraid of being there at the whim of the Secretary of State. They will have a right to express their view, as will the broadcasters and the public as well.
There are number of wider issues here which require consideration. However, on the basic issue of national access to national sporting events, the Committee has spoken.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Astor for raising these points. As he said, and as was reiterated by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, these are important matters and they bear proper investigation and inquiry. These are the kinds of matters which we are, inter alia, planning to examine in our process of discussion and consultation.
I concur with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. The Committee has made an important decision on the list and listed events. That has pre-empted a considerable amount of debate that could have been held profitably on my noble friend's amendment. I should merely like to thank him for raising these matters which we believe are important and into which we shall be looking.
The Earl of Halsbury: A suggestion occurs to me after listening to all the debates so far. The sudden upsurge of interest in the amendments before us this afternoon finds the Bill in a rather immature condition. That is why the Government published last week Broadcast Sports Rights: Informing the Debate. It occurs to me that, as an alternative to Report Stage and Third Reading, which are inhibited by the fact that no one can speak twice and so the cut and thrust of debate is not there, the noble Lord might consider that we re-commit this part of the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House after he has had the opportunity to organise the Government's thoughts on it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I support that suggestion. I was wondering how the next stage of the Bill could be taken. It is necessary that it should be taken under conditions of flexibility, with the kind of conditions one has in Committee but not at the later stages of a Bill. As, my noble friend the Minister has undertaken to produce the Government's views in a clear way at the
164
next stage, surely we want to see that the next stage is a re-committed Committee stage rather than a Report stage.
Baroness Trumpington: Great note will be taken of both noble Lords' remarks. However, it is not for me to say. It is a matter for the usual channels. We are of course anxious to get on with the passage of the Bill.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for what they have said. These are important matters. I look forward to the Government's announcement after their consultation. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil s had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
IMPLEMENTATION OF PART (LISTED EVENTS AND SPORT)
(".—(I) This Part, except for this section, shall come into force on the expiry of a period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed; but this is subject to the following provisions of this section.
(2) Before the expiry of the period mentioned in subsection (1), the Secretary of State may consult the Director General of Fair Trading and representatives of—

(a) broadcasters, including the BBC, Channel Four Television Corporation and S4C and any holder of a licence under Part I or III of the 1990 Act;

(b) sporting bodies, including governing bodies of sports; and

(c) viewers of and listeners to broadcast services, about the implementation of this Part.

(3) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report of any consultation undertaken under subsection (2), and the report shall contain details of—

(a) the consultation undertaken;

(b) any representations received as a result of that consultation; and

(c) any proposals which the Secretary of State may have for the amendment of this Part in the light of the representations.

(4) In giving details of the representations referred to in subsection (3)(b), the Secretary of State shall not disclose any information relating to a particular person or business except—

(a) with the consent of that person or of the person carrying on that business; or

(b) in such a manner as not to identify that person or business.

(5) Subsection (1) shall cease to have effect if, before the expiry of the period mentioned there and following the laying before both Houses of Parliament of the report mentioned in subsection (3), both Houses of Parliament resolve that it shall cease to have effect.
(6) If both Houses resolve that subsection (1) shall cease to have effect, the Secretary of State shall, within a further period of three months beginning with the day on which the latter such resolution was made, by order amend this Part to give effect to any proposals made by him under subsection (3)(c).
(7) Any order made under subsection (6) shall make new provision for the coming into force of this Part and shall be subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I have said quite enough in your Lordships' House today. I do not intend to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 1 [Multiplex services and digital programme services]:
Lord Desai Lord Desai moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, leave out line 12.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, 1 wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 20. I shall be very brief. As noble Lords will know, the Broadcasting Act 1990 made a distinction between domestic and non-domestic services. That was made to accommodate Sky, which was then transmitting from Luxembourg whereas BSB was transmitting on a UK frequency. Soon after the Act was passed, Sky bought out BSB, since when BSkyB has been transmitting on a Luxembourg channel and the domestic UK frequencies have been auctioned off to very many foreign transmitters. Although Sky News is sent out from Isleworth, we get it on a non-domestic channel.
My amendment says that to carry forward that domestic and non-domestic distinction into the 1995 Act does not serve very much purpose. Let us have a level playing field and let us abolish the distinction between domestic and non-domestic transmitters. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for expanding on the amendment and for his remarks indicating that he is anxious that the distinction between a domestic and a non-domestic satellite licence should be abolished.
As the noble Lord pointed out, it is the case that the non-domestic satellite licence relates to a broadcaster who may be operating from within the jurisdiction but who is actually broadcasting down part of the spectrum which is not in the UK's allocation. That is a clearly a very different state of affairs from the broadcaster who is broadcasting on a domestic satellite licence where both the business is established within the jurisdiction and the enterprise itself is using a spectrum which is part of the UK's allocated spectrum.
Against that background, there is a fundamental distinction between the two economic activities which are going on because of the fact that in one case the broadcaster is using a spectrum which, if I may put it this way, is within the gift of the United Kingdom while in the other the broadcaster is using a spectrum which belongs to another country; often another member state of the European Community. Where one has a material distinction of that kind there is a very good case for keeping the two categories of licence.
Lord Desai: I am grateful to the Minister for those remarks. I am trying as much as the noble Lord to find my way around these rather technical issues. I made the point that UK frequencies have been sold to foreign transmitters as Sky has already sold the UK frequency on which BSkyB is to transmit, to Swedish, Norwegian and Malaysian interests. The Sky broadcasts that we receive here are on the non-domestic channel.
it may be that we shall need to look at this matter very carefully because in the globalisation of the communications industry the domestic and non-domestic distinction is either redundant or it will
166
have to he made much more carefully. The best thing is to remove the distinction. But pending further thought on this matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (Meaning of "independent analogue broadcaster" and "qualifying service"):
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 22, leave out subsection (2) and insert
("(2) Subject to subsection (4), in this Part "qualifying service" means any service which

(a) is provided by an independent analogue broadcaster falling within paragraph (a), (c) or (d) of subsection (1) who has notified the Commission, within the period of one month beginning with the commencement of this section, of his intention to provide a service specified in subsection (3) ("the corresponding analogue service") for broadcasting in digital form, and

(b) as respects the programmes included in the service and the times at which they are broadcast, is identical with the corresponding analogue service.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment 1 shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 12, 60, 64, 77, 78, 186, 200 and 202. My first amendment to Clause 2 is one of a number which, taken together, seek to clarify the remit for S4C on its guaranteed digital capacity. The amendments concerned all relate to Clause 2 except the second insertion to line 31 on page 2 of the Bill, the amendment to Clause 25, the first new clause to be inserted after Clause 25, the amendments to Clause 30, the amendment after Clause 66 and the amendments to Clauses 68 and 69.
We are offering S4C a quarter of the capacity of the multiplex being offered to Channels 3 and 4 for it to broadcast its distinctive service for Wales. The simulcast arrangements for all the other existing terrestrial broadcasters, assuming that they take up the offer of reserve capacity, are very simple. They must broadcast in full and, at the same time, their analogue services. However, that does not make sense in the case of S4C. These amendments clarify what is to be required of them.
As I am sure Members of the Committee know, S4C's service in Wales consists of Welsh language programmes during the peak evening period and at other times during the day. When S4C is not broadcasting the programmes in Welsh, which are unique to that channel, it is required to broadcast Channel 4 programmes. But digital will allow Channel 4 to broadcast a full service for the first time to many parts of Wales. Welsh viewers of digital television will therefore be able for the first time to have a choice between Channel 4 and S4C.
That means that there will be no point in requiring S4C to simulcast its full analogue service. That would result in a duplication of Channel 4 programmes which will in any case he available. It is much better simply to require S4C to simulcast those programmes which distinguish its service from Channel 4—that is to say, its Welsh language programmes. That will provide S4C with the opportunity to offer new programmes specifically tailored to the tastes and interests of the

167
Welsh audience, whether in Welsh or in English, and if they wish to repeat existing Welsh language programmes at times when new audiences might be reached.
That is the purpose of this set of amendments. I can, if desired, explain in more detail the specific effect of each amendment, but at this stage I draw the attention of the Committee particularly to the amendment to Clause 25 and the insertion after that clause, which goes to the heart of the matter. The deletion of Clause 25(3)(d) has been called for by many noble Lords and is the subject of an amendment by Members of the Committee on the Benches opposite, as well as by S4C. I am very happy to remove that provision. It was meant to allow the Secretary of State to introduce arrangements of the kind the Committee now has before it, but I accept that the power it would have taken from the Welsh fourth channel authority and given to the Secretary of State was unacceptable. I can assure the Committee that there was never any intention to do more than make sensible provision for its digital service. The insertion after Clause 25 clearly establishes the nature of S4C's digital service and the requirement to simulcast its Welsh language programmes. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Elis-ThomasI particularly welcome these amendments put forward by the Minister. In particular, I thank the noble Lord for his amendment dealing with Clause 25(3)(d) which, as he indicated, was the cause of some concern. I am aware that it is not the Government's intention to intervene with the independence of S4C as a broadcaster or indeed with any of the other arm's-length principles relating to broadcasting. On that basis I welcome these amendments.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: We, too, on these Benches welcome these amendments and thank the Minister for the way in which he has approached them. There are still a number of other issues about S4C that we shall come to individually as the amendments arise. We certainly welcome the amendments that the noble Lord has put forward.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Since the Minister has had a somewhat "up and down" day, perhaps I may give him a little joy by saying that I join with everybody else in thanking him for these amendments.
Lord Inglewood: I am glad that some things I say meet with the approval of your Lordships.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, leave out line 29.
Lord Elis-Thomas moved Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, leave out line 29 and insert—
168
("(b) the S4C service referred to in Chapter VI of the 1990 Act as amended by section (Television broadcasting by Welsh Authority) of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment it may be convenient to speak to Amendments Nos. 173 and 174 although they are not formally grouped. I am anxious to give the Minister a little further happiness this evening. This group of amendments relates to a broader issue, which is the capacity of the Welsh fourth channel to undertake additional services to the specific digital services which are specified in the Bill. I refer in particular to the central section of Amendment No. 173 which inserts subsection (1) in place of Section 57 of the 1990 Act.
I draw the attention of the Minister specifically to the changes set out in the amendment as regards the high quality of reception primarily in Wales. That will technically enable S4C to broadcast on satellite. The other subsection (1A) refers to,
"such other services as may be licensed under the Broadcasting Acts 1990 or 1996 subject to their obtaining the appropriate licence".
Were that to be accepted it will enable the authority to undertake other commercial services under the ITC or the Broadcasting Acts. The purpose of these amendments is to raise the issue of the remit of S4C in terms of the other delivery mechanisms. It may well be the case that digital terrestrial coverage in Wales, certainly in its early period, is likely to be patchy. Therefore, it is important that viewers receiving digital terrestrial services should not be limited to those within reach of the main transmitters.
At Second Reading I raised the question of the 180 separate relays. We do not know the exact coverage. That will not be known until the NTL-BBC-ITC frequency plan is published. Therefore, we need to look at the possibility of a broadcasting authority such as S4C being able to use additional delivery mechanisms such as satellite and cable in order to offer the widest possible coverage of its services. That is particularly important in view of the position of S4C as an authority.
If this amendment were accepted, it would give the authority the right to broadcast on satellite enabling it to reach outside Wales. We estimate that there are more than 300,000 Welsh speakers living in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Indeed, it could enable noble Lords in this House to receive S4C in London should they so wish.
At present S4C is barred from holding an ITC licence which would be required in order to operate through different or additional delivery mechanisms. The amendment would enable S4C to hold such a licence. These issues concern the development of a broadcaster such as S4C in the digital age and the importance of enabling a "minority language" to reach the widest possible audience by the widest possible means. S4C may not wish to hold an ITC licence; it may decide not to take advantage of the satellite broadcasting option. But it is important to have that option available so that S4C does not become merely a terrestrial authority and is able to operate in the broadest context because of its

169
linguistic and cultural remit. There are other issues in relation to capacity and funding to which we shall turn at later stages of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Aberdare: I am pleased to support the amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. On this side of the Committee we take great pride in S4C. It was introduced by a Conservative Government and two of our Members played extremely prominent parts, my noble friend Lord Whitelaw who was Home Secretary and my noble friend Lord Crickhowell as Secretary of State for Wales. Therefore, we are very interested in S4C, although I confess that its introduction was supported by all political parties at the time. It has undoubtedly been a very great success. One tends to forget what things were like before it came into being. A great deal of acrimonious argument sometimes broke into violence and civil disobedience. That was all solved by the arrival of S4C in 1980. Since then we have had 15 years of social harmony and a considerable boost to the Welsh language and Welsh cultural traditions. Moreover, a considerable number of independent companies have come into existence around S4C. They make films and television programmes or supply ancillary services. We must be very careful that that development, so favourable to Welsh life, is not damaged by the Bill. It would be a tragedy if the Bill were to affect its future performance or limit its facilities compared with other public service broadcasters. That is what the various amendments concerning S4C, to which I and other Members of the Committee have attached our names, wish to avoid. I am sure that that is supported by all parties. Our one endeavour is to ensure the future success of S4C.
As the noble Lord explained, the amendment is a paving amendment. It amends Section 57 of the 1990 Act. The noble Lord explained it far more lucidly than I could; I content myself with supporting him.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Geraint is not able to take part in this part of our discussions. The winter weather has probably prevented him from reaching us. I am an extremely inadequate substitute. However, I was fortunate enough to be chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority at the time S4C was launched. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in his tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. His active statesmanship in very difficult circumstances was responsible for helping to create S4C. Tribute is also due to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, who played a notable role in its creation.
I can say from my own general experience how much S4C has added to the richness and diversity of the United Kingdom broadcasting scene. A good programming tradition has been built up which has earned an international reputation for S4C and, through S4C, for United Kingdom broadcasting. Therefore, I am very happy to associate myself with what has been said generally about S4C.
From these Benches we support the amendment. S4C is in a very special position within the British broadcasting scene. In the face of very exciting but
170
slightly intimidating technological developments, S4C should be enabled to enjoy on equal terms the possibilities which arise from those developments. As the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said, it may not wish to take them up but it is very important in terms of its sense of self esteem that it should feel that it is on equal terms with other broadcasters and that it has available to it those possibilities. We support the amendment and other amendments on the same theme.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: From these Benches we support Amendment No. 11. I am pleased that Amendments Nos. 173 and 174 are being discussed with it because that makes sense. I must confess a previous lack of knowledge about S4C. I have been busily reading therefore the interesting debates which took place on the 1990 Act. I can well understand the need for the heavy lobbying from a small station like S4C. It says that it is doing a good job and, indeed, it is, according to the information I have. Why should it be subject to constraints? It would be sad to hold back S4C. The Bill is about opportunities, broadening choice and taking advantage of the new and exciting facilities which are available.
I wish to speak in particular to Amendments Nos. 173 and 174. Subsection (1A) makes clear that S4C will have to obtain the appropriate licences. It is not asking for a blank cheque to do what it wants. It will rightly have to comply with the provisions of the new broadcasting legislation. But S4C does not wish to be held back or discriminated against. It seeks to avail itself of all the opportunities. It is a small company but it has made a name for itself outside Wales. There is a big question mark as to whether the digital provision made for it is sufficient to allow it to produce the quality of broadcasting needed. If it feels that there is a market for satellite television, it should be able to take advantage of it.
I was pleasantly surprised to be told that although S4C is a Welsh language broadcaster it broadcasts beyond the border. It has been very successful commercially and critically. It has been successful in exporting such programmes as Shakespeare's animated tales and "Hedd Wyn", which was nominated for the best foreign film Oscar. Therefore, it is a small company which has attracted positive critical acclaim and produces good quality television programmes. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the three amendments.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: I am most grateful to those Members of the Committee who have spoken so helpfully about the amendment, which, as has been described, would allow S4C to hold licences from the ITC to broadcast extra digital programme services or to broadcast via satellite. I can assure the Committee that I am sympathetic to the need properly to investigate whether anything further should be done to free S4C to exploit the opportunities of digital broadcasting, but that must be done carefully and with due regard to the nature of the remit which S4C has and to the funding relationship between its public service channel and any new service it might introduce.

171
My amendments seek to clarify the nature of S4C's qualifying service, and, as such, meet many of the objectives of these amendments. I am happy to assure the Committee that we shall pursue sympathetically with S4C itself any further issues surrounding S4C's use of digital frequencies. We shall bring forward further amendments if we are convinced of the case. In the light of that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendments.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for the tone and content of his response and to other Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. I well remember the days of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, as chair of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, as it then was, and of the discussions that took place before the establishment of S4C.
As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, emphasised, the issue is a non-party political one, and I am pleased that it is. I am grateful also for the detailed way the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, has pursued the issues of Welsh broadcasting since she has been leading for the Labour opposition on the Bill. I know that that is greatly appreciated. It is matched by the championship of sport by her noble colleague. In the spirit of the Minister's response and willingness to discuss the matter, I shall not press the amendment. We are grateful to him within the authority and the other media organisations in Wales for the way in which his department has continued a long dialogue with the authority and broadcasters. I hope that that will continue, and that it bears further fruit as we progress on the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 31, at end insert—
("(4) If the Welsh Authority notify the Commission, within the period of one month beginning with the commencement of this section, of their intention to provide S4C Digital, S4C Digital shall be a qualifying service for the purposes of this Part.").
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 31, at end insert
("(5) In subsection (2) "programme" does not include an advertisement.").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 65 and 224. My fourth amendment to Clause 2 inserts at the end a new subsection (5). My second amendment after Clause 25 and my amendment to Clause 89 are also part of this story, and I hope that we can take them together.
The amendments are designed to allow the existing terrestrial broadcasters to include different advertisements in their simulcast digital services. We know that getting digital terrestrial television off the ground will be an expensive business. There therefore seems no good reason to stop broadcasters from raising income from the sale of advertising space on their
172
digital services separately from their analogue services, if they should wish to do so. In the early stages of rollout, they may well judge that the digital air time may provide different advertising opportunities for commercials targeted at different groups of consumers. The Bill as drafted would prevent that, and we have taken steps to correct that anomaly.
The amendment to Clause 2 therefore excludes advertisements from the simulcast requirement for all qualifying services. The insertion after Clause 25 provides for Sections 8 and 9 of the 1990 Act (which cover general provisions as to advertisements and the control of advertisements) to apply to any new advertisements included in qualifying services other than S4C Digital, which is covered by the application to it of Section 60 of the 1990 Act by dint of my first amendment after Clause 25. The amendment to Clause 89 simply adds qualifying services, other than S4C Digital, to the definition of a "licensed service". S4C Digital will, of course, be provided without a licence from the ITC by the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority under its powers derived from the 1990 Act. I beg to move.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [General licence conditions]:
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 32, after first ("Act") insert ("or under section 21 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995").
The noble Baroness said: I am moving the amendment in the absence of my noble friend Lord Ashley. It inserts into the Bill a reference to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which went through this place recently. We believe that it is in keeping with the Bill's philosophy of dealing with equal treatment for people. It makes sense to include it, because there is a specific reference to people with disabilities. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I see that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has arrived, and he may wish to support his noble friend.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I wish to support the amendment moved by my noble friend. I have no doubt that she spoke eloquently. She will have explained that the amendment's purpose is to enable the ITC to include conditions which it feels are appropriate in the licences it grants. The amendment draws attention to the duties imposed on providers of services by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It will emphasise to all future ITC executives the need to observe that important Act.
Disabled people have campaigned forcefully for anti-discrimination legislation. They have won some rewards, largely because of the justice of their cause. The Act did not give them all that they sought and all that they desired. We made that clear in this place and another place. It is essential to have something on the statute book to ensure that what is given is acted upon.

173
I hope that the Minister will take that point. That is the main purpose of the amendment to the provisions of that Act. I know that it is an Act of Parliament, but the point of the amendment is to highlight those provisions, especially as they relate to broadcasting.
The key part of the Act is Section 21, which provides:
"Where a provider of services has a practice, policy or procedure which makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled persons to make use of a service which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to other members of the public, it is his duty to take such steps as it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to have to take in order to change that practice, policy or procedure so that it no longer has that effect".
It is important to place that on record in this debate, because we all recognise the importance of broadcasting in our society. I suspect that, if the great majority of people in this country were isolated upon a desert island with their discs, they would choose to take as their luxury item a television set that gave them British television.
Deaf, hard of hearing, and visually impaired people are no different from others. They want to share in the good and bad of television, the serious and the trivial, the sport, the quizzes, the news and the soaps. They want to be part of a world in which what people talk about in the office, pub or shop the following day is what was on television the previous night. Technology now enables them to do that on terrestrial television, thanks to sub-titling, signing and audio description for sight-impaired people.
It is essential that, as technology advances and we move into the digital age, those with a sensory disability advance as well. I wish to conclude by suggesting to the Minister that whether they recognise that the level of provision is deemed "reasonable" is a matter for debate. Later amendments are relevant to that. For now, the principle of equal access for all those for whom it is technically possible should be firmly established. The amendment seeks to achieve that.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for in his customary manner arguing so forcefully the interests of the disabled. It goes without saying that we warmly welcome the Disability Discrimination Act. I am aware that the provisions of the Act, and in particular Section 21, will apply to broadcasters just as they apply to other service providers.
However, I must confess that I see little that would be gained from writing these provisions into the current Bill or into the licence conditions of the ITC's licensees since by definition they apply already to those licence holders. As a general rule, using two statutes where one will do, would seem to be something worth avoiding. I hope that having replied to the matter in the Chamber I have made clear the position and have underscored the rules as they apply to broadcasters. In view of that explanation I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: The Minister will know that deaf, hard of hearing and blind people were anxious for the matter to be raised. The Minister is regarded as one
174
of the most co-operative in the House and in view of what he said I happily beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FAIR TRADING
(".—(1) In exercising any of his powers or duties under this Part the Director General of Fair Trading shall in particular take into consideration whether any situation operates, or may be expected to operate, against the public interest.
(2) In determining for any purposes to which this section applies whether any particular situation operates, or may be expected to operate, against the public interest, the Director of Fair Trading shall take into account all matters which appear to him in the particular circumstances to be relevant.").
The noble Lord said: The new clause is not easy to read but it has great relevance to the issue and is made more prescient by today's developments. It is clear that the Director General of Fair Trading is very important in the regulation of the whole industry in order to ensure, first, that there are no improper practices and, secondly, in order to maintain that the public interest is always secured. That is the intention of the new clause because we are advised that it is not properly secured in the Bill at present.
I do not imagine that it is the Government's intention that the public interest should not be taken fully into account but that is the view of legal advisers and others even closer to the regulatory activities. Therefore, we are trying to help the Government. If they see a way of drafting the provision more helpfully we would be receptive to that.
In order to ensure that the Director General of Fair Trading is legally obliged to consider the public interest in exercising his powers and duties under the proposed legislation it is essential that that should be an express, mandatory, specific requirement of the Bill. That is not to say that the director general will not take into account the public interest. Even without such an express requirement he might decide to do so. Indeed, if the matter went to court it might be construed that it was his duty to do so and was implied.
However, we are advised and believe that it would be helpful to the regulatory authority if the Bill contained an express requirement. All uncertainty would be avoided by making it clear in the Bill that there was a legal obligation on the director general to consider the public interest when exercising his statutory powers and duties.
Requiring him to do that does not mean that he will ignore other relevant considerations. The public interest is only one consideration. Nor does the proposal mean that the public interest will override other considerations. However, as a result of discussions within the industry we are all aware that broadcasting is not an ordinary trading commodity such as hogs or potatoes; it is a special area in which society has a great interest because of the cultural and political significance of broadcasting. Therefore, there is always a public interest and one which might be

175
ignored or betrayed if matters were left only to the market. The market does not have to take into account public interest. We believe that it is not the view of the whole Committee that market forces alone should be involved but that the public interest should be taken into account. We are advised that it is most desirable that there should be an obligation on the director general to take into account the public interest. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. The changes that the Bill presupposes in the broadcasting world, the multi-channel world of digital technology, and the changes in ownership which are also contained in the Bill have created a situation in which the public interest as regards those issues will be significant. At a later stage in Committee I shall seek to move amendments relating to media ownership but I prefer not to lay down percentage rules that are too rigid and to keep as free as possible the circumstances in which the market place can operate. I believe that we should apply to that a rigid test as regards where the public interest lies. In such circumstances, it would frequently fall to the Director General of Fair Trading in the first instance to express a judgment about where the public interest lies. Therefore, it is important to have a description of his duty in the Bill. I do not know whether the wording of the proposed new clause will command the Minister's support but the purpose behind it is important. I am happy to give strong support to the amendment.
Lord Inglewood: I am extremely grateful to noble Lords for explaining their support for the amendment. It is obviously the case that as regards broadcasting the Director General of Fair Trading has no specific duties under the Broadcasting Act. While there might be disagreement about the nuances, there is clear agreement across the Committee that we must deal with this part of the economy in a manner different from the way in which we deal with hogs and potatoes. The Government's approach is that the specific separate controls on broadcasting, the media and so forth, if and when needed, should be policed by the ITC and the Radio Authority and not by the Director General of Fair Trading.
We would be happy to consider any specific proposals supported by argument as to why that might be appropriate. I say that not necessarily holding out hope that the Government might be persuaded that this is a direction in which they wish to move but in order to investigate fully whether there are those who feel that this is a constructive contribution to the way in which the Bill might go. We would like to look at the matter in order to form our own view of the merits of the proposal. It is fortunate for the noble Lord, Lord
176
Donoughue, that we have a consultation process under way and we shall be delighted to hear about the particulars of his case.
Lord Donoughue: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am intrigued to know that one more difficult and technical area of consultation is added to the 132 that have already been taken on board for the next two weeks. I should be grateful if he would pursue the matter. I shall be as helpful as possible and provide him with background material. I think that the provision would be welcome in proper quarters. If the Minister comes back with a proposal at the next stage we will look upon it most positively. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 17:
Before Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
DUTY OF APPROPRIATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY WHEN AWARDING
LICENCE
(".—(1) It shall be the duty of the appropriate regulatory authority when licensing any person or body to operate a conditional access system, network, local delivery service or other service for analogue or digital broadcasting services receivable in the United Kingdom, to ensure that—

(a) there is fair and effective competition in the provision of such services and the access services connected with them, and

(a) viewers and listeners are provided with automatic access to free to air channels and services whether or not those channels and services are broadcast free to air or encrypted.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 18. The future of British broadcasting will be dependent upon the continuing health of Britain's network channels. Network programmes will continue to provide the foundation for Britain's television production industry with the consequent impact for employment and, indeed, for overseas earnings. It will also continue to provide the foundation for audiences continuing to have access to a wide range of high quality output and British programmes being shown on secondary channels. More important, however, is the maintenance of the worldwide reputation of British broadcasting.
The survival of network television in Britain is dependent upon its services being available to a truly nationwide audience. However, in the digital age, programmes and other audiovisual services will increasingly be distributed through a variety of systems. People can now choose whether to buy into the available cable networks. Industry predictions indicate that as many as 30 per cent. of homes will use cable systems to receive television services by the year 2000. In addition, as the use of our telephone system opens up the option of having television pictures down copper wires, more and more viewers will choose to leave the old rooftop aerials and set-top aerials and opt solely for cable and telephony means. Those are healthy developments. We are not trying to push them back. Genuine choice is making many more services available to more viewers. Often the quality of reception is better. We welcome those opportunities. But unless action as

177
outlined in the amendment is taken, both the availability and the future of existing public service channels will come under threat. The erosion of their universality would undermine the basis of the BBC's funding through a universal licence fee and the public service obligations already imposed on ITV and Channel 4.
The issue has been addressed in other countries. The mainstream broadcasters regret that the Broadcasting Bill is silent on the topic. They believe that action should be taken in the UK to ensure that British audiences continue to have universal access to public service channels in the digital age. The proposed amendments reflect a number of important measures. The so-called "must carry" and "must offer" requirements are the ones to which I am talking. They would ensure that access is maintained. The "must carry" measure would apply to public service channels and services on wired systems, and "must offer" would guarantee access to public service channels through gateways such as conditional access —black boxes —on satellite systems.
An interesting situation has arisen for users of cable services in south-east London. Many households have opted to use the cable services provided by Videotron. The area is directly in the shadow of the Crystal Palace transmitter. But local hills mean that the TV pictures received in homes with roof aerials have been of poor quality for many years. Shadowy pictures and poor reception have driven hundreds of homes to choose Videotron in order to obtain good pictures. Up to December 1995, buttons 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the hand control unit enabled people to receive BBC1, BBC2, 1TV and Channel 4, but, in January, Videotron chose to lake Channel 4 off the fourth button and move access to it from within the cable system alone.
Viewers in south London must now find button 40 in order to get Channel 4. Nothing has replaced Channel 4 other than a blank Videotron display card stating that the station is no longer available. That exemplifies the issue. The lack of legal requirements on cable or any other providers to give the mainstream channels priority means that they could drop BBC1, BBC2, ITV and Channel 4 at will and move around access to those channels with no regard to the problems that might be caused for viewers.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 seek to put right a situation which needs clarity and regulation. If the public are obliged to pay a licence fee to receive television pictures, they must have access to those pictures with ease. On Second Reading I alluded to the BBC Charter which obliges the BBC to carry government information at times of war or in a national emergency. That requirement is obvious, necessary and makes sound common sense. If we are to be consistent to that requirement in the charter, then all delivery systems should be obliged to carry and offer mainstream services. The amendments protect the healthy availability of the four terrestrial channels. I urge the
178
Government to accept the principle and the detail of the amendments and to incorporate them in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I support the amendments. They ensure that in a multi-channel environment publicly funded channels are available as a matter of course without viewers having to buy additional equipment. The provision applies to all delivery systems, a most important point.
Two basic truths have prompted the amendments. First, it is far too easy for the legislature to fail to anticipate future developments, especially where technology is concerned. Indeed, some of us are rather frightened of technology; I know that I am. We tend to shy away from it. It is easy for the legislature to look away. Secondly, parliamentary time is by no means always available to remedy omissions. The lesson is that we should play safe on important issues. That is what the amendments are designed to do.
I have to say that the Minister gave a most disappointing response to the noble Baroness when she raised the issue on Second Reading. He said that,
"it is only after an eventual switch-off of analogue that it possible, even in theory, that householders … would be unable to receive the services of existing terrestrial [sets]" —[Official Report, 16/1/96; col. 563.]
The Minister went on to talk about the "strong possibility" of the development of "set-top boxes" which would receive all modes of transmission. Although he said that that was a strong possibility, it is still only a possibility and not a probability. That is an important point. Let us suppose that the development does not take place. Even if it does, what if the owners of cable or satellite decide that it is in their commercial interests to squeeze out the terrestrial programmes? That is very probable because commercial interests come first.
The requirements of "must offer", "must carry" and also of "open access", which are reflected in the amendments, make this a matter of public interest. Such requirements would guarantee that our present terrestrial programmes were available to viewers whatever the future developments and without the need for future legislation. Television has to be paid for in some way or another, but the best bargain of all now —and it is likely to remain so —must be the BBC's programmes when one thinks of the cost of the licence fee. That must remain the basic fixture of television for the foreseeable future. The amendments are about preventing the possibility of any operator squeezing out the BBC, which is the best television bargain in the world.
I know that the Government have not said that they do not want the continuation of current terrestrial programmes. I accept that fact. Nevertheless, the Government are simply sitting on their hands and doing nothing to ensure the future of current terrestrial programmes. I cannot believe that the Government are unaware of the risks. I hope the Minister will look favourably and sympathetically at the amendments.
7 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: As I have added my name to these amendments I wish briefly to express my support

179
for them. They have been admirably explained and I shall not discuss them further. However, I believe it is important to ensure that British audiences can continue to have universal access to public services in this digital age. In the absence of a "must offer" obligation on satellite providers, homes that otherwise are dependent on satellite for digital reception would find themselves paying for, but being unable to view, public funded services. I believe that that matter needs attention.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood in his address at the end of the first amendment talked about a measured balance being required in the competition between the different forms of television. I believe that that is true in this case. I believe that these amendments will contribute to that measured balance for which he is asking and I very much hope that the Government will support these amendments and the principle embodied in them.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: The noble Baroness has raised an important matter. I wait with great interest to hear what the Minister has to say. I heard what the noble Baroness said about Sydenham Hill; that is the area from where the television is broadcast that my grandchildren watch.
Something is worrying me that I had not realised could go on. However, I am conscious of the fact that I am in my dotage and that my knowledge of these things relates to the past. I thought the "must carry" rule was firmly applied by the appropriate authorities and I thought that the cable authority was put under that obligation when it was merged into the new ITC. I believed that the "must carry" rule was rigidly applied. I am rather worried by what the noble Baroness said. She has raised an important matter and I hope that the Minister gives us a satisfactory reply to that.
Viscount Chelmsford: I rise merely to ask the noble Baroness where it is stated that the amendments are restricted to public service broadcasting. It looks to me as though they go much wider.
Baroness O'Cathain: My noble friend referred to public service broadcasting. When I considered this whole issue I thought that public service broadcasting comprised just the BBC because that is the body which is publicly funded by the licence fee. However, I realised that the term "public service broadcasting" includes ITV, Channel 4, and will include Channel 5.
Lord Donoughues: We on this side had assumed earlier that this matter would be discussed at a more prime part of the day as it is an issue that we consider to be of considerable importance. I must confess that until the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, spoke on the matter at Second Reading I had missed it altogether. I do not count myself a great expert on the matter but I believe it is an issue of great importance that the "must carry" and "must offer" rules and obligations should be there.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, I am troubled that this area might be unsatisfactory and fragile. If we cannot deal with this matter satisfactorily this evening, it is absolutely the kind of issue that we should wish to return to at another point. I hope that the Minister
180
will be able to reassure us. It seems to me that this matter is on a quite different level and scale from many of the important but nitty bitty nuts and bolts that we deal with. This is an important issue.
Lord Inglewood: I wish to begin by making it absolutely clear to my noble friend that the Government are in full agreement with the aims behind her amendment. We want the services of existing public service broadcasters to continue to he available to all of the people of the United Kingdom. Indeed, that is one of the key principles on which our proposals for digital terrestrial television are based. We also want to ensure that the providers of all conditional access, multiplex and other services must provide services in a non-discriminatory manner to all those who seek to use them. This is important because those providers may exercise a "gatekeeping function" whereby broadcasters depend on their services in order to get their programmes to viewers.
I believe that our proposals will achieve both of those aims. If I may, I shall discuss the first of the amendments referring to access to free-to-air channels and to requirements for local delivery service operators to carry public service broadcasters. I shall begin by giving a general exposition of the position and then address some of the particular points that the noble Baroness raised. As I said at Second Reading, analogue terrestrial television services will not be switched off until the vast majority of viewers has acquired digital receiving equipment. Until then, households with television sets will continue to be able to receive the BBC and Channels 3, 4 and 5 in the same way as they do now. Those with digital sets will also be able to receive new services provided via the guaranteed digital capacity which will be offered to all existing broadcasters. And there is, of course, a strong possibility —given the clear consumer interest in such a development I think we may even call it a likelihood —that by the time analogue is switched off the industry will have developed receivers able to receive all three modes of transmission: terrestrial, cable and satellite. Even if that is not the case —and may I remind the Committee that we are probably talking, at the earliest, about the end of the first decade of the next century —and even if some households in the future have access to digital cable or satellite receivers but not to terrestrial ones, there will be every incentive for providers of cable and satellite transmission services to ensure that the public service channels are carried and that no separate charge is made to receive them. In practice, I understood that all cable companies with current franchises currently choose to carry the services of terrestrial broadcasters, without the need for statutory provision. This has been, and continues to be, important for them in gaining customers in their new markets. Indeed, the statutory requirements introduced in the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 were removed in 1990 in recognition of this fact. Certainly, as a deregulatory Government, we would need considerable persuasion to reintroduce that. After all, much more capacity is becoming available on digital cable, and there seems no reason to believe cable companies will not continue to carry the public service broadcasters as long as they continue to produce the quality programmes for which they are renowned. Those channels obviously will

181
be a significant attraction for viewers, so the BBC and other channels have a strong hand. The new cable services will need to carry their programming in order to develop or sustain market share. Indeed, I would not expect viewers to give up their terrestrial aerials unless they are assured by the companies providing other means of reception that they will continue to receive the public service channels. And, in the area of digital terrestrial television, the existing channels will, of course, themselves be given over to multiplex provision.
However, having said all that, I wish to repeat the assurance I gave to the Committee. The Government are committed to monitoring the situation as it develops.
I was most interested to hear what my noble friend had to say about Videotron. I must concede that I am unaware of the detail of the circumstances surrounding this case. I shall obviously want to look into that before returning to that point. If we could follow up that matter it would he most helpful. I have given an assurance that if something appears to require monitoring we should, as a first step, look into what is going on. We start undoubtedly from a position where we are unconvinced by the particular proposals contained in the amendment. However, I hope that the Committee will allow me to look further into the matter that was drawn to my attention this evening.
Lord Donoughue: Before the Minister sits down I hope that he can help me a little more on the matter of the switch-off date. I accept that we are discussing a technology that could take off like a rocket and be with us in no time or could be 20 years in arriving. At some point a difficult decision may have to be taken as regards the switch-off date for analogue. My understanding is that that could happen at a time when a significant proportion of the nation would not have access —or could not afford to have access —to digital services. I understand that the digital multiplexes have varying ranges. Therefore, there may be areas of the nation that were not covered, as it were. Does not that combination possibly lead to a situation in which people will not be receiving these services? All the monitoring that the Minister talks about may not secure those services. Can the Minister assure me that, in view of all the uncertainties, the analogue switch-off will not result in an unsatisfactory situation?
Lord Inglewood: First, in relation to the noble Lord's point about timing and the possible analogue switch-off, we shall come to amendments dealing with that subject later, and therefore I do not want to go into it in detail. However, it is the Government's policy that the matter should be reviewed after five years or when 50 per cent. of households are capable of receiving digital broadcasts, to establish whether that is an appropriate time for a date for analogue switch-off to be determined. I speak from memory, and I hope that I quote policy accurately. It is intended that analogue switch-off will take place only when the same number of households can receive digital broadcasts as can currently receive analogue broadcasts. In general terms, the basic coverage for digital broadcasts should be as extensive as it is for analogue broadcasts.
The noble Lord referred to the fact that some multiplexes will have wider coverage than others. The important point to appreciate within the debate is that
182
those multiplexes which have the widest coverage are those to which the public service broadcasters will be attached. Therefore, it is the public service broadcasters with whom we are concerned in the context of the amendment who will have the widest coverage. Therefore, we believe that the problem that the noble Lord identified will not arise.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I welcome the Minister's assurance about monitoring. However, suppose that in the course of the monitoring the Minister finds that things are going wrong. Can he tell the Committee what he would do and what powers he has to do anything if the amendment is not carried?
Lord Inglewood: The answer to that question depends on what is going wrong. I believe that we can realistically predict with a degree of certainty in this uncertain world that further legislation on broadcasting will come forward with relative regularity. Were it then to become apparent that something was awry, that would be the time to introduce legislation to give effect to the appropriate steps.
Baroness O'Cathain: I thank my noble friend for his reassurance that he will look at the matter. He said that if something goes wrong the Government will look at it. I suggest that something has gone awry. Matters began to go awry when the statutory requirement was removed in the 1990 legislation.
My noble friend tried to give me some comfort by saying that the satellite and cable companies are continuing to carry BBC1, BBC2, ITV and Channel 4. However, the Minister conceded that that was what I see as a marketing ploy. That gives me no comfort that that situation will continue. I had discussions with one of the satellite television companies at which I made that very point. When I was asked why I was putting forward the amendments, I said that I was worried about whether the public service broadcast channels would continue to be carried. The reply was, "We will continue to carry them provided we are paid for them". That is not in the spirit of what the Government want.
Monitoring is all very well, but if there were a statutory requirement on the face of the Bill there would be no need to monitor the position because it would become apparent if the requirement was not complied with.
Having said that, I am not in favour of regulation but want as much deregulation as possible. However, I believe that in this case we should have another look at the position. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for saying that he will look at the position again. I hope that he will do so before Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Assignment of frequencies by Secretary of State]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington: It may be appropriate to suggest that the Committee stage of the Bill be

183
adjourned now during pleasure until 8.15 p.m. Would that suit the Committee? We thought that Amendment No. 19 would be moved.
Lord Donoughue: We too thought that Amendment No. 19 would be moved. I believe that we have reached a suitable moment to adjourn. The next amendment to be moved may take a little while. Therefore, it is probably better if, as the noble Baroness suggests, we adjourn until 8.15 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: In that case, I beg to move that the House do now resume and that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.15 p.m.
House resumed.

Agriculture: Health & Safety Responsibilities
7.16 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are the statutory duties of the Health and Safety Executive and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure that employers and employees carrying out exclusively agricultural operations are kept informed of, and adequately advised on, matters relating to health and safety.
The noble Countess said: In asking the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest. I have been exposed to organophosphate sheep dip and believe that I suffer chronic ill health as a result.
There are a number of provisions which govern the approval, licensing, advertising, use and disposal of toxic chemicals used in agriculture. The legislation defines the responsibility of the pesticide and veterinary medicine manufacturers, government departments and employers to ensure that those chemicals present no risk to the health of humans, animals or the environment if properly used.
The prime responsibility lies with the end user. It is my contention, and the reason I have tabled this Question, that an individual cannot make a full and proper assessment as required under the COSHH regulations unless he is provided with the information he needs to make that assessment. It is the user's perception of the risk which governs his actions.
OP pesticides are poisons which act on the central nervous system. Of the three which are active ingredients in sheep dips, the World Health Organisation classifies chlorfenvinphos as Class IA (extremely hazardous); diazinon as Class II (moderately hazardous); and propetamphos as Class III (slightly hazardous). Diazinon dips are the most commonly used.
The Farmers Weekly of 7th and 21st May 1965 carried full-page advertisements stating:
"Boots New Diazinon Dip is completely safe",
and,
"Nucidol Diazinon Dip: Proved safe. Proved effective".
When organochlorine dips were found to leave residues in the food chain and the soil, the OP dips which replaced them were promoted as safer and more environmentally friendly.
When MAFF introduced national dipping orders in 1976, farmers were required to dip their sheep once a year until 1985, twice yearly until 1990 and once yearly until the orders were rescinded in 1992. To all intents and purposes they were compelled to use OPs, for of more than 20 MAFF-approved dips only two were non-OP, and they were nearly twice the price of the others.
Farmers' perception of OP dips, conditioned by advertising and articles in the farming press, was that they were safe. Recommendations for protective clothing were minimal. Rubber gloves included in some dip packs soon perished after contact with the phenolic disinfectant. Not until 1994 were manufacturers required to put a skull-and-crossbones symbol on dip containers to warn of toxicity. Dippers instinctively discarded clothing if the weather was hot and wiped sweating brows with dip-soaked arms, for they knew no better. They made no connection between the flu-like symptoms which developed after dipping and the chemicals that they were using, and certainly did not think that the symptoms warranted a visit to the doctor.
When many developed delayed symptoms such as overwhelming tiredness after minor exertion, muscle pain and weakness, joint pain, chest pain with breathing difficulties and sudden mood changes, they began to be concerned. GPs, untrained in chemical toxicology, either subjected patients to batteries of irrelevant tests which proved negative and decided patients were psychosomatics, or regarded them as psychotic. At best they had ME.
As far back as 1951, Solly Zuckerman, later Lord Zuckerman, chaired a working party which investigated the health effects on workers using dinitro and organophosphorus compounds in agricultural sprays. This was before the advent of OP sheep dips. It made a number of important observations and recommendations. These included simplifying labelling and including the words "Deadly poison" in large letters on containers. It said that it was "imperative" that all concerned be thoroughly educated in the dangers and precautions which should be taken when using these compounds. They recognised that there was no material which combined imperviousness to these chemicals while allowing proper ventilation of the body. Most significantly, it found that repeated low level exposures could result in chronic effects on human health.
The Health and Safety Commission is under the duty to,
"make such arrangements as it considers appropriate for securing that government departments, employers, employees, organisations representing employers and employees respectively and any other person concerned with matters relevant to any of these purposes are provided with an information and advisory service and are kept informed and adequately advised on such matters".
Those matters are:
"Health, safety and welfare in connection with work and control of dangerous substances and emissions into the atmosphere".
My first question to the Minister is this. Why did not the Health and Safety Commission consider it appropriate to advise and inform farmers of the inherent dangers of these substances?
The inactivity of the HSC and the HSE in 1988 when a senior employment medical adviser presented a paper to officers of the HSE and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate is unforgivable. This doctor, who encouraged farmers to come forward at a public meeting and through a television appeal, promised to report his findings to the HSE. He described persistent, delayed symptoms in a group of about 40 farmers and MAFF inspectors. He described multi-system involvement typical of OP exposure, uptake and toxicity. He found that a significant route of absorption was by inhalation, as the inspectors would not have had skin exposure. Also, for other toxic substances such as lead and mercury, the HSE correlates uptake with symptoms and does not rely on measurement of an effect in ascribing cause and effect relationships. The measurement of cholinesterase activity, which is affected by OPs, was by this time becoming discredited. Manufacturers' toxicity tests on animals used urine metabolites as a measure of uptake at least since the early 1980s.
Can the noble Lord the Minister tell me why those tests were not recommended by the HSE to GPs and consultants? Much of the literature which discusses symptoms of OP exposure, including the 1980 version of the HSE guidance note MS17, notes the limitations of reliance upon measurement of blood cholinesterase activity to assess uptake.
The HSE again failed to act upon —in fact, it actively suppressed —a field research project conducted by another EMAS doctor, Carol Davison. In 1990 she found that sheep dippers who were wearing protective clothing had metabolites associated with diazinon in their urine after dipping —an indication that the dippers had, despite their protective clothing, absorbed the OP. Both reports were rejected because they relied to some extent on comments made by their subjects, and consequently they lacked scientific methodology. If a patient does not tell his doctor his symptoms or the cause of his injury, how is the doctor to make a diagnosis?
By 1991 there was increasing evidence of ill health in the agricultural community. Self-help groups were receiving numerous requests for help and advice from sufferers and their families. I ask the Minister why no one from MAFF, the Health and Safety Executive or the Department of Health has ever sought to question or clinically examine a group of reported sufferers to substantiate departmental assertions that the symptoms are diverse and attributable to a number of other causes and that there is no evidence that long term, low level exposure to OPs causes chronic ill health?
Further research by the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh in 1992 and 1993 confirmed that OP metabolites were found in dippers' urine whether or not protective clothing was worn. The HSE contracted with the Institute of Occupational Health in Birmingham a study into the neuropsychological effects of long-term exposure to organophosphates in sheep dip. The group had conducted previous studies for the HSE and ICI and
186
its methodology was established. After the contract was made, there were two meetings with HSE staff to refine the protocol. A member of the HSE was on the steering group which monitored progress throughout. This person also represents the HSE on the Veterinary Products Committee. The researchers had no reason to believe that there were any serious reservations about the study by the HSE. I was assured in Written Answers in 1994 that the study was based on good science and that the control group was accepted. The results of this research, published in the Lancet in May 1995 after peer review by an eminent British psychologist and an equally eminent US scientist, received glowing references. The paper has since been accepted internationally.
The researchers found that there was damage to farmers and that there was a dose relationship. Despite all this, the VPC rejected the results of the report in a manner which has been described as disgraceful. Will the Minister state how many members of the VPC have a competent knowledge of neuro-behavioural testing methods and outcomes? Why have the Birmingham researchers not been given the opportunity to defend their integrity in the proper place —the scientific journals?
OPs are now extensively used in agriculture and in domestic situations. There is very little in the literature on the effects on human health of long-term, low-level exposure. We are told that OPs are too toxic to test on humans and maximum levels of exposure are arbitrarily set. We know that different species of animals respond differently to different doses, and yet the results from animal tests are extrapolated to humans. We know that the observed differences in anecdotal reports of human exposure may be genetic or caused by nutritional variations. We know that inhalation is a major route of absorption for many OPs. They are popular because they retain their toxicity to pests for long periods —more than 10 weeks in a lamb's fleece —but we do not know what effect this persistence has on unwary adults and children who may come into contact with them.
We are now in a situation where neither the manufacturers nor the HSE nor the Minister will recommend protective clothing which is both practical and effective. Why is it that, in the face of overwhelming scientific and anecdotal evidence, no government Minister will order that OPs should be available only to licensed users from restricted outlets? Why does the HSE persist in blaming the farmer?
There is a great deal more which needs to be said, but time does not allow. Perhaps I may end with a significant quotation. Dr. T.C. Marrs, senior medical officer at the Department of Health, adviser to Ministers and government committees, and co-author of the current source book Clinical and Experimental Toxicology of Organophosphates and Carbonates said at a meeting of farmers in October 1991, "You don't have to convince me there is long-term damage. I know it". My Lords, why has he not told Ministers?
7.28 p.m.
Lord Blyth: My Lords, I have had brought to my attention recently a number of cases where the Health and Safety Executive does not seem to have conducted

187
field investigations as early as might be necessary to establish the cause of illness which could he associated with misuse of agricultural chemicals. Where it has investigated, there seem to have been attempts to minimise the effect that this misuse might have had. For example, Mr. Richard Bruce of Thorley in the Isle of Wight was ordered by his foreman to empty a spray tank containing what was an unidentified chemical, later found to be pirimiphos methyl which had been standing for several months. After doing this both he and the foreman were unwell and experienced breathing difficulties and severe headaches. Nine or 10 days later, Mr. Bruce was asked to repair the drain in the yard on to which the chemical had been spilled. He worked for a couple of days after that but was obviously so unwell that the foreman told him to stay at home. He has not been able to work since January 1992. His doctors attempted to improve his health, to no avail. They were unaware of the effects of chemical exposure and did not know what tests or treatment should be carried out.
Mr. Bruce contacted the HSE in Basingstoke for advice and information in June 1992. He was told that the new COSHH regulations required the HSE to investigate and that the Employment Medical Advisory Service doctors would help with the tests. At that stage Mr. Bruce did not lodge a formal complaint as he was not absolutely certain that the chemicals were the cause of his illness. Like so many others, he was afraid that he might lose his job and his house. As he had not heard from the HSE, Mr. Bruce contacted PEGS who advised him to ask his GP to refer him to the National Poisons Unit at Guy's Hospital. There, organophosphates were confirmed as the cause of his poisoning and he was advised to complain formally to the HSE, which he did. At no time did the HSE inspectors visit either Mr. Bruce or the farm where he worked specifically to investigate the incident.
There follows a long saga of unsatisfactory contacts extending over three years with the HSE, NPU, the Pesticides Incidents Appraisal Panel, his MP and the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Initially, Mr. Bruce had hoped that the HSE would simply advise his employer how to avoid dangerous practices. He was particularly concerned because the yard was open to the public, including children. When he knew that his illness and inability to work were the result of his exposure to the OP, he felt that he should try to obtain compensation not only for himself but for his family. It is apparent that things started to go severely awry when a High Court writ was issued in November 1994. The NPU withdrew the diagnosis of OP poisoning in a letter to the HSE, copied to Mr. Bruce's GP on 2nd December 1994, while, very strangely, confirming the diagnosis to the Benefits Agency in a letter of the same date. The HSE assured the Ombudsman and Mr. Bruce's MP that they had kept Mr. Bruce fully informed at all stages. Mr. Bruce is a meticulous record keeper and those statements do not seem to tie in with the facts.
Mr. Bruce is now left in a state of limbo. Because his case was not thoroughly investigated at the time when he reported the incidents which led to his illness he has no evidence and is unable to proceed with his claim for damages. He has tried frequently to establish what are the
188
duties of the HSE to investigate and what action it is required to take. He is now in a position where HSE refuses to answer his correspondence.
There is another case of a lady on the Isle of Wight, Mrs. Constance Bradford. In September 1990 she was caught in spray drift and by the evening was feeling very ill. Her GP notes state:
"Sudden onset of Vertigo, tinnitus, vomiting, nystagmus and blood pressure 180/130".
Her GP had her admitted as an emergency case; he thought she might have had a stroke. She was discharged from hospital four days later without any diagnosis. It was only later when she was in contact with spray drift and again felt unwell that she made the association. She contacted PEGS and was advised to report the farmer to the HSE. This she did in early 1994. In March 1995, the HSE wrote to her to say that her hospital notes stated that she had had acute labyrinthitis for three days before admission and that there was no connection with OP exposure. That was clearly an error, particularly in view of the GP notes, but HSE will do nothing more.
I have given just two examples. I understand that there is no legal requirement that HSE advise and inform all those mentioned. The duty of the Health and Safety commissioners to do so and to investigate incidents is discretionary. What is the view of the Government? How serious does an incident have to be before it is thoroughly investigated? What powers do health and safety inspectors and EMAS doctors have to inspect premises and obtain other evidence? If they are all discretionary, is there much point in a worker or member of the public reporting an incident? If not, what is the Government doing to encourage individuals affected by misused toxic chemicals to be aware of their health effects and to report promptly without fear of retribution? And will the Minister look into Mr. Bruce's case to see whether there can be a satisfactory resolution?
7.35 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Countess for having raised this subject once again in a speech which will be a brief if the unfortunate affair trickles on beyond tonight, which I rather hope it will not. It is time that we reached an end.
The noble Countess has been tireless in coming hack to your Lordships' House and asking the Government about the matter. She is absolutely right to do so. Section 15 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 lays down that the Secretary of State for Health has power to make regulations except as regards matters relating exclusively to agriculture. They are in the hands of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I believe that there is a need to clarify the responsibility. We are confronted with at least two government departments which should have some responsibility, plus the various agencies which have been established over a period of time.
As the noble Countess put it, the situation is that we are confronted with many reported cases of chronic OP poisoning. The recent Australian case with damages awarded in a court of law is an added piece of evidence. I do not believe that the noble Countess had time to

189
mention it. The dips are damaging and they should at least be classified as prescription products until the results of the Government's delayed researches are known. The Government's attempt to have a test and certification scheme has been an arrant failure. Scab is on the increase and the cost of alternative treatments is prohibitive.
There are many things that should be done and the noble Countess and my honourable friend Paul Tyler in another place have urged what they are. Ultimately, what is needed is the political will. In all matters of safety, a good Minister takes the bull by the horns and the ewe by the tail and does a hard and tough thing, no matter how much it costs.
The agricultural worker has been on the dirty end for the whole of history. It is time that we ensured that he or she does not suffer in this case any more than he or she has to. It is time that the Government decided not to treat this as something which can be passed from agency to agency, department to department, and research committee to research committee. It needs political will. An injustice has been and is being done, it is endangering people and must be cured.
7.38 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Countess for once again raising concerns about the health and safety of workers in agriculture. As usual, she has done her homework and clearly knows a great deal more about the problems than many of us.
In 1994–95 farm working became the number one killer of workers, even greater than the construction industry. Fifty-four deaths occurred in the agricultural sector during that year, 32 per cent. more than the previous year. Many Health and Safety Executive surveys have shown that the vast majority of workplace deaths are preventable; in other words, they have occurred because precautions that management could well have taken were simply not taken. But the deaths from major and minor accidents, many of which are under-reported in agriculture, are relatively few compared with the cases of ill health being suffered by those who work in this sector. Some examples have already been given by the noble Lord, Lord Blyth.
The HSE has stated that four out of 10 farmers reported health problems caused by their work, and one in three agricultural workers had to take time off as a result of health problems. Those problems include: pesticide poisoning, including of course organophosphate sheep dips, to which a number of noble Lords referred; diseases caught from animals, such as brucellosis, ringworm, etc.; breathing and chest problems arising from working in dusty and biologically active environments; noise and vibration injuries; repetitive strain injuries (RSI); back-ache and strain; dermatitis and other skin disorders; problems that arise from working in all weathers; long and unsocial work hours; isolation; and fear of BSE, which has recently arisen. The noble Countess has repeatedly raised in this House concerns about OP sheep dips.
190
The union to which many agricultural workers belong is pressing for the use of the dip to he banned in the interests of the health and safety of farm workers. It is stated that only one in 10 farmers has the legally required certificate of competence to use these sheep dips.
At a recent British Medical Association conference a spokesman for the NFU said that it had members reporting breathing difficulties, nausea, dizziness, and even paralysis. The NFU, he said, found this mounting evidence about OP dips and human health problems extremely worrying. The NFU has also expressed concern at what it describes as the steady reduction in the number of agricultural inspectors. It fears that current levels may be too low to provide an adequate level of assistance. They regard the provision of advice and assistance as crucial, particularly as health and safety legislation becomes increasingly complex. The NFU recently participated with the HE Agricultural Advisory Committee in a joint initiative to produce a model risk assessment for both agriculture and horticulture. Nevertheless, it remains concerned at the level of risk and says it is acutely aware of the increase in fatal accidents reported in 1995.
The Transport and General Workers' Union, representing agricultural workers, also voices its concern about the lack of inspectors. It says that a small farm will be inspected, on average, about once in 30 years. There is also concern about the level of penalties when breaches are identified. There is no prosecution for offences regarded by the HSE as trivial. The average fine for the serious criminal offence of breaking health and safety law is £3,000. That is in general cases. In agriculture, I am informed, the penalty is usually much less. Fines average £500, and are sometimes as little as £100 for serious, life-endangering incidents. The union believes that that is because the magistrates in farming areas are often farmers themselves or the golfing colleagues of farmers.
The union is calling for inspections of agricultural premises at least once a year, and immediately on the occurrence of a serious accident or case of industrial disease. It believes that if health and safety law is seriously broken, prosecution should be taken at a Crown Court and not the local magistrates' court.
Because of lack of union recognition in many agricultural establishments, there are few trade union safety representatives. It is commonly accepted in industry that the presence of trade union safety representatives is conducive to greater safety. The Transport and General Workers' Union therefore believes that the Government should modify the law to provide for roaming safety representatives for non-trade union recognised agricultural workplaces.
The union has also drawn attention to the fact that children often work on farms. Clearly they need special protection. It is felt that perhaps the HSE should initiate a study of children working on farms in order to try to protect them. The same goes to some extent for elderly people, since they often work on farms, particularly on family-owned farms.

191
Tractors and other moving farm equipment should be subject to an MOT. Many accidents on farms are due to poorly maintained moving equipment. There should be more academic research on occupational safety, health and environmental issues in agriculture. It is alleged that what there is at present is under-funded.
It is clear from the information received from a number of sources that much needs to be done to improve health and safety standards in this vital industry. Many employers in it are suffering the effects of pesticide poisoning, and many are dying as a result. They also suffer the effects of poorly maintained equipment, which causes accidents. These risks are in addition to the risk inherent in the industry resulting from contact with animals, weather conditions, and the unsocial hours and isolation that are part of the working environment.
As the noble Countess so eloquently said, work must be done to see that steps are taken to ensure that workers know how to enforce their statutory rights to health and safety protection. Again, I express gratitude to the noble Countess for sponsoring this important debate. I await with interest the response of the Minister.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to reply to this important debate, launched by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I had rather prepared myself to reply to the Question on the Order Paper. I am very glad to find that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, had done so, too. Accordingly, I shall direct the bulk of my remarks to that. I shall certainly pick up some specific points made during the debate but there were far too many for me to be able to reply to all the issues raised. I shall look through Hansard and write to noble Lords whose points I cannot deal with tonight.
The noble Countess knows the answer in some instances because I have replied to her previously. I find myself in disagreement with a great deal of what she had to say. I believe that I have provided her with honest, complete and satisfactory answers to many of the allegations she made. I am sorry that they are not acceptable to her. I shall repeat them in a letter to her in a week or so.
The noble Countess knows our position. After examining all the evidence, we see no clear evidence of chronic effects from non-acute exposures to OP dips or pesticides. However, we are conducting serious and expensive research to find out whether that is true. The noble Countess says we prevented the Institute of Health publishing a rebuttal of the problems we have with its research. That is not true. That is not our intention. We have no wish at all to prevent the Institute of Health publishing anything. I am concerned that the noble Countess has taken advantage of the debate to make a number of specific allegations to which I have no hope of replying and with which I disagree fundamentally.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, made but one specific allegation. I suspect that the noble Lord should have known, or at least his colleagues should, that it is entirely inaccurate. The specific case in Australia was
192
concerned with acute poisoning as a result of extremely bad practice by the farmer concerned. It had nothing whatever to do with the long-term chronic effects alleged by the noble Countess and others.
The noble Lord, Lord Blyth, raised a couple of specific cases. As I received no notice of them, I have no hope of replying. I shall certainly look into both and write the noble Lord a comprehensive letter as soon as I am able to. As to the general point he raised, the HSE has complete powers to enter, require information and require the modification or cessation of an activity but it cannot pursue or help with a civil case. I expect that that is an answer on which I shall also have to enlarge, and I will do so.
Health and safety law places the primary duty of care on employers and risk creators. They must make sure they have the knowledge needed to comply with it. But the Government do not leave them to their own devices. They have a major part to play in seeing where guidance is needed and in finding and filling the gaps. Indeed, the Health and Safety Commission has a direct statutory duty to do so, as set out in Section 11 of the Health and Safety at Work Act.
The Government have a number of tools at their disposal. They issue guidance in both written and video form; inspectors give face to face information and advice at the farm, as do the medical specialists of the Health and Safety Executive's medical advisory service. And there are special laws requiring that information is supplied with a range of dangerous products. For two classes of chemicals of particular interest in agriculture, pesticides and organophosphorus sheep dips, there are certificate of competence schemes to ensure that pesticide users and purchasers of dipping chemicals achieve an adequate level of knowledge. That provides the appropriate level of protection and regulation for such chemicals. But, as the noble Countess and other noble Lords know, we keep an open mind on the subject. The Veterinary Products Committee is to review the matter in the spring. We shall pay close attention to what it says.
How do we decide what information to give and how? First, by intelligence about what is actually happening on farms and the problems that are arising. We have accident and ill-health statistics and the observations of inspectors as well as the views of both sides of the industry itself. The Health and Safety Commission's agriculture industry advisory committee is an invaluable mechanism for the transmission of those views. In identifying and responding to the information needs revealed by that intelligence, officials consult widely to make sure that their picture is a shared one.
Secondly, we make use of expert scientific analysis of hazards. Pesticides and veterinary medicines may not be marketed unless they have statutory product approval. The process includes consideration by independent scientific experts in particular of the information about risks and safeguards that must be supplied to the user.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, asked whether the Veterinary Products Committee had the necessary expertise. Yes. Its medical and scientific panel includes

193
a consultant neurophysiologist, a professor of clinical psychopharmacology and a professor of neurology. We believe that between them they have all the necessary expertise to come to the right kind of judgments. In making decisions we have to get our overall priorities right and make sure that we stimulate attention and effort where it is most needed. We must recognise, for example, that a farm worker is far more likely to be injured by a tractor than poisoned by sheep dip.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, says that there are 54 fatal accidents a year. I do not have the figure with me but I know that that is about right. I do not believe that a single one is due to chemicals poisoning. A very small proportion of overall injuries in farming is due to chemicals poisoning. But we recognise that people have understandable worries about particular risks, even if they are not reflected in the relative level of actual harm that is caused, and have a reasonable claim to information and advice. There are nice balances to be struck in judging what to provide. The agriculture sector has its own culture and traditions to be borne in mind when thinking about how best to communicate. Our collaborative approach is typified by the new pesticides forum announced this month.
Against that background I want to illustrate in more detail what is done in some of the areas that I have mentioned. The range of guidance material available to the agricultural sector is huge. It includes more than 40 free publications ranging from advice on safe handling of bulls and avoiding the transmission of disease from animals to humans to the safe use of machinery and working on glasshouse roofs. Detailed guidance is published for occupational hygienists on biological monitoring for the effects of exposure to organophosphorus compounds.
The results of eight contract research projects have been published, ranging from braking stability on all-terrain vehicles to the ergonomics of cropsprayers. Approved codes of practice give practical guidance on compliance with legislation. The effort made to publicise the material and to raise awareness generally is similarly wide ranging, assisted by the Health and Safety Executive's information and advisory service. Ten videos are available dealing with health and safety in agriculture and BBC2 is currently showing a selection of them. Advertisements are also used to draw attention to particular topics and publications. In 1995 there were no fewer than eight separate national advertising campaigns on agricultural health and safety. Inspectors and other officials attend around a hundred agricultural shows and exhibitions every year at which they give advice and distribute guidance material. Inspectors also have a crucial part to play during visits to farms. They routinely advise on legal requirements, risk assessment and safeguards. They lead employers through a hierarchy of preferred approaches; avoiding risk altogether, controlling it by engineering means, by systems of work and, in the last resort, by personal protection for the exposed worker. They help in the development of management systems and the assessment of training needs.
194
Employees are informed of inspectors' findings and employers are reminded of their own duty to inform also. From time to time special projects are carried out in which a co-ordinated series of visits is directed to a specific topic, for example, sheep dipping or overhead power lines. At a more collective level, inspectors act by advising influential intermediaries, notably trade unions and trade associations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, mentioned the TGWU roving safety representative scheme. That has had active HSE support from the start and will continue to have it. It is an excellent example of what unions can do and something of which the unions should he thoroughly proud.
I return briefly to the information that must be supplied with substances and other products sold for use in the workplace, a form of information and advice which the user cannot fail to encounter. The statutory approval regimes for pesticides and veterinary medicines require the provision of label information covering the risks and essential safeguards. Other toxic substances are subject to comprehensive information provision requirements. New machinery must be supplied with information about its dangers and safe use. In this whole field of product information, difficult but important balances again have to be struck —giving information that is technically detailed enough but graspable by the lay person and giving information that is comprehensive but not so lengthy and dense that the reader is deterred.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, mentioned NFU concerns about the number of inspectors. I admired her for finding NFU skates on which neatly to turn around the problems created by the shadow Chancellor in not being allowed to suggest that the Labour Party shares the NFU's view.
The Government take very seriously their duty to advise and inform on health and safety matters. I have tried to indicate the range of ways in which they fulfil their responsibility in the agriculture sector and the professionalism of their application of those methods. We are proud of what has been achieved. We do not rest content. We are always looking at the scope for improvement.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, will know from her own experience and researches how much has been achieved over the past 20 years. She should not he surprised when she looks back to discover that current practice is better than it was. That applies equally to safety advice and to scientific techniques. I hope that the House will agree that our effort is comprehensive, balanced and well focused and that it makes an indispensable contribution to the health and safety of people who work on farms and holdings up and down the country.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.15 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.58 p.m. to 8.15 p.m.]

Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Clause 7 [Multiplex licences]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 6, line 35, at end insert —
("( ) specifying a prescribed proportion of education and social action programming to be provided on each digital programme service to be broadcast;").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 21, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 22 and 30. Amendment No. 22 provides for a single digital programme service to be dedicated to education and social action programming. Amendments Nos. 21 and 30 provide, as a fallback, that each digital programme service shall include a minimum proportion, to be prescribed (as with Channel 4), to be dedicated to education and social action programming.
The importance of terrestrial broadcasting to education and training is the fact that it delivers free to people at the point of use without additional financial cost, in particular to those whose educational and social needs are greatest.
Later this month, on 22nd February, the UK will launch the European Year of Lifelong Learning. I declare an interest as chair of the Education and Training Committee of the Committee of the Regions and I was present last weekend at the European launch of the European Year of Lifelong Learning. It was a pleasure on that occasion, in the presence of the Minister, Mr. Paice, to hear the commissioner responsible for this area of the Commission programme work, Edith Cresson, compliment the United Kingdom on its outstandingly high quality of educational materials from radio and television. These amendments will protect the facilities necessary to maintain and develop those outstanding provisions —in European and world terms —made by educational broadcast makers in the United Kingdom.
Our country is committed to lifelong learning and to the need for building a learning society. Recently there has been agreed a new, ambitious, national training and education targets programme to achieve that. It cannot be achieved without the help of broadcasting and other new technologies. Neither will many of those most in need of more education or training be able readily to afford subscription services. Such services are very good for those who, already knowing what they want, also have the resources to obtain them. But, if we are to equip the population as a whole with the skills necessary to meet the needs of the coming century, it is essential that all groups in society have full access to education and training opportunities, starting with those provided in the area of basic education where it is needed for adults.
Groups involved with the education and training of adults are concerned that there is no requirement in the Bill to place any new education/training obligations on any new digital terrestrial provision other than the simulcasting of existing services. They propose that an
196
education/training requirement should also be written in within the new services, and that those programmes should be available clear to air for all licence payers.
Given that the duration of a multiplex licence is to he 12 years, with a possible extension for a further 12 years, and that this outlasts the current length of arrangements for those channels with public service education obligations —the BBC and Channel 4 —a situation could arise that analogue broadcasting, with its digital simulcast, is withdrawn, leaving no continuing educational obligations in place. That would be a tragedy and would be quite irresponsible, since it is expected that broadcasting will need to play an increased and not a lesser role, particularly in respect of the education and training of adults over the next decades. What is wanted is an extension of channel space which will allow a large number of education and training providers to add variety and choice to the current provision.
It is a pleasure to be able to pay tribute to the work done by professionals in this field. I hope the Minister's response will indicate that the Government are prepared to give serious consideration to protecting its quality and range and providing for an expansion in this vitally important area. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I should like to support this group of amendments. I thought that my name was going to appear on all three of them. In fact, it appears on only two. The amendment I shall speak to more particularly, Amendment No. 22, does not have my name on it. But I do not think that matters very much. It is the most important amendment in the group. It is the one we think is really vital. The other two are fall-backs. Amendment No. 22 is the one I hope the Minister will consider very carefully indeed and agree to support.
The proposal in Amendment No. 22 is that the ITC should be required to license one digital channel as a specialist education and training channel, not to be owned by the BBC or by Channel 4 but to be managed by a non-profit consortium of education and training providers. The task of running it could be put out to tender and awarded to the highest and most efficient bidder. It could house current users, such as the OU and colleges' and schools' programming, broadcasting the types of material which are increasingly being shifted to night-time. We have talked before about what has been happening to night-time broadcasting. The channel could assist in retraining and updating teachers, and in helping parents to help their children to learn. This is an important area and one in which a lot of people are doing very good work, including those who work at City Lit. in London. It is an area which can be expanded and it is one where broadcasting could help very much indeed.
Above all, the channel could house a new user, the University for Industry, which needs to reach, free at the point of use, every home, library, educational institution and workplace if this country is to raise the level of skills and be competitive with other countries, and get anywhere near reaching the national training and education targets which this country has set itself. The channel could target workplaces, colleges and

197
community sites in the day-time and home learners in the evening. North America has several such channels already running on satellite.
The BBC's new agreement requires in paragraph 3.2 (e) that the home services,
"contain programmes of an educational nature (including specialist factual, religious and social issues programmes as well as formal eduction and training programmes)".
Channel 4 is also required to provide a given proportion of programmes of an educational nature for adults. If the new digital terrestrial channels are to be of such significance, then it is in all our interests for the new multiplex arrangements to make a contribution to the education and training needs, and hence to the future, of the country.
The option offered by Amendments Nos. 21 and 30 is to place a certain obligation on all multiplex holders to include some proportion of education and social action programming, following the example of the obligation originally laid upon Channel 4. Channel 4's remit to be distinctive in character, to provide a given proportion of educational programming and to cater for tastes not otherwise catered for on ITV has been carried out to general acclaim and has not prevented the channel being a commercial success.
After the debate on the BBC Charter and Agreement, the Minister wrote to me. He said in his letter:
"We agree that education should continue to form a key object of the Corporation".
I hope that his feelings about education forming a key object of the corporation will also extend to all the new arrangements. I hope that his enthusiasm for education, which seemed to be expressed in his letter to me, will he followed by very favourable consideration of the amendment which my noble friend Lady Farrington moved and of the amendments to which I have spoken tonight. I particularly commend Amendment No. 22. That would be our best option.
Lord Inglewood: I begin by welcoming the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, about the high quality of educational television in this country. The Government are very pleased about that and pay tribute to all those concerned. It is recognised on both sides of the Committee as providing real quality and as being a world leader.
Digital terrestrial television will provide tremendous opportunities for the provision of all types of programmes, catering for the tastes and interest of all types of viewers. Both noble Baronesses have made eloquent speeches about the value of educational and social action programming from which we do not dissent. These programmes are of real value and interest to viewers of all ages, in all parts of the country. They are very important as part of an educational process which can no longer be confined just to early years but which goes on through life. They help us to be aware of a whole range of matters, including industry, social and community issues, and how to respond to them.
However, we do not believe that, merely because something is good and should be encouraged, its attainment must therefore he brought about by statute.
198
I believe that the wisdom of this approach —let us not forget that TV can be turned off, rendering valueless the programme being shown —is well substantiated by experience. Despite the lack of statutory requirements, educational programming is well established on satellite and cable because it is programming for which there is a clear demand. The Discovery and History Channels show that the market at work does not simply produce soaps and game shows, as some would have us believe. And of course the educational and social action programming currently provided by the existing terrestrial broadcasters will all he translated onto digital and thereby be entrenched and be freely available for all, with opportunities for more on the spare capacity they have been offered.
The kind of ideas referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady David, are precisely the kind of ideas that might well have a place on multiplex. The multiplex licensee, in putting together his bouquet of programmes —that is the technical phrase —has to provide as much variety and choice as he can. That is one of the licensing criteria. We must not overlook that the digital terrestrial revolution will be very expensive. It is difficult to anticipate how a multiplexer would be able to provide, in the way in which the noble Baroness rather sanguinely hoped, capacity. However, it is quite possible that these things can be funded either by advertising or sponsorship.
We have made the variety of services to be offered on digital one of the key criteria for the ITC to take into account when awarding the licences. It is clear that to win them applicants will have to provide a range of services catering for all interests. That will include, as I said, educational and social action programmes which, as I have described, hold their own on their own merits. As the number of channels increases there is less and less need to proscribe certain types of programme. With a new and unproven technology, an audience of zero, facing billions of pounds in investment, I suggest to the Committee that in those circumstances to accept this amendment would increase the likelihood of nothing happening at all with digital terrestrial. That would be in nobody's interests and would guarantee that there is no educational and social action programming at all. I know that that may be unwelcome comment to the noble Baronesses, but having heard it, I hope that they will agree not to press the amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It would be difficult to interpret the Minister's reply as satisfactory or favourable. However, it is necessary to take time to read the detail of the reply. It is possible to have a bouquet with variety. but still be missing the English rose. We agree that that the English rose is one of the areas of perfection. At this stage we do not propose to press the amendment, but having read the Minister's reply, we may return to it at a later stage.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may make one comment. I do not believe that the Minister referred to quality. It is important that there should be some stipulation about

199
the quality of what is provided. I hope that will come into the dimension when he is thinking about these amendments.
Lord Inglewood: I do not wish to pre-empt the debate that we shall have somewhat later in the evening, which is specifically on the question of quality. The criteria which apply to the programmes are the same as those which apply to satellite and cable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 7, line 11, at end insert —
("( ) such information as they may require as to the programmes to be included in the digital programme services to be broadcast").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 34 , 38 and 39.
Baroness Trumpington: Amendment No. 23 stands alone. Amendment No. 24 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 28, 36, 38 and 39. If that is a mistake there have been others in the list this evening. I can only apologise. The noble Lord can do whatever he wants.
Lord Donoughue: We have all been under great pressure on this matter. I am totally sympathetic on that point. I believe that Amendment No. 23 goes naturally with Amendments Nos. 34, 38 and 39. Since we are not going to press any of them to a vote, perhaps at this stage we can take them together. Is the Minister happy with that?
Lord Inglewood: I am happy to agree with anything that the noble Lord wishes at this stage.
Lord Donoughue: Good. Basically these amendments are about set-top boxes in general principle. In our view the Broadcasting Bill, as currently drafted, does not contain sufficient safeguards to ensure that a single set-top box or receiver will be able to access all digital terrestrial television programme services on offer. One way of achieving that is by consensus within the industry. I believe that the ITC is trying to achieve that and we encourage it towards a satisfactory outcome. We need to look at the Bill in order to secure that.
As drafted, the Bill would allow incompatible receiving equipment to be developed for different multiplex services without any obligation on the multiplex providers to share the technical information necessary to enable each type of equipment to receive the whole package of multiplex services available in a given area. We are concerned that we do not end up with people having to buy —which they will be unable to afford —different black boxes if they are to have access. I noticed in a newspaper today that the Germans are very well advanced in the movement towards industry consensus for a single set-top box receiver.
200
We believe that the Bill should he strengthened. We are suggesting the amendments I have mentioned as a way forward. They introduce the need for co-ordination between multiplex providers so that they are co-ordinated and agree on a single box. Under the Bill as it stands, each multiplex provider is treated on a stand-alone basis. There is no provision for modifying proposals made by the successful applicant for one multiplex licence in the light of those made by successful applicants for other multiplex licences.
In practice, certain issues, most particularly the single receiver issue which we are focusing on here, need to be co-ordinated. These amendments are about co-ordination as regards the single black box. The matter needs to be co-ordinated on a system-wide level and these amendments are devised to secure that. Perhaps I may add that they refer at the moment only to the services licensed by the ITC. The participation of the BBC in the co-ordination would need to be secured and presumably that can be done by the Secretary of State. I am asking the Minister to give thought to giving power to the ITC to co-ordinate multiplex providers so that in the end we can have a single set-top box. I beg to move.
The Earl of Stockton: I welcome this package of amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. I take them further because if a person is one of those particularly square-eyed people for whom television is the be-all and end-all of life, one might be in the position of needing not only a multiplex decoder but a satellite decoder and, very possibly, a cable decoder. The reason for its considerable expense is that the multiplex digital decoder unit has a seriously large memory in it. It is to all intents and purposes a small computer. We should be able to persuade the industry, which has adopted a European stance on decoders, that it can provide add-on chips according to which of the services one wishes to take.
If the Government are as determined as they appear to be to persuade us all to go digital as soon as possible, the prospect of the television manufacturers introducing a completely comprehensive set without a box on the top if it has to have five or six different systems is remote indeed. However, if we can write onto the face of the Bill that there has to be a single compatible system (in the same way as the banks have agreed to a single compatible system for their hole-in-the-wall operations, where one uses different cards in a wide variety of holes) I do not believe that we cannot achieve the same technical standard and security, which is one of the issues of interest to the multiplex providers. We are talking about paying for our television and one has to be absolutely certain that people cannot get round the system. Therefore, it must he incumbent on the Committee to try to persuade the suppliers of equipment, boxes and services, to have a compatible system. I hope that my noble friend will look very carefully at this matter before we reach the next stage of the Bill and consult both manufacturers and broadcasters on the issue.
Lord McNally: We were talking earlier today about reasonable men doing reasonable things. One would

201
have thought that manufacturers and broadcasters would do what is reasonable in relation to the consumer, the viewer. But experience shows us that that is not always so. The noble Earl mentioned the experience of the banks. I have some experience of that in the 1980s when we were trying to persuade the banks to agree on EFTPOS. It was not an easy task to achieve any kind of compatibility because individual manufacturers of technology, individual banks and others saw small levels of commercial advantage here and there which worked against compatibility. The same may happen here. It may he thought that, once a viewer has signed up to a piece of technology, he has literally become a captive audience.
Therefore, I agree with the noble Earl and the noble Lord. Lord Donoughue, that it is not sufficient for the Government to take a passive approach. If the Government remain passive, matters will fragment and we shall not achieve the compatible system to which the viewer is entitled.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining how his amendment addresses the issue of a single set-top box for digital terrestrial television. Clearly the amendment would ensure co-ordination between multiplex providers on a single set-top box criterion for the award of a multiplex licence and would allow the ITC to set minimum requirements to be met by all applicants seeking those licences. Of course, implementation of the measures proposed for co-operation would then become conditions of the licence.
I have yet to speak to anyone who sees a successful future for digital terrestrial television involving more than one set-top box. After all, does anyone really imagine that viewers will be prepared to invest in a box which gives them only one half, one-third or one-sixth of the services coming on-stream? That just does not make commercial sense.
It is in the interests of every part of the industry to make digital terrestrial television as a whole attractive to the viewer. For example, last week I was discussing that very point with the Digital Television Group, which is an expanding group of manufacturers, broadcasters, transmission providers and prospective multiplexers. Members of that group told me, with no dissenters, that the only way that digital terrestrial television would get off the ground would be through co-operation. That is happening already. That is the rationale for the DTV group. That group came together spontaneously, not at the behest of government.
I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord about the end result. Again, it is the means to that end which may divide us. There are different ways to achieve a single set-top box for digital terrestrial television: the common interface is one, allowing viewers to purchase cheap add-ons to the basic box to accommodate additional access systems; there is also simulcrypt, which is a system which allows different types of conditional access systems to be receivable through a single box. At this stage, neither we nor the ITC can predict which conditional access arrangements will emerge for digital terrestrial television.
202
We believe that it is for the industry and not for the legislator or the regulator to determine the industry's solution. The industry does not need to he forced to co-operate: it is co-operating. European standards have been agreed and the television standards directive already requires that all services transmitted in clear must be receivable by all receivers. I do not see the need to go further and risk forcing what may he the wrong solution —and a costly solution —on an industry which is already seized of the commercial realities of digital television.
However, I understand the anxiety expressed by Members of the Committee that we should do all we can to ensure that applicants for multiplex licences are looking to contribute to the success of digital terrestrial television as a whole. I bear in mind also the need for multiplex providers to co-operate in implementing their proposals for promoting and assisting the take-up of receivers. Therefore, I am prepared to look again at whether there may be advantage in allowing the ITC, when it considers applications, to take into account the extent to which the applicant's proposals will contribute to the successful launch of digital television. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the noble Lord.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: That sounded helpful. Germany is proceeding in that way and, as the Minister said, there is the European television services directive. I suggest that, if there is no standard as regards set-top boxes, that will both inhibit the development of the market and risk again bringing in a monopoly control. We see that at the moment in relation to satellite. Ideally there would be one set-top box that would cover both digital and satellite. That would be ideal for the consumer, and the service provider would benefit by providing for the use of a smart card or whatever access arrangements may be in place. Is the Minister saying that he is prepared to consider a change to the Bill which will allow —not require —the ITC to take that into consideration in granting multiplex licences? As the Bill stands, it is silent on that issue.
Lord Inglewood: It is important to be clear that, in relation to additional access systems, we propose that it should be stipulated that there should be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory access to them. The DTI recently published a consultation document on the subject of conditional access. It is proposed that we should deal with the nuts and bolts of the licensing system as regards access to digital conditional access systems through legislation under the European Communities Act. Many of the noble Baroness's anxieties are dealt with outside the framework of the Bill because we are dealing with the matter in that different way.
I am prepared to look at the criteria that are to be applied by the ITC in determining who might be a successful multiplex licensee. As has already been mentioned by Members of the Committee, the key issue is to get the market to take the digital services. One of the characteristics that we are seeking to identify with

203
potential multiplex operators is the steps that they are taking to ensure that there is a successful roll-out of the system.
We feel that it may be appropriate to outflank some of the anxieties that Members of the Committee have expressed. We wish to meet their anxieties while at the same time ensuring that the market works properly. We do not know which way this will go. It would be extremely foolish to put a corset round the industry which might, with the best will in the world, lead to the industry going down a cul-de-sac. That is one of the surest ways of killing the whole thing stone dead. We feel that it may be possible to help to provide some kind of framework by looking at this matter along the lines that I have suggested.
Lord Donoughue: We are happy with the Minister's approach. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 7, line 26, after ("achieved") insert ("including phasing-in arrangements and considering the potential impact on existing analogue services, especially those currently provided for people with sensory disabilities").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may link Amendment No. 26 with this amendment, because in both amendments we are seeking to link applications for licences to provide multiplex services. A technical plan has to be provided under the Bill with a timetable showing when the planned coverage will be achieved. The amendments highlight the need for existing provision for disabled people on analogue to be maintained until it is certain that equal provision is available on digital, and that disabled people have access to it in a given time to be able to afford digital receivers, and that they are made aware of that.
Anticipating the problems, and preparing to deal with them, are the keys to the provision of successful services. The reason for tabling the amendments is that we want to move from one system to another better one, but we want to ensure that all the advantages of the previous system are not lost. It will not be good enough merely to say that the advantages gained by the move are so great for the majority that it does not matter if there are losses for the minority.
If that loss happened to be a loss of text subtitling for deaf people, or talking teletext for blind people, the consequence would be to deprive them of television if they are severely impaired. So it is essential that the application for a licence should include in it a timetable for the phasing out of present analogue provision and proposals to protect the interests of disabled people. There must be no loss of the valuable text provision for both deaf and blind people.
The second amendment draws attention to the affordability of new systems. Many disabled people have low incomes. When the valuable old systems are dropped, they must be replaced by new ones which are affordable. Otherwise, we shall be benefiting the prosperous at the expense of the poor. I am sure that
204
both sides of the Committee and the Government would find that unacceptable. Nothing can be more confusing than new technology. The enthusiasts love it, but the rest of us just want straightforward information about how it benefits us and what, if any, are the snags. The amendment emphasises the need for that to be provided. It is as simple but as important as that. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for tabling the amendment. As I understood it, he spoke to Amendments Nos. 25 and 26. Therefore it might be appropriate for me to telescope my remarks to cover the two amendments. It provides me with an opportunity to give the Committee some assurances regarding the specific point that he raises and more general matters surrounding the future of analogue transmission.
The introduction of digital television will not mean that anyone —I emphasise anyone —loses access to existing analogue services. In the longer term, we hope that the coverage of digital terrestrial television can be increased to levels similar to that of current analogue transmissions. That in turn will open up the attractive possibility that when, and only when, the vast majority of the population has acquired digital receiving equipment, the frequencies currently used for analogue transmission might be released for other uses. The Government intend that to happen as soon as reasonably practicable and will, five years after the introduction of digital terrestrial television or once 50 per cent. of the population has digital receivers, whichever is the sooner, review the scope for setting a date on which analogue transmissions will end. But we do not propose to deprive people of the television services they currently receive by turning off analogue before they have the necessary equipment to receive digital, upon which programmes will be carried in parallel.
There will therefore be no effect on analogue services, including ancillary services such as subtitling, arising from the roll-out of digital equipment. On a minor point, and taking the amendment word for word, the timetable referred to in Clause 7, subsection (4)(b) will, in practice, need to cover any phasing-in arrangements.
I shall now deal with Amendment No. 26. The points the noble Lord makes here are at the very heart of the matter. If digital terrestrial television is to take off, it is going to need to be both affordable and accessible. But I believe our proposals as they stand address these points adequately.
Those who wish to run multiplexes will need to submit detailed licence applications which will be judged on three main criteria. One of these is their technical plan for the roll out of infrastructure. The greater proportion of the population their services will reach within a reasonable time —in other words the greater number of people who will be offered access to their services —the more chance they will have of being awarded a licence. That is a key element of accessibility.
Another criterion is the applicant's plans to remote or assist the acquisition of receiving equipment. One of the key issues here, indeed perhaps the key issue, will be

205
offering that equipment at an affordable price. If applicants can show they will be able to do that, it is more likely that they will get a licence.
There is also, as the noble Lord mentioned, the question of the affordability of any pay —TV services which are offered by digital broadcasters. Of course, as in any market, it will be in the interests of the suppliers of such services to ensure that they are affordable. Otherwise they will not be in business for long. And subsections (4)(c) and (4)(h) of Clause 7 allow the ITC to require information on the characteristics of the digital programme services to be provided and on the applicant's financial plans respectively. Under each of those areas, the commission could require information about the pricing of pay services.
I should mention, too, that the Bill stipulates that multiplex providers' licences will include conditions preventing them from showing undue discrimination for or against particular broadcasters. That will help to ensure that broadcasters pay fair prices for access to multiplexes and, in turn, that viewers pay fair prices for services. The proposals in the consultation paper, The Regulation of Conditional Access Services for Digital Television will introduce similar conditions in the licences to be issues to conditional access providers.
I suggest that it would be over-regulation to seek to impose on applicants for multiplex licences further requirements of the sort mentioned in the amendment, which would largely have the same effect as requirements already applicable. The bottom line is that those entering the digital terrestrial television market need to make their services affordable and accessible to all sections of the community if they are to succeed, and the Government, through the criteria which will be applied for the award of licences, will be giving them the strongest possible encouragement to do just that.
Having said all that, I fully understand the noble Lord's concerns, which closely reflect our own. I hope that my explanation of the way in which the matter will proceed will have reassured the noble Lord.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I am most grateful again for the Minister's most constructive response. When I was trying, not very well, to read economics at university, great theorists used to tell me that there was such a thing as perfect competition. When they had explained that at great length, they would end by saying, "Of course you realise that there is no such thing as perfect competition". Having spent months trying to understand perfect competition, I could not understand the great academic minds —nearly as great as that of my noble friend Lord Donoughue —which were trying to explain those concepts.
When the Minister says to us that it is in the interests of the suppliers of the equipment to ensure that the equipment is affordable to everyone —that is a perfect market of course —let us assume that there are some deaf people and some blind people who, despite the noble efforts of the suppliers, cannot afford the new equipment. There are some very poor deaf people and some very poor blind people: what will happen to them?
Lord Inglewood: The point that the oble Lord makes falls into two parts. The first is related to
206
economic theory. In respect of that, I hope that he will look carefully at the remarks I made earlier when I was explaining the macroeconomic framework within which we believe the digital terrestrial revolution —that is what it is —will proceed. In particular, perhaps he will look at that part of it which relates to the criteria by which the multiplex licences are to be assessed and the actions that the applicants are meant to take to secure their licences.
The second point which the noble Lord made is different. It is a problem which always faces society: as long as something costs something, there is a possibility that someone who has less money than the item costs will be unable to afford it.
The right way to deal with the problem identified in the second part of the noble Lord's remarks is to study it in that context rather than in the context of establishing digital terrestrial television. I hope that those remarks are helpful.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
9 p.m.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 7, line 29, leave out from ("broadcast") to ("areas") in line 30 and insert ("as to the quality of those services, as to the range and content of those services, and as to the regional").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 31, 32, 35, 37, 41, 43, 48 and 53. Amendment No. 27 deals with the issuing of multiplex licences. It provides that the ITC shall have power to ascertain the applicant's proposals as to the quality of its planned services. The subsequent amendments deal with the wish to insert a quality criterion.
A number of criteria are set out, including range and variety, mainly in terms of investment and technology availability. We are most concerned that quality should exist as a criterion. It appeared in the 1990 Act, which provided for a quality threshold. Viewers will expect high quality from digital television as they do from analogue. British television viewers have been blessed with television of the highest quality and they will expect that to continue. However, the Bill does not provide that the new digital services must meet the quality criterion. In our amendment to Clause 8 we require quality in some but not all services. We accept that at the beginning it would be too onerous to expect that in all services.
I can see that, from the Government's point of view, there is a question of balance. One needs flexibility and not too onerous requirements in order to get the whole revolution off the ground. When that happens we want the broadcasts to be of quality. I believe that the difference between the Government and myself is how one adjusts that balance. The Government's inclination is to dilute the quality requirement in the hope that that will encourage and make it easier for digital to get off

207
the ground. We do not want digital television without quality and, furthermore, we do not believe that it will get off the ground without quality.
We are seeking to introduce quality. We believe that the ITC would welcome the requirement that it should seek quality. That would ensure the high quality of the future services, which is what we are pursuing. Can the Minister give the Committee any comfort in that respect or is he saying that provided the new digital service can meet various technological requirements the quality does not matter? We would not be happy with that.
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, says that the amendment is about quality. Having looked at the amendments in the group I believe that it is about much more than quality. Indeed, it introduces new aspects into the digital service. Amendment No. 31 provides for,
"high quality, new and original".
How are we to define what is new and what is original? I believe that if digital is to get off the ground we must not have too many thresholds because that will mean that we never have the service. How is the ITC or any other body to judge the originality of a programme? Amendment No. 48 provides for,
"of high quality…new and original…made within the area for which the programmes are to be provided".
That is a most stringent threshold but the most bizarre requirement is the next, which is,
"calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests".
What on earth does that mean? How does one define what is calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests?
We must be clear about the fact that the new channels, whether cable or satellite, have not been able to compete with existing mainstream channels. They have been able to enter new markets dedicated to films and so forth. We all want quality as such, and I believe that one can argue that some of the present satellite channels are of a high quality. However, in the end it is for the viewers to decide, and the purpose of the digital service is that we have choice. The proposal would give the ITC a role which goes further than we have ever considered in broadcasting. When there was a limited number of broadcasters it was possible to say to Channel 4, for example, that such and such was its remit. However, the digital service involves lots of channels and lots of people out there. I believe that the provision is so prescriptive that it will put people off.
Lord Donoughue: Perhaps I may answer the point raised by the noble Viscount. It is true that a number of requirements are made. We might have chosen to take each one separately and debated it at some length. I am not sure how popular that would have been with the Government Front Bench. We believed that at this stage, when we are probing the whole issue, it would be helpful to the Committee in progressing the Bill to put together a group of related matters. They are aspects related to quality, including new and original, even regional.
208
Secondly, in relation to ITV, the ITC already applies a number of criteria; indeed, it has quite strict requirements put upon it as does the BBC. We do not believe that it is appropriate that the digital sector should have significantly less requirements placed upon it. However, as I said, it is basically a probing amendment. We look forward to hearing from the Ministe, with any comfort that he may be able to give us on the matter.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: We are discussing a most important, sensitive and subjective area. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is right to say that one can be too prescriptive in terms of new developments. However, I was rather surprised to note that, as a former Minister of broadcasting in this Chamber, the noble Viscount was astonished by the proposed wording in Amendment No. 48 which refers to the necessity of catering for a wide diversity of "tastes and interests". He said that that was an astonishing definition and that it would be impossible to achieve it. However, I believe that I am right in saying that they are the immortal words of the BBC Charter and of successive broadcasting Acts. Indeed, that requirement has been the duty of broadcasting authorities over the years.
What concerns me in the matter is that, with all the new channels, new problems will develop and one accepts that there will be difficulties. Indeed, there is no doubt about how far one can go. However, if we look back to the proceedings on the Broadcasting Bill 1990, it will be remembered that many of us feared the absolutely damaging process that the Government of the day imposed of bidding for television franchises. That created the great danger of lowering standards in quite a dramatic way. Partly as a result of the campaign which was launched during the Committee stages of that Bill and partly because of the way that the ITC then interpreted the legislation we finally emerged with the quality threshold that was laid down.
Although, in my view, standards in ITV have dropped compared to what they were in the days when I was chairman of the IBA —hut then I would say that —I believe that the ITC performed a great service in imposing in quite a severe way the quality threshold that mitigated what might have been the totally damaging effect of simply giving a franchise to the highest bidder. I draw from that experience the lesson that, in the face of new technology, one has to do one's best in terms of legislation. It is the Government's responsibility to try to get the framework right and to get what might be called the countervailing forces in operation.
I return to an earlier debate this evening when the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, talked about a rather different subject in which I was most interested; namely, guaranteeing the access of public service channels on cable. The noble Baroness is, if I may say so in her absence, a very distinguished free-marketeer. I was most impressed that, as a free-marketeer, she seemed to he singularly unimpressed by the Minister's assurance that all was well because it could all be left to the market and that it would be in the great interests of the cable operators to provide full access to those channels. However, that clearly was not happening on Sydenham Hill.

209
It is very difficult to know where to draw the line. However, the lesson to be learnt is that the Government have a very high responsibility to try to get the ITC of the future (which will have to deal with all these new developments) empowered on the face of the Bill with some sort of strength so as to ensure that quality standards are sustained in the face of what will be very contrary market forces. Getting the balance right is important. It is also most important to give the public authority the necessary resources and legal powers so that it can try to get the balance right.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may respond briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. I do not disagree with much of what he said. However, I was trying to point out that, if we are to have these new channels, they will not necessarily mirror the channels that we have had before. Therefore, they might not be calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes; indeed, they might be very specific and calculated to appeal to a very narrow band of tastes because that might be the market for those channels. I do not disagree with anything that the noble Lord said about quality, I was merely saying that in my view the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, would go too far.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I should tell the noble Viscount immediately that I entirely agree with what he said as regards a multi-channel situation. A channel may be of high quality but deal with a very narrow area of taste. I fully accept that possibility. It is the totality of the matter that is important.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, I should point out that Amendment No. 27 is grouped with quite a few other amendments to which I believe the noble Lord was speaking, although he did not, in fact, touch upon them in any detail. Therefore, with the leave of the Committee, I propose to confine my remarks to the generality of what the noble Lord said and thereby keep to a straight and narrow path.
In moving the amendment the noble Lord has shown his concern to ensure that digital terrestrial television provides programmes of high quality appealing to all tastes and interests. He also rightly emphasises the opportunities which digital affords for expanding regional programming and for providing new and original programmes. We share the aspirations of the proposers of the amendments. We share their enthusiasm for the new technology which promises so much. However, I fear we do not share the belief that those concerns can only be met, or even best met, and that opportunities will only be taken, if government decide what is best for the viewer, any more than government can or should with the printed word. Indeed we fear that that would sound the death knell for digital terrestrial television. Of course, if it does not happen, it will not show programmes to anyone.
I now wish to consider quality. One of the things we can be rightly proud of in Britain is our existing terrestrial television channels: the BBC, ITV, Channel 4
210
and, in Wales, S4C, which all produce programmes of great variety and high quality. That is the product of a statutory framework placing specific requirements on independent broadcasters who had a privileged place on the limited amount of spectrum available with regard to quality and diversity of programming —a framework which will also apply to Channel 5 when it is launched.
As the Committee will know, the Bill ensures that these channels with their public service broadcasting characteristics will be safeguarded arid translated into the digital age. Each of the existing terrestrial channels, and Channel 5, is being offered a guaranteed place on a digital multiplex. They are being offered those places on condition that their existing services —or, in the case of S4C, Welsh language programmes —are to be simulcast. All of the positive programme requirements placed upon independent broadcasters now will continue to apply in the digital future to these channels. There is absolutely no relaxation of standards or statutory requirements. The remits for Channel 3, Channel 4 and S4C continue. And, of course, the BBC will get a whole multiplex for BBC1 and BBC2.
This is a real and lasting commitment to quality television. It means that the broadcasters who have brought us "Survival", "The Trials of Life", "Equinox", and "Inspector Morse", "The Animated Shakespeare" and "Wallace and Gromitt" —that programme is popular with my children —all have a core place entrenched in broadcasting in the 21st century. Our guarantees to existing broadcasters mean that public service broadcasting is not merely safe but will be enhanced. But extending quality thresholds to the new services possible on digital terrestrial television just indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening. The whole point about digital is that the context for the regulation of terrestrial broadcasting changes with the increased availability of spectrum.
Our existing framework for terrestrial television is a response to extreme scarcity. There are, after all, only four channels. If one went on using analogue transmission, there would only ever be five channels. With digital there is the opportunity to provide three or four services where previously there was only one. This means 18 or more traditional terrestrial television channels. But the flexibility of the technology allows the multiplex provider to ensure that the spectrum is used much more efficiently, hour by hour and even second by second. This might well mean that at times and depending on the nature of the programme content there could be many more than 18 services being broadcast. Over time, as the technology improves, the possibilities will increase.
The effect of all this is that the introduction of digital technology means a new era for terrestrial television. It is not an era of expansive abundance like satellite and cable where perhaps 100, 200 or even more channels might be available. But it is no longer an era of real scarcity. We therefore need to consider most carefully the nature of the regulatory framework appropriate to the new services that digital technology makes possible.
In considering this new state of affairs, two particular concerns were uppermost in our minds. We wanted to ensure that digital terrestrial broadcasting was a business

211
proposition that added up. If it does not, no one will do it and the public will miss out. We also wanted to ensure that there really is a broadening of choice for the viewer. For digital terrestrial television to succeed, investors need to be able to put on the programmes that people want to watch and will be prepared to pay to watch. If statute and the regulator force them into a tight corset having to meet a galaxy of minimum standards for this, that and the other, they simply will not bother. They will not invest. That means that digital terrestrial television will not happen. It will remain a concept so fine and so pure that no actual service violates it, as there will not be any. The best can always be the enemy of the good, and in this instance, we believe, would slay it.
It is for that reason that the regulatory regime for the new services is light touch. I emphasise light touch, not easy touch. Each and every one of the licence conditions to maintain standards of taste, decency and impartiality are there to be enforced by the ITC just as they are for all broadcasters now, terrestrial, cable or satellite. But we do not think it appropriate to go beyond that and introduce positive programme requirements into licences for the new services. Apart from adding costs, that is, making the viewer pay more —if, as I said earlier, it did not have the effect of strangling digital terrestrial television at birth —it would assume that we know what is best and that viewers who will pay cannot make up their minds about what they want to spend their money on. Therefore, even where quality is guaranteed, all new material must also be passed through a rigorous quality-vetting process deemed unnecessary by Parliament for satellite or cable services.
Competition —and I do not use that word in any emotive sense —will be for the new services on digital terrestrial broadcasting. If digital terrestrial broadcasting does not take off, many of those services will be on satellite and cable channels. If such requirements were imposed, digital terrestrial services would be placed at a clear competitive disadvantage where the existing licensing regime has already proved itself successful in encouraging investment and expansion and in providing new programmes that people want to watch. It satisfies the public and has not engendered widespread moral degradation and corruption the length and breadth of the country.
As I said, the amount of digital terrestrial capacity available will not be limitless. To ensure that there is real diversity and choice for the viewer we have made a variety of programming services one of the main criteria for the ITC to apply in awarding multiplex licences. That will ensure that the proposals coming forward truly reflect the wide spread of tastes and interests of television viewers. It means that digital terrestrial television cannot be all of a kind, with head-to-head contests between rival channels offering the same material to the detriment of choice for the viewer. It means that multiplex providers and broadcasters will need to consider the needs and interests of every section of the television audience —news, entertainment, education, sport, community, local interests and so on.
212
I do not want to go into further detail on that subject because that is covered by other amendments and we have agreed that we shall leave them on one side for now.
I should like to conclude by referring to the telling point made by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. He said that precisely because digital services will not get off the ground without quality, broadly conceived and approved in general terms by the ITC, it must follow that we do not need to regulate for it.
I very much hope that what I have said has been helpful to the Committee and explains why the Government have taken this position on this matter. I very much hope that the Committee will consider that point, and will conclude that it is not appropriate to seek to press the amendment.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: The Minister has described the problem fairly and thoughtfully. However, is it not a fact that the ITC has pressed the Government for stronger provisions in the text of the Bill in respect of quality control?
Lord Inglewood: I am advised that that is so.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Have the Government rejected the ITC's advice on this matter?
Lord Inglewood: As is implicit in what I said, we do not agree with the ITC on this matter. We believe that to go down the road along which some siren voices are calling us might jeopardise the very existence of digital terrestrial television.
Lord Donoughue: The Minister has been very helpful. We have secured what we wanted in probing at this stage. The difference between us is that the Government see what we define as quality as an obstacle to digital television getting off the ground while we do not see it getting off the ground without some quality requirement. We say that for the ITC to have that requirement will raise the sights of the initial digital operators. I do not believe that it will in any way raise their costs or that it will deter anyone. In my view, we are well shot of anyone who is deterred by a quality requirement.
We are not talking of lofty cultural ambitions. We are talking about the ITC having the power and authority, and a requirement, to make inquiries and to establish certain basic standards. I still believe that that is a desirable objective. I believe that the ITC would welcome it. It is our experience that the ITC would not abuse such a requirement; it has a great commitment to see this measure succeed.
We may have to return to this matter. We have had a general but useful discussion. We shall consider returning to the issue at Report stage and may have to take the view of the House on it. The debate has clarified matters and has been helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Lord Desai Lord Desai had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 7, insert to following new clause
COMMON CARRIAGE SUBSCRIBER MANAGEMENT SERVICE ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN QUALIFYING DIGITAL MULTIPLEX LICENSEES
(" . —(1) This section has effect with respect to the making of arrangements which—

(a) apply to all independent analogue broadcasters in the award of digital multiplex licences, and

(b) provide for programmes made, commissioned or acquired by or on behalf of one or more of the holders of such licenses to be available for subscription in identical substantive circumstances by all customers of multiplex operators,

being arrangements made for the purposes of enabling digital television (taken as a whole) to be able to compete effectively with other television programme services in the United Kingdom. and in free, fair and effective competition one digital programme service with another; and any such arrangements are referred to in this section as "SMS common carriage arrangements".
(2) Any application from a independent analogue broadcaster for a digital multiplex licence shall, in addition to being accompanied by any such proposals as are mentioned in Clause 8 below, be accompanied by the applicant's proposals for participating in SMS common carriage arrangements made under this section; and where a person has duly made such an application, the Commission —

(a) shall send details of his proposals for participating in such arrangements to the Director General of Fair Trading, and

(b) shall not proceed to consider whether to award him the licence until the Director General of Fair Trading has communicated to the Commission his satisfaction with the proposed arrangements.

(3) If the Director General of Fair Trading is dissatisfied with the SMS common carriage arrangements at any time, whether before licence award, prior to commencement of services, or during the lifetime of the licence, he shall be empowered —

(a) to alter the terms of the licence, or

(b) to revoke it in its entirety.

(4) The provisions of subsection (3)(a) are to be exercised subject to a six months' period of notice, following consultation with the licensee and the Commission.").
The noble Lord said: I am in somewhat of a quandary as regards the amendment. I put it down rather late yesterday. I note that Amendment No. 187 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, my noble friend Lord Donoughue, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, covers similar territory. In order to save everyone's time I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Award of multiplex licences]:
[Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.]
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 32:
Page 8, line 33, at end insert ("and the extent to which such services (taken as a whole) may be expected to include programmes of high quality").
The noble Lord said: In our general misunderstandings about groupings, I had grouped this amendment with our discussions on Amendment No. 27. I should be happier if Amendment No. 32 were taken as grouped.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 8. line 33, at end insert ("and to be accessible to persons with a sensory impairment:").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 33. perhaps I may make a few comments on Amendment No. 42.
It is extraordinary that after the vigour and tenacity displayed by disabled people in their fight for anti-discrimination legislation, this vital section of the Bill should have been drafted without mention of access for those with sensory impairment. It refers to the award of multiplex licences. The amendments put that right. The Bill as drafted makes nonsense of the fine words spoken by Ministers on the Disability Discrimination Act when they are compared with the omissions of this Bill.
When the Minister replies to the amendment, perhaps he will tell the Committee whether the question of access to the new broadcasting world for those with sensory difficulties was ever considered. If so, was it rejected; or was it felt to be unimportant? Let me assure the Minister that deaf people now, at last, enjoy television through sub-titling. They would not tolerate its absence on digital television. There would be marches in the streets if they were so deprived. I am sure that the Minister will do all he can to ensure not only that such access is provided for but is extended to digital television. Nor will deaf people tolerate that access being provided on a minority of the many channels that we are expecting.
There is no question that the provision of sub-titling is a matter of primary concern to sensory impaired people and it should be for those awarding the new multiplex licences. Quite frankly, I have the feeling that the people who are applying for the licences have not given this matter a great deal of thought. I am sure that the ITC is aware of it. I am sure that the Minister is aware of it. Organisations for the deaf and blind feel very strongly about the amendment. I have no doubt that many who are familiar with its implications will feel equally strongly.
Amendment No. 42 allows the commission to vary the conditions unless the appeal of the programme to a variety of tastes is unacceptably diminished. That is what the Bill says. However, once again the interests of those with sensory disabilities have been ignored or rejected by those drafting the Bill. The amendment seeks to remedy that. It is important to make clear to those who seek to vary the conditions of their licence —and I am sure they will for all kinds of reasons —that it will be a dereliction of duty to permit a diminution in the access of people with sensory problems to an unacceptable level. That would be intolerable. Accepting the amendment solves the problem. If the Minister can give a favourable response, many deaf and hard of hearing, blind and sight impaired people will be reassured. I hope that he is able to give such an assurance tonight. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: I am sure all noble Lords have every sympathy with the noble Lord's concern to ensure that digital television services are accessible to those who have a sensory impairment. The Government wish to do all they reasonably can to increase access to

215
television services for people with disabilities and also to encourage broadcasters to provide programmes of particular interest to those groups. I shall refer to those with visual or hearing disabilities. I am aware that broadcasting can provide valuable services to people with other disabilities as well. According to the latest figures from the British Deaf Association and the Royal National Institute for the Blind, there are 6.5 million deaf or hard of hearing and over 1 million visually impaired people in Britain —important groups, whose needs should be catered for by the media. Television and radio are a lifeline to some of those people, a large percentage of whom are aged over 60. They may be less mobile and rely more on broadcasting for information, entertainment and access to society. I think I can, in all honesty, say that the Government's record on this issue is a good one. The Broadcasting Act 1990 placed extensive but reasonable subtitling requirements upon broadcasters, and as a result over 50 per cent. of programming on the BBC and Channels 3 and 4 is now subtitled. That proportion will increase substantially over the next few years. The requirements will, of course, apply to their digital simulcast services.
We want to ensure that, where practicable, subtitling is provided for the new digital television services. The Bill therefore requires the ITC to publish a code giving guidance as to the appropriate nature and extent of such measures. Before doing so I expect the ITC to consult the broadcasting industry and groups representing the communities concerned. That will certainly include some of those represented today. I am confident that broadcasters and programme makers will recognise the importance of addressing those groups' needs and that they will look for new and imaginative ways to do so. We shall have a fuller opportunity to discuss the code in the context of the noble Lord's later amendments.
I spoke about subtitling. I am very much aware that subtitling, while invaluable to many, is less helpful to those deaf or hard of hearing people who, for reasons connected with their disability, do not have the fast reading skills necessary to read captions which may appear on screen only for two or three seconds. For many of those people, access to many programmes can he further improved by the provision of on-screen sign language interpretation which is already provided for some special interest programmes and which will be facilitated by digital technology. I hope very much that broadcasters will take advantage of this. Again, it will be within the scope of the ITC's code.
Technology known as Audetel is currently under development. By providing a narrative sound track allowing them to hear descriptions of scenes and action at times when there is no dialogue, this could significantly enhance the ability of visually impaired people to enjoy television. Digital technology will allow a programme to be broadcast with more than one sound track and this may provide added potential for such a service to be offered. I understand some existing broadcasters are studying the scope to do so. I am sure the ITC will take account of this in drawing up the code
216
of practice for digital television broadcasters to which I referred and more widely in carrying out its licensing remit.
I must, however, sound a cautionary note. The Government, the ITC and the broadcasters have taken a firm but gradual approach to the expansion of subtitling services and this has paid dividends. We have been able to work together to achieve a level, and quality, of service of which the broadcasters are justly proud, and we shall be building on that success to increase still further the percentage of programmes which are subtitled. Throughout this process we have had to hear in mind the cost of these services, and the need to train people to provide them. It would have been counter-productive suddenly to impose, out of the blue, onerous requirements on broadcasters. Similarly, we must bear in mind when looking at the new digital services that, if these services are to take off, enormous, and risky, investments will have to be undertaken by broadcasters and multiplex providers.
As I think everybody agrees, there is therefore a balance to be struck if we are not to risk holding back the development of digital terrestrial broadcasting. So far as hard of hearing and visually-impaired people's interests are concerned, the requirement in Clause 19 for the ITC to issue a code of practice is a good way of striking that balance. It would be in nobody's interests to place, from the start, obligations on new broadcasters so stringent that, combined with the need to finance new transmission infrastructure and to make receivers available at an affordable price, those obligations detracted from their ability to make programmes people want to watch, or indeed, discouraged them from investing in digital at all. I believe a similar effect would be occasioned by including, as a criterion for judging applications for multiplex licences and as the amendment proposes, the applicant's proposals for providing services for hearing or visually impaired people. Meeting such a criterion from the beginning, as well as being a significant additional cost which might detract from programming, would mean a departure from the principle that terrestrial broadcasting licences should be granted on the strength of programming proposals and on the capacity of the applicant to sustain the necessary expenditure to provide the service as widely as possible. Moreover, the money that licensees spend on, for example, subtitling might he money they cannot spend on keeping down the cost of receivers, or on rolling out transmission infrastructure. No amount of subtitling of digital programme services will be of use to the deaf viewer if he or she is not reached by the digital transmission signed or cannot afford a digital set.
Let me add that, once digital broadcasting has taken off and broadcasters and multiplex providers are showing a profit, it would be reasonable to expect them to increase their obligations towards people with disabilities and other disadvantaged sections of the community. I expect the ITC to take into account the profitability of digital terrestrial broadcasting every time it updates the code, which it will do regularly. I believe that taking this long-term approach will in the end result in a better service for those concerned than would asking broadcasters to do everything at a stroke.

217
Moving on very briefly to the amendment to Clause 11, referring to conditions on which the ITC will agree to variations in licences, subsection (3) of that clause is drafted with the intention of achieving a balance between multiplexers' and broadcasters' need for some flexibility in determining the nature of their programme services, in particular in order to react to market signals, and the ITC's need to ensure that licensees do not depart too far from the proposals contained in their licence applications.
Clearly, in assessing whether a particular variation in licence conditions would unacceptably diminish the capacity of the digital programme services broadcast to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests, the ITC will have regard to the tastes and interests of those with a sensory impairment. A multiplex provider will certainly not be able to get away with including in his licence application proposals to provide particular programmes or other services to particular groups, only to drop such commitments once he has safely been awarded a licence. However, I have set out why I do not believe it would he sensible to compel applicants for multiplex licences to include specific proposals for services such as subtitling in those applications or for applications to he determined according to that criterion.
I have deliberately taken time to set the scene, to give a clear picture of what we believe is the appropriate state of affairs. For the sake of completeness I should add that the Disability Discrimination Act already applies to broadcasters. What is proposed here is in a sense an additional tier of specific obligation and responsibility over and above that applied by the general law.
I very much hope that in the light of my remarks the noble Lord will feel reassured by hat we believe will happen.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: The noble Lord has taken a great deal of trouble, and I appreciate that. I do not intend to respond to him now, as he took us over ground to be covered by the next batch of amendments, which I shall move in some five minutes' time. Then I shall ask for specific figures to take the matter further. The Minister refers to a code of guidance, whereas we want a code of practice. He speaks of sign language and I shall go into detail on that. He spoke about audio description, which is also mentioned in the next batch of amendments. Therefore, I will not deal with those matters now.
The noble Lord spoke of the cost of subtitling. I should like him to bear in mind that for totally deaf people there is no television without subtitling. Unless they have wives as wonderful as mine, they simply cannot follow television. They must have someone to make notes and explain to them. When they do not have that, and if they are totally deaf and there is no subtitling, television does not exist for them. It is as simple as that. It is unbelievable that television in the 1990s does not exist for deaf people unless there is subtitling. That is the cost to deaf people. To speak of costs to people who are multi-millionaires is a little out of focus. I hope that the noble Lord will bear that in mind.
218
The noble Lord said that when digital takes off there will be an increase in subtitling. Perhaps I may tell him that today there is very little subtitling on satellite television. It has nothing like what is done by the BBC and ITV. Sky television has taken off but it does not do as much subtitling as others. The Minister does not put forward a very powerful case. I know that he presents it in good faith and I respect his views very much, but I should not like him to be misled into believing that everybody acts in that same good faith. In view of what he said, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman (Lord Skelmersdale): I understand that the following amendments are not to be moved. If I am wrong, I am sure that I shall be stopped at the appropriate place. The amendments are Amendments Nos. 34, 35, 36 and 37.
[Amendments Nos. 34 to 37 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Conditions attached to multiplex licence]:
[Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 11, line 4, at end insert —
("( ) that, while the licence is in force, digital capacity is available on favourable terms to encourage local, regional and national digital programme services and that these terms are to be published").
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment. Under Clause 11 there are provisions for conditions attached to multiplex licences, and those conditions are listed. The amendment seeks to ensure access for small screen regional and local digital services so that they are not marginalised and so that we do not see undue pressure coming from the large screen service providers.
We all know a little about this Bill now. We know that wide screen provision takes up far more space than small screen provision. That is the top of the range that will be sold to the public. That will be the area that will attract a lot of resources. We are concerned that the broadcasting system in the United Kingdom should not lose the availability of local services —getting local services off the ground —as well as regional services, and that they are not marginalised.
I suggest that the Bill encourages large media companies. That is said quite overtly. The reasoning behind it is that they need to compete. In order to he able to compete in this new information world of entertainment and information education, the ownership of broadcasting companies needs to be allowed to expand. Understandably, there has been very strong concern expressed not only from these Benches but elsewhere that that might mean —though not intentionally in the Bill —the loss of the small local companies.
This amendment provides that it he a requirement of the ITC when looking at conditions attached to multiplex licences to require favourable terms to

219
encourage local, regional and national digital programme services and that those terms themselves are to be published. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the nature of the amendment. She referred at one point to something akin to regionality. With the agreement of the Committee, I shall leave my comments on that until we reach Clause 63.
The amendment relates to a wish to ensure —or rather to ensure —more programming that reflects the interests of communities, local, regional or national, which in turn will be subsidised by the multiplexer and hence indirectly by the public and the other channels to be broadcast. I have three specific worries about the approach reflected in the amendment.
First, I fear that requiring multiplex providers to offer favourable terms to particular types of broadcaster would be to interfere far too much in matters which should be left to the commercial judgment of the multiplex provider and of the broadcasters with whom he is collaborating. I believe that there will be plenty of opportunity for all sorts of programming to be part of a multiplex. The variety criterion which we introduced will ensure that that is the case. I have not the slightest doubt that, quite apart from the activities of the public service broadcasters in this area of activity, local, regional and national programming will emerge naturally alongside many other types of service catering for all tastes and interests. There is no need to require it and so risk discouraging multiplex providers from applying for licences because they find the terms offered are so circumscribed and rigid that they feel it better not to get involved at all.
Secondly, it is unrealistic to expect every multiplex provider to find space for any one specific type of programming, which is the implication of the amendment. Indeed, that seems to work against the growth of diversity and variety which I believe all Members of the Committee hope to see in the digital age. In the future, I anticipate that multiplexes of a regional or local nature may well become available in addition to the six multiplexes currently planned. Those will be particularly appropriate for local, regional or national services.
Thirdly, the amendment is at odds with Clause 11(1)(f) which requires multiplex licence holders to show no undue discrimination against, or in favour of, a specific programme service or additional service providers. Members of the Committee apparently welcome that provision, yet we now see an amendment which cuts right across it. In that regard there appears to be some inconsistency. I hope that I have explained our thinking and that the noble Baroness finds my remarks helpful.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I thank the Minister for sharing those worries with us. This is a probing amendment. We do not see the inconsistencies referred to by the Minister. But life is full of inconsistencies and we manage to live with them.
220
The Minister referred to matters of commercial judgment. I have seen commercial judgment operate sometimes to shut the small player out and ensure that the large operator has a ring fence for its own systems and services —in this case programmes. I listened carefully to all that the Minister said and will read his remarks tomorrow in Hansard. This is a probing amendment; we may return to it at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 41 to 43 not moved.]
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 11, line 20, leave out subsection (6) and insert —
("(6) No order under subsection (5) shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I can be brief. Basically, the amendment concerns the powers of the Secretary of State to unaccountably alter the whole nature of the Bill. The Committee will be aware that at the relevant point in the Bill, Clause 11(1)(j) says that,
"at least 90 per cent. of digital capacity on the frequency or frequencies to which the licence relates is available for the broadcasting of digital programme services or qualifying services".
That is important. Subsection (5) says:
"The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1)(j) by substituting for the percentage for the time being specified there a different percentage specified in the order".
That may be 3 per cent. We suggest that no order —for example, changing 90 per cent. to 3 per cent. —should be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament. In this House that is not a major constraint, but it is a protection. Several similar amendments are tabled and how we approach those will be conditional upon what the Minister tells us now as to whether the Secretary of State is exercising rather wide powers. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, commented that the Bill contains a number of order-making powers. That largely reflects the continuing technological and commercial uncertainty of what is a fast changing world.
I was pleased to see that in its report on the Bill your Lordships' Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee concluded that it was in general satisfied that the powers delegated by the Bill were appropriate. This order-making power was one in respect of which the committee concluded that, on the material available to it, the negative resolution procedure appeared to be appropriate. Our rationale for providing that in the Bill was that the likeliest reason for using it was technological change altering the amount of spectrum needed to deliver services of various kinds, so that weighty policy issues would not be involved. Nevertheless, I accept the noble Lord's argument that an order which reduces the extent to which the broadcasting spectrum is actually available for programme services might well raise substantial issues, for which the affirmative resolution procedure would he justified.

221
If the noble Lord will forgive me, I should like to refrain from definitively agreeing to his amendment this evening. I should like rather more time to consider its ramifications. But I am in principle disposed to agree to it and to bring forward a later government amendment accordingly. On that basis, I hope he will agree not to press it today.
Lord Donoughue: I thank the Minister for that very positive reply. I shall indeed accept what he says and that will he my approach on other similar amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Duration and renewal of multiplex licences]:
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Duration and conditions of digital programme licence]:
[Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 not moved.]
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 18, line 11, at end insert —
("( ) that in each year not less that 10 per cent. of the programmes are presented in British Sign Language").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 50 to 52. All parliamentarians know that there are well-intentioned policies in the clauses of any Bill but without precision and detailed targets they can be meaningless generalities which can easily be evaded. I regard these points as among the most important that I am able to digest in the Bill.
The deaf and hard of hearing and visually impaired people do not want a Bill exuding goodwill and glowing with good intentions. They want one that guarantees beneficial action. This amendment seeks to do that. It is undoubtedly necessary, especially in view of the Government's initial regrettable willingness virtually to bypass in the Bill the interests of sensorially disabled people. The Government have yet to show that they intend action to protect and promote the interests of sensorially disabled people, despite the welcome assurance from the Minister tonight. We know from experience that targets are essential. They are virtually the only way to get action.
Before the 1990 Act television was a nearly barren area for deaf people. Ninety per cent. of programmes were not subtitled. I pay tribute to the Minister involved, David Mellor, who was marvellous throughout the discussions on the Bill. That Act required Channel 3 to subtitle 50 per cent. of its programmes by 1998. The BBC and Channel 4 are conforming and Channel 5 will follow.
We now have 32 per cent. of programmes which are sub-titled, and next year it will be 37 per cent. The broadcasters are clearly following what is prescribed in
222
the Act —no more and no less. Nevertheless, it is progress. It is too slow, but it is still exciting for deaf people. It has already made a vast difference to them. There is now tremendous expertise in sub-titling and I congratulate the BBC and ITC under David Glencross for raising the quality of sub-titling for news and current affairs programmes to really splendid heights.
But the sub-titling of other programmes should he greatly expanded. The purpose of these amendments is to lay down targets for digital television. We should he clear —I hope the Minister will agree —that if no targets are specified in the Bill there will be no duty at all to provide sub-titles. It is essential not only that there is a duty, but that it is laid equally on all broadcasters, because sub-titling, as he said a few moments ago, imposes an additional cost. Therefore, logically, it would be quite unfair for some television people to bear that cost and others to evade it. I look forward to the Minister assuring the Committee that everyone who presents television programmes will be taking his fair share of the burden of the cost of sub-titling.
The target is for 100 per cent. sub-titling. The technology is available and the target of 100 per cent. is not unreasonable because it is only by that figure that we shall have equal access. Basically, that means equal opportunity. I recognise the need for phasing. We are not demanding that kind of figure overnight, but, unless that figure is in the Bill and phasing is understood and recognised, we shall get nowhere.
Digital technology will also give new opportunities to the more than 60,000 people born profoundly deaf and who rely on sign language. At present there is only one hour of sign broadcasting a week. I recognise that one reason why hearing viewers object to signing on screen is that it is visible to them and they do not need it. But, with digital technology, it is possible to have "a channel within a channel" so that the signer is only visible to those people who need it. This opportunity to give signing deaf people access to the television world should be taken. The 10 per cent. specified in this amendment is, if anything, too reasonable a figure and we should build on it.
The second amendment calls for up to 50 per cent. of output to be made available through audio-description for those with a visual handicap. It is now technically possible to provide a spoken explanation, as the Minister mentioned a few moments ago, during the gaps of dialogue and the actions of people in the scenes on television. That effectively makes the visual world of television meaningful for blind people. This method of audio-description is marvellous for blind people. It is wonderful, very simple and subtle and also very helpful. In giving a figure of up to 50 per cent., I again believe that we are being far too modest, but as a modest person, I am only asking for something which is very reasonable. I am tempted to believe that the Minister will condemn me for being far too modest. I hope that he will build on it and add to what I am suggesting.
I conclude by saying that Amendment No. 52 has a very simple and straightforward intent: that is, to give backbone to the code dealing with provisions for deaf and blind people.
We all recognise and agree that codes are very slippery, like eels, and they can very easily wriggle away. Their value in establishing and publicising what can be done can he debased or destroyed if there is no commitment and no sanction. Just one major evasion of a code can lead to it losing all value because if one evasion is allowed, others will very quickly follow.
I am sure that all new licence holders will profess dedication to the cause of access for those with sensory disabilities. I hear them say that already. But I am sure also that they will testify dedication to other causes —for example, profits —to which they may give priority. The cause of the sensory disabled can be protected only by Parliament ensuring that a licence condition requires adherence to the code of practice. Licensees will take note of licence conditions. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond constructively to those positive amendments. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My understanding is —no doubt the noble Lord will correct me if I misrepresent his intentions, and if I do so, it is unintentional on my part —that his amendments will require all digital television broadcasters to subtitle their programmes using close caption subtitles. Sign language interpretation would be required for another 10 per cent. and up to 50 per cent. would be accompanied by audio description. I shall deal with the amendments as a group because the same fundamental issues apply.
It goes without saying that the Government welcome the recent significant increases in the proportion of television programmes which are accompanied by Ceefax and Teletext subtitles. Those improvements are as a direct result of the provisions in the 1990 Broadcasting Act. I believe that they are an excellent illustration of what can be achieved by a sensible and gradual approach undertaken in full co-operation with the broadcasters. The virtues of such an approach are reflected in the proposals in Clause 19.
Those proposals require the ITC to draw up a code giving broadcasters guidance on promoting understanding and enjoyment of programmes by people who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind or partially sighted. Interested groups of viewers as well as broadcasters will be consulted by the ITC before the code is drawn up. That will provide an opportunity for full and frank discussion on exactly how the interests of people with sensory impairment can best be served.
I am sure that the Committee will agree that real achievements have taken place as a result of the codes and the work that has been done in connection with them. We believe that to state on the face of the Bill percentages of the sort proposed would be both arbitrary and inflexible. The great characteristic of the code is that it will be drawn up after extensive consultation and will he flexible in the light of technical and commercial developments. For example, if automatic voice-activated stenography were to be feasible in the future and adaptable to sub-titling technology, live sub-titling will become easier.
224
The noble Lord's next set of amendments affect the status of the code as regards whether it is to take the form of guidance or whether it is to be mandatory. That is obviously a crucial matter. But the achievements of the codes in the past give rise to great optimism. We believe that the code will continue to be an effective, flexible and adaptable device for achieving the kind of results which the noble Lord seeks.
I hope that he will agree also that, pending discussion, it is not appropriate at this stage for percentages of the kind which he suggests to appear on the face of the Bill. We believe that the way in which we are approaching the matter will best serve the interests of those who are suffering from sensory impairments. I hope that that will give some indication of the way that the Government's mind is working in that respect.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I feel strongly about these figures and targets, but the Minister is being constructive and I appreciate that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 50 to 53 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Code relating to provision for deaf and visually impaired]:
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 19, line 15, after ("review,") insert ("following consultation with persons who have sensory disabilities").
The noble Lord said: It may he for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 55 to 57. In view of the lateness of the hour, I propose to do so in 60 seconds. The purpose of the amendments is, first, to strengthen the code by making it a code of practice rather than one of guidance. Secondly, they call for the code to be in such a format that those whom it is intended to help —deaf and blind people —can read it; and, thirdly, they propose that in the drafting and reviewing of the code there should be consultation with those whom it affects.
This is a simple and straightforward group of amendments. I hope that the Minister can accept them. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I understand that some amendments may have been grouped with Amendment No. 54, but, as the noble Lord spoke to that amendment, I shall take it by itself. I have already made clear in a speech to the Media Trust that I expect the ITC to consult organisations representing the sensory impaired as well as broadcasters before drawing up its code. I am happy for that requirement to go on the face of the Bill if that is what the noble Lord would like to see happen.
I defer also to the noble Lord as regards the terminology to be used to describe those people with reference to whose understanding and enjoyment the ITC's code will be issued. I am therefore prepared to accept in principle, subject to full consultation with

225
lawyers, the inclusion of the term, "persons who have sensory disabilities". I hope that the noble Lord finds that encouraging.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I am very grateful and delighted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 55 to 57 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 24 agreed to.
The Earl of Stockton The Earl of Stockton moved Amendment No. 58:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause —
CESSATION OF ALL ANALOGUE TERRESTRIAL TELEVISION TRANSMISSIONS
(". —(1) The BBC and independent broadcasters shall cease all analogue terrestrial television transmissions fifteen years from the commencement of digital terrestrial transmissions.
(2) The BBC and the Independent Television Commission shall report to the Secretary of State on the progress of and prospects for digital terrestrial television every five years from the commencement of digital terrestrial transmission until analogue transmissions cease.
(3) Provision shall be made for the use of public funds to assist in the supply of digital decoders to such individuals or groups of individuals who can demonstrate financial hardship that would preclude them from purchasing such a decoder.").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 62.
This new clause seeks to assist the Government, the broadcasters and the manufacturers by fixing a firm date at which the frequencies currently reserved for the five analogue channels can be released to allow the issue of additional multiplex licences and the provision of other services on the expanding digital network.
In framing the amendment I have had consultations with the principal broadcasting organisations, and with BREMA, the trade association of the equipment manufacturers. They endorse the Government's stated objective to bring about the transfer of television and radio broadcasting to the digital system as rapidly as possible. Like the Committee, they applaud the decision to act now, which will mean that Britain is in the forefront of the new technologies in this area, some years ahead of all our competitors in this growing field.
On 15th December last year, my right honourable friend the Member for Surrey South-West announced that she would be reviewing the date for switching off analogue frequencies once 50 per cent. of UK households were able to receive digital television, or after five years of the first multiplex licence period, whichever was the sooner.
The merit of that approach is that it recognises that digital transmission is a desirable long-term objective, since analogue transmission is an extremely inefficient use of the spectrum. For instance, it requires 16 separate frequencies for BBC1 alone to cover the UK. This transition from analogue to digital is more significant and of greater benefit to the public than the previous move from black and white to colour.
The drawback to the softly-softly approach is that it does not, in itself, bring about a more rapid transition to all-digital television transmission. It prolongs the
226
inefficient use of scarce spectrum resources, and defers the economic boost to the UK manufacturing, transmission and telecommunications industries that the Bill places in an enviably advantageous position. It also involves the broadcasters in prolonged increased costs from dual-running their transmissions on the two systems.
Perhaps of greater interest to my noble friend the Minister is that it also delays significant revenue streams to the Government from licensing alternative uses of the spectrum for new national, regional and local broadcast services, wireless, telecommunications and data broadcasting. Even if his own department may he cautious on the issue, were he to agree to these proposals he would find himself basking in the warmth of the Treasury's approbation, which is not, I imagine, an every day occurrence.
In welcoming the decision to go digital, the manufacturers and broadcasters have expressed concerns about the seriousness of the Government's intentions. They need to be sure that digital terrestrial television is going to happen and preferably within a time scale that allows for investment planning if they are going to make the very large financial, planning, design and marketing commitments required for set-top boxes, digital television sets and associated equipment. In developing their services and their distribution strategies for the next millennium, the broadcasters also need certainty and an assurance that they will not be bearing the duplicate running costs of simulcasting for an indefinite period.
To them, and to me, the disadvantage of the proposals announced by the Government, and not to be found on the face of the Bill, is that they merely put off the evil day. Indeed, it may be that the end-date may not be any different from that suggested in this new clause, but there will be an ugly rush as D-Day (D for digital) approaches. I would, for instance, encourage manufacturers to label products with a warning that the equipment will not be able to receive digital transmissions after a certain date; a sort of sell-by-date. There would be justifiable outrage if people bought analogue sets and then found the Government subsequently announced an end-date to occur during the life of their new television set.
Members of the Committee will share my concern that the closure of analogue broadcasting may potentially deprive those who are unable to afford the upgrade to digital reception equipment. This, I believe, may not be such a major problem. With a firm end-date the manufacturers will have an interest to go into mass production and marketing as soon as feasible with inevitably a considerable reduction in price. A closure date of 2012 gives plenty of time for most households to change sets as they would in the normal course of events. The industries assure me that the average life of a set is between 10 and 12 years. Lower income groups, who are the most intensive television viewers, have already shown a willingness to upgrade equipment, as evidenced by the penetration of satellite dishes and by the fact that more than 80 per cent. of UK households now have a video-cassette recorder.
By the latter part of the period there will be an active second-hand market in set-top boxes, released from households as they gradually purchase digital television sets. This pattern was one of the features in the transition to colour receivers of a few years ago. I am also certain that a number of charitable and community projects will assist exceptional cases by recycling digital receivers and set-top boxes.
The penetration of new technologies is not easy to predict. If the take-up of digital terrestrial television is rapid, then there will be the need to consider bringing forward the termination of analogue transmissions. If, on the other hand, the take-up is much slower, then the Government would reserve the right to postpone the analogue end-date. This is why I have suggested setting two review dates after the introduction of digital terrestrial broadcasting. The Secretary of State would require the BBC and ITC to report on the take-up of digital receivers. This is work that they will be doing anyway as part of their audience research and programme planning.
There may be certain areas of the country where the transition to digital needs to receive special funding. An example would be areas of Wales where, because of the topography and the need to carry Channel 4 and S4C, there is already a shortage of frequencies to carry planned digital broadcasts. In my Amendment No. 62 the Secretary of State for Wales would be empowered to permit householders in those areas to be converted to digital reception on condition that they did not lose any of the services currently being received and that all the conversion costs were borne by the commercial beneficiaries; for example, the multiplex operators and new users such as data distributors and mobile telephone companies. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: I am most grateful to my noble friend for the way that he has moved his amendment. I should like to explain the Government's position briefly now and subsequently write more fully on the matter to my noble friend. We are certainly happy further to consider the issues that he has raised, with the possibility of bringing forward a government amendment. We have already announced our intention to review the prospects for analogue switch-off in five years, or when the household market penetration of digital terrestrial receiving apparatus reaches 50 per cent.
First, I believe that it is a mistake to set a firm date for switching off analogue transmissions at this stage. Secondly, it is our view that the timetable for reviews of progress needs to have explicit regard to the rate at which viewers, of their own volition, acquire additional digital equipment and to give an adequate notice of the proposed switch-off date.
Finally, Clause 15(4) of the Bill explicitly empowers the ITC to require multiplex operators seeking to review their licences to furnish a revised technical plan. The Government are not convinced of the case for
228
subsidising the take up of digital receivers from public funds or from the funds of those who might then use for other commercial purposes the spectrum which analogue switch off would release. However, I have indicated in my response to my noble friend that we are prepared to consider the matter further and, as I said, write more fully to my noble friend in that respect.
The Earl of Stockton: I thank my noble friend the Minister for that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Provision for broadcasting of services provided by independent analogue broadcasters]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 23, line 27, at end insert —
("( ) In exercising his power to issue a direction under subsection (2) the Secretary of State shall ensure that S4C Digital shall at no time be disadvantaged compared with other broadcasters in Wales; and before making such direction the Secretary of State shall consult with the Welsh Authority.").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Cledwyn has asked me to move the amendment. He regrets that he is unable to be in the Chamber at this late hour. The Minister will know that with this amendment we arc returning to an issue that we raised on Second Reading. It remains one of the principal concerns of S4C that it should be able to offer viewers programmes which are technically as attractive as any offered by their competitors. However, it is our understanding that the present arrangements, which are obviously not in the Bill but in the White Paper, fail to do just that.
I understand that S4C is advised by its engineers that the one-quarter multiplex solution will not allow S4C, or Channel 4, to deliver services in Wales to an acceptable standard. When the Minister dealt with the matter on Second Reading he was sympathetic up to a point. He said that the Government would,
"not fail to take any future opportunity to increase the [digital] capacity available to S4C and Channel 4 in Wales should a practical possibility present itself". —[Official Report, 16/1/96; col. 562.]
Those words are loaded with qualifications. If one studies that response carefully it does not even promise that a practical possibility will ever be available. Does that represent the best engineering advice available to the Government? Alternatively, can the Minister give us an approximate indication of the later stage when the additional capacity can be made available? Perhaps I should say not necessarily "made available", but we would like a commitment that it would be available to S4C when the first practical opportunity presents itself. The word "first" is missing from the Minister's Second Reading response.
If S4C is not to be given a first opportunity, I should like to know why. Why is it not to be given a first priority? Is it correct that when the extra capacity becomes available it may be given to new channels before the needs of S4C and Channel 4 in Wales have been fully satisfied? Those are the concerns which have been expressed by S4C. I appreciate that the amendment
was not tabled until yesterday and that therefore we may well have to return to the matter at a later stage. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: In view of the lateness of the hour I do not wish to speak for long. We believe that what we propose is the best compromise available to us in the circumstances. We are providing guaranteed places for S4C and Channel 4 in Wales. This will bring both services to more people. S4C will be able to add to its schedule once it is free of the need to broadcast Channel 4 programmes. I am extremely happy to give the noble Lords who tabled this amendment my assurance that we shall look carefully at the results of the frequency planning exercise, and review the position should it not turn out as I have indicated. I am also happy to assure them that we shall continue to keep S4C's position
230
under review should extra capacity become available in the future. I hope that that will provide appropriate reassurance for the noble Lords.
Lord Prys-Davies: In the light of the Minister's response today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 23, line 42, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 44.
[Amendments Nos. 61, 62 and 63 not moved.]
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past ten o'clock.

  Russian Federation: Council of Europe Membership
  Russian Federation: Council of Europe Membership
  European Commission and Council of Ministers: Votes
  European Commission and Council of Ministers: Votes
  Turkish Intelligence Organisations: Training Assistance
  Turkish Intelligence Organisations: Training Assistance
  Former Yugoslavia: Arms Supply Policy
  Former Yugoslavia: Arms Supply Policy
  Former Yugoslavia: Peace Plans
  Former Yugoslavia: Peace Plans
  Parliamentary Salaries and Expenses: Review
  Parliamentary Salaries and Expenses: Review
  Documents in the House of Lords Library
  Documents in the House of Lords Library
  Time Differences in the United Kingdom
  Time Differences in the United Kingdom
  Asylum Applicants: Transfer to Third Countries
  Asylum Applicants: Transfer to Third Countries
  Prisoners: Conviction Statistics
  Prisoners: Conviction Statistics